Denny Zartman

Now I'm offended by the Peppermint Pez.

Speaking for myself, my main problem with this thread was that it was off-topic, so my stance was to say nothing. Not that nothing should be said, just that it was inappropriate for the JFK discussion section. I agree that debate and repetition of the truth are the best ways to combat the steady stream of disinformation we are seeing. But if the conversation has deteriorated to only the repetition of the same sarcastic personal jabs, it's not as useful in making an argument. Just my opinion. And @Benjamin Cole , if you have the time to opine about the congressional hearings, you have the the time to actually watch them yourself. It's a weak excuse to say that you're not watching these hearings because the other hearings you've seen you've found to be intolerably slow. Even if these hearings were slow (which they aren't) I think you should still be watching them if you're going to be commenting on them at length.

I need to see the Thompson documentary. I don't think I've heard the details of that one. Yes, we're fortunate to have so many new, high quality documentaries on the subject. Here's hoping the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences are taking notice! 😁 I'm sure next November will attract a lot of attention as well.

@Joe Bauer I have to say that in my opinion your posts on this forum are grand slam home runs. You are definitely someone who brings quality and thoughtfulness to the EF. I agree. There is no real meaning to Ruth and Marina not going to the motorcade. In contrast, there are tremendous amounts of meaning in Ruby not attending. We're supposed to believe he was willing to take a chance at the electric chair for Jackie Kennedy's convenience, yet just days before he wasn't willing to cross the street to see her in person.

Sounds suspiciously like a CSPAN caller on the Democratic line.

Is Hunter Biden just a hero, or is he the greatest hero ever?

Am I the only one nauseated by this stuff? You autograph your own work. To sign a photograph a man dying and another being shot full of holes is like you're taking credit for it, in my opinion. And the Pez dispenser is like a sick joke.

This thread was always off topic and imho it should have been moved long ago. It's understandable that intelligent and politically aware people on this board would want to discuss current events with each other. But it needs to be somewhere else on the board. The JFK assassination should be the topic on that section. There's more than enough room on the rest of this forum for discussions on other topics. The discussion here has been spirited to say the least, but frankly this thread has been repetitive for a while and just now began to turn ugly with personal taunting and unfounded accusations. Now that this thread is isolated, if someone wants to get in the mud and make wild accusations, go for it. But they better be ready to bring their evidence. And hopefully they will all remember that we are all guests here. In my personal opinion, we should at all times try to approach the discussion here with maturity and respect. If we can't do that, the ignore button is a wonderful invention that should be considered useful. Anyway, we'll find out if some of the people in this thread are really interested in discussion or whether they were playing to the readership.

We are all guests on this forum, and I believe this forum should be for JFK discussion. If someone's only intent in posting here is to rile up their political enemies and insult the owner of the forum, imho they should be shown the door asap.

:25 seconds in. Yes, it's been suggested that the man in the dark suit is possibly looking at the pool of blood described by Jerry Coley.

That's fascinating. I was just thinking of how unusual Ruth & Michael's relationship was compared to many other couples who had broken up.

It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary. It seems the best you can do is say those lineup photos in the Warren Report hearings and exhibits were taken on a different date, therefore they are not representative of their appearance in Oswald's lineup. If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all? If the intent of taking the pictures was to just identify the individuals who participated, pictures of their faces would be enough. Instead, their whole bodies are presented in full frame, they are all lined up side by side against a wall, and they even have photos of them lined up in left profile and still others of them lined up in right profile. Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup. Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup. If their appearance in the lineup photos published in the Hearings and Exhibits does not accurately represent their appearances in Oswald's lineup, it should have been explicitly noted as such. But it is not noted as such in the Hearings & Exhibits, nor is it noted in CD 1083, as far as I can see. Apparently it was also not noted in the Hearings & Exhibits that those photos were taken later, lending even more credence to the idea that they were published with the intent of representing the appearance of those men as they appeared in the lineup. If you go by Fritz's comments and trust him to tell the truth, they might have taken off their ties, one might have worn a brown jacket, and one might have worn a red vest. These are still suits. They used to even specify "suit and tie" for attire, so a suit without a tie or even a jacket is still a suit. So now it seems that the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence that other men were not wearing suits in their lineup with Oswald.

You certainly know your stuff, @Tom Gram. Good work.

Lol, thanks. It's a still from a tv promo I was in a few years back.

Were the commission documents published in the WC Hearings and Exhibits or separately?

From what I understand, his father and both brothers in the military as well. And LHO couldn't wait to join the military, trying to sign up before he was old enough, and then immediately signing up within days after he was eligible. But then he starts reading Communist literature in boot camp to the point where others called him 'Oswaldkovich'? To me, that would be kind of like if a Marine walking around boot camp praising Al Quida today: more than a little suspicious. And then Oswald suddenly disliked America and wanted to defect to the USSR, then suddenly disliked Russia and wanted to move back to America, then disliked America again and was seeking to move back to Russia? It seems that's the official story, but to me it's more akin to the fast shuffling of a three card Monty dealer, keeping everyone confused as to the real strategy.

Interesting.

Once again, exactly as I expected and exactly contrary to DVP's promise, the Education Forum has become David Von Pein's personal content farm for his own private website.

I can't see anything that looks like a person moving in either clip.

Good point.

Excellent news about an outstanding film. I wish it even more success going forward.

All excellent points.

I'm curious as to whether DVP will respond to your post about Oswald saying that he was outside watching the motorcade. It's fun trying to predict how he will deflect. On one hand, I think this case is important and deserves to have all the evidence looked at and critiqued as thoroughly as possible. One way to help ensure that is to have a dedicated Devil's Advocate giving every proposed theory a solid shakedown. In a quest for truth, we don't do ourselves any favors by going down blind alleys. On the other hand, it's more than a little dispiriting to be on this forum in 2022 and see folks still debating the single bullet theory. There are such prominent authors and experts here. It feels like a discussion group for advanced mathematics where a vocal few people are still puzzled by 1+1. People who are just starting to learn about the Kennedy case might find these debates entertaining and educational, but I wonder how useful those debates will be for anyone who has already studied the assassination in any depth. Other than having someone play the Devil's Advocate, what more can be learned from those who think Oswald acted alone? Between "Case Closed" and "Reclaiming History" don't we already have access to nearly every LN argument ever made?

She needs to protect herself from people who continually insult her intelligence and insinuate that she's promiscuous.