Denny Zartman

I'm trying to keep an open mind and absorb what others who know more about this are saying when they say the 2nd floor encounter didn't happen, but right now I still tend to agree with this assessment.

So, we all think the evidence points to them confronting Oswald on the first floor instead of the second?

I think this is a good and important topic, Ron. Thanks for posting it and doing so much research. Weren't the circuit breakers and Truly's office both on the first floor near the first floor lunchroom, or am I misremembering the layout of the building?

I can only guess at that. Maybe they knew it would look even more suspicious if they were only separated from each other for the exact amount of time that Marina was living there. The Paines have been under scrutiny and suspicion for 58 years and counting. Either way, I don't have to guess at the fact that, from everything I've experienced in life, most couples who separate don't keep on dating and most couples who divorce are not still together sleeping under the same roof half a century later. "Hey Mike, I heard you and Ruth are no longer going steady. Is that true?" "Sure is, got my class ring back from her and everything. We decided it would be for the best." "That's too bad. So, what are you doing this Friday night?" "Ruth and I are going out for dinner and a movie." All I can say is that just doesn't jibe with my life experiences. Maybe I'm wrong.

They were sleeping under the same roof. They ate the same food in the same dining room at the same time. If that isn't living together, what is?

From what I have observed in this life, couples who have truly broken up don't usually end up living together, regardless of child status. Your experience may be different, but in my experience people and their ex's rarely ever want to be in the same room with each other, much less live together under the same roof half a century after breaking up. In my experience, the vast majority of couples who have broken up will actually go out of their way not to be in contact with the other person beyond what is absolutely necessary. And Ruth and Michael were living under the same roof together after their divorce for how long in this case? Decades? Do you know anyone at all who still lives with their ex? They were together for their children? Their forty and fifty and sixty year old kids? Even if that was the case, there is more than one nursing home in Northern California. Give me a break. Are we going to pretend that they were getting (or even needed) some sort of discount if both of them lived at the same nursing home? In the documentary, Ruth claims that she and Michael became closer after their separation, seeing each other more often and going out to dinner a lot. I think back on my relationships and the relationships my friends and family have had over the course of my lifetime, and I can't recall a single one where a couple saw more of each other after the breakup than before, regardless of children. And to even imagine some of them living together again under any circumstances is laughable. In my life experience, couples growing closer after separating is far from business as usual. Most importantly, that's simply not how "breaking up" works. They separated, and ended up seeing more of each other? They divorced, and were living together in their 80's? To me, it's eye-rollingly implausible.

One odd detail I noticed in the film was that Michael Paine was living in the same assisted living home as Ruth. On the first viewing, I assumed that it was because they were living in or near the same location in Dallas, Texas that they had been living in the early '60's. On the second viewing of the film, I caught the detail that they were all in Northern California. Five decades later, still living together under the same roof in some place way across the country? Some estrangement.

This thread is thunderously depressing.

I was really hoping this wouldn't be mentioned here.

I'm a quarter of the way through the book now.

The reason I put both brothers is that a few months back someone here on the forum mentioned during that era there were low priced paperback books mass produced and marketed at convenience stores about how Godly the Dulles brothers were. It stuck in my mind. It seems to me either there was an honest to goodness grassroots fandom that emerged, believed the Dulles brothers were doing the Lord's work, and just wanted to get the word out - or it was a sponsored psyops propaganda campaign. If it was the latter, it seems to hint at possible messianic complexes to say the least. I'd imagine those types of people take it hard when they get fired from positions of power. Thinking more about Allen, I am struck yet again thinking about how unique he seemed to be when it came to the WC. We know Warren and Russell really did not want to serve, but Dulles signed right up. Based on what I've read, there is no evidence or indication that Dulles was pressured at all. Is the difference between Dulles and the others significant? Maybe I'm wrong; I can't help but suspect it is. I look at it this way: does anyone think Dulles volunteered to be on the W.C. to uncover the truth about the assassination? No, I would argue that he was there to participate in a cover up. So, assuming that for the sake of argument, was Dulles then working on his own behalf, or on the behest of someone else? If it was someone else, it seems to me the list of suspects must narrow to the peers and superiors who had similar attitudes. From what I've read, Helms would not have initiated such a thing as the assassination and would have signed off on it only after others had. I accept the conventional wisdom that James Angleton and William King Harvey played substantial roles, but I don't know if anyone has made a case for either of them being the top of the totem pole or the main person who initiated it all. I don't know. It's an interesting question to consider. Dulles was at a CIA facility the weekend of the assassination, wasn't he?

The increase in American involvement in Vietnam and the resulting feeding of the Military-Industrial complex is a compelling motive. "Follow the money" is a time-tested investigative technique that I wouldn't dismiss out of hand. Blowback from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion is also a possible motive with some circumstantial evidence supporting it. I personally think it may be just as simple as the Dulles brothers out of control. If Allen Dulles would authorize the assassination of the leader of a major allied country like France, why would we assume that some previously undetected sense of morality would prevent him from initiating a hit on the leader of his own country? Especially the guy who fired and humiliated him? And being, to my knowledge, the only person who lobbied to get on the Warren Commission, is in my view like a criminal returning to the scene of a crime. What power one must feel being able to control the investigation into the person that you had killed? Who knows? I definitely do think that many, if not most, of everyone knowingly involved in the assassination plot felt they were ultimately doing their patriotic duty.

He doesn't care. Anyone feel sharpened by the steel, yet? A better use for this thread would be to discuss why some people insist that they actually believe in the single bullet theory. No reasonable adult who knows anything at all about this case believes that fantasy. It's strange that this forum constantly indulges the fantasies of someone who refuses to look at facts again and again. In fact, this type of person is welcomed back into the forum even after being kicked out for thievery. You can show them a picture of a test bullet fired into a cadaver wrist and compare it to CE 399, and they don't care at all that they look nothing alike. You can show them a picture of another test bullet fired into cotton wadding and compare it to CE 399, and they don't care that they look identical. You can show them footage of doctors who were actually there saying that the bullet was still in Connally's thigh, and they still insist the bullet fell out on its own, cleaned off all the blood, tissue, bone, and clothing fibers, climbed onto a different stretcher, and rolled itself under a mat. You can tell them the bullet that was found had a pointed nose and that CE 399 has a rounded nose. You can tell them all that and more. It means nothing to them, yet people here still engage them as if they were reasonable. JFK's back wound was found to be shallow. The single bullet theory ends there. JFK's doctor - the man credited with directing the autopsy and the only medical professional who saw JFK's body at both Parkland and Bethesda - refused to agree with the Warren Commission on the number of bullets that had entered JFK's body. What does a reasonable person take away from that fact?

Imagine what a hellish existence it must be to hate Democrats so f***ing much that you would gladly carry water for a traitorous thief.

Is this the conference that will be presenting new research about Roscoe White, or is that a different conference this fall?

I have no words.

Let's see... strap attachment moves from the side to the bottom, rifle changes length from catalog to shipment, rifle changes from 7.65 Mauser to 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, misaligned scope becomes accurate, Oswald's palmprints appear only after his death, worn strap becomes new again... No wonder they call CE 399 the Magic Bullet. It came from a magic rifle.

The rumor I'm hearing is that the five top secret documents in the FBI picture were possibly concealed in the five Time magazine frames.

Anyone still defending Trump after these revelations has a mental problem.

You're doing a heck of a job with these podcasts. Well done, @Robbie Robertson.

Exactly right. Anything that didn't fit the official story of LHO acting alone was suppressed and/or replaced. It wasn't ever intended to be an honest investigation. It was intended to pin the blame on one patsy. There's testimony that a Mauser was in the building two days before. It was reported that they discovered a Mauser on the 22nd. Yet people on this forum look at replacing a Mauser with a Mannlicher Carcano as if it was some kind of incredible, impossible feat. An inconvenient piece of evidence was substituted as the cover story evolved in the first 24 hours. It's no mean trick, but to hear some of the people on this forum go on about it, you'd think they turned lead to gold.

It's funny that people here think they can comfortably ID a MC from a photo or a film taken at a distance, but the people who were actually there, who saw the rifle in three dimensions, and actually handled the most important piece of evidence that they would likely ever handle in their entire professional lives, evidence that had "made Italy cal 6.5" printed on it, and they just couldn't identify it correctly. Did they just pick the 7.65 caliber from thin air, and then sign an affidavit to a blind guess? Or maybe people here believe the authorities wouldn't ever be so dishonest as to substitute evidence in this case. It sure looks like a Mauser has "Mauser" written on it, but that's irrelevant because we know for a fact that the MC in evidence has "made Italy cal 6.5" on it. To believe that the cops found a Mannlicher Carcano means also believing that the cops could not read.

I no longer have any doubt that a 7.65 Mauser was found that day and correctly identified as such. It seems to me in order to believe a Mauser was not found, one would also have to believe the cops could not read. The MC had "made Italy 6.5 cal" stamped on it. Now some of the questions for me personally are: was the Mauser the rifle that was intended to be found? Was the Mauser also linked to Oswald, or to someone else? Do the backyard photos have something to do with replacing the Mauser with the Mannlicher? Is there anything useful we can learn from the type of ammunition used by the Mauser?

I think a lot of young people don't see much relevance in the JFK assassination these days. JFK was not an active figure in their lifetime and increasingly not even in their parent's lifetimes. I think what FDR might or might not have known prior to Pearl Harbor would be a comparable example of a historical event also irrelevant to their interests or lives. Something like that would be of interest to those who already had an interest, otherwise it's just a historical mystery involving people that were never current for them. Of course, interest in true crime mysteries never really go completely out of style. Unfortunately the JFK assassination comes with a lot more baggage than the event spotlighted in your average Netflix true crime series. Almost every single person's first exposure to the JFKA is in the context of someone else characterizing conspiracy theories as crazy. In TV and movies, any conspiracy-minded character has to spout off some sort of wacky connection or theory about the JFKA. In comedies, the wackier the better. It's almost obligatory. That conspiracy theorists are wacky is something the online LN t_r-o_l-l_s take as a natural fact of life. Most of them have never read a single book or seen even one documentary on the subject, but they all know the conventional wisdom that JFKA buffs wear tinfoil hats, twiddle shortwave radio knobs, and think Mr. Spock was shooting from the grassy knoll. So there will always be that contingent of folks who are uninformed LN's constantly attacking those people who think there might be more to the story than what we've been told. They will only grow more strident with time, I believe. Sunk cost fallacy and all that. Regarding the people who believe the "Hickey did it" theory, I would wager 95% have never read a JFKA book or seen any other documentary than "JFK: The Smoking Gun", mainly because of its wide availability on free streaming platforms. The Hickey theory also provides them an answer to what happened, while more serious JFKA docs don't come up with a final conclusion that points to one person or a conclusive single account of all events. The Hickey theory is easily comprehensible. It can be digested in an hour or two, while dedicated researchers repeatedly spend decade after decade debating and discussing the fine details of every obscure aspect.

News story: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/exclusive-tour-inside-lee-harvey-oswald-exhibit-detailing-notorious-dallas-history/3037101/ Photos: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/inside-the-unt-dallas-law-schools-lee-harvey-oswald-exhibit/3036978/ Now a law school, the site of the former Dallas police department has a new exhibit on Lee Harvey Oswald. The exhibits are not yet open to the public, but may be open on the weekends for visitors to see sometime in the future. The photos link has interesting pictures of locations in the building that have been preserved but apparently will not be open to the general public because most of the building is a functioning school. What do you think? Would you want to visit?