Denny Zartman

I'm doing some research into this, and it's been interesting. Does anyone know exactly when these re enactment films were taken? There are flowers at the scene.

That's good, somehow they weren't coming up in my YouTube search results except for the French one.

I just noticed last night that most every copy of the Zapruder film has now been removed from YouTube.

I think I've found it.

In Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President", starting on page 19 there is a short series of small round pictures showing a re-enactment from the viewpoint of a sixth floor window sniper scope. (This picture is from page 21.) Does anyone know from where these pictures were sourced and if they are available online for further examination? I'm trying to nail down as much as possible what a rifleperson would have been seeing through a scope at the moment of the first shot.

Every so often the topic of the JFK assassination comes up on different websites that I browse. It's always interesting for me to read the comments and conversations. I can get a sense of the way a number of people think and react to the subject. It's good to know that people are still interested in the JFK assassination and seem quite willing to engage in debate. There are certain specific topics that appear to come up again and again, but it seems one of the most persistent is the theory that Secret Service Agent George Hickey actually killed JFK. I'd say that only about 20% of people I've seen discussing the assassination seem to adhere to this theory, while the rest are evenly split between conspiracy and lone shooter. According to the George Hickey theory first raised in the 1992 book "Mortal Error" and widely distributed via the 2013 documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", Hickey accidentally fired the head shot at Kennedy as the limo Hickey was standing in accelerated suddenly. So, how do/would you address it when the George Hickey theory comes up in conversation?

The upside for us in lieu of the documents release is that I believe we now know for sure that the JFK assassination involved high level elements of the US government. They are not fearing impending identifiable harm on intelligence agencies in 2021 because of something George Hickey or Sam Giancana did in 1963.

Speaking frankly, what is the upside for them revealing the truth? Yes, serving the interest of truth is its own reward and seeking the truth should be the goal of all those who value it. But in this case as a practical matter, the government views releasing the documents now as something with no upside and only downside at this point. There is nothing for them to gain, and revealing the truth now only serves to undermine them. I hate to put it in such a mercenary way, and I want to stress that's not at all how I personally believe it should be. Both Biden and Trump were briefed, and both came to the same decision: keep the documents secret. Like the Bill Hicks video you posted, perhaps no person in the office could be reasonably expected to react in any other way when confronted by the full truth. It's shocking to me because I simply assumed the most incriminating materials were destroyed long, long ago. Finding out that they still have documents too radioactive to release in full is genuinely surprising.

I'd also say that this statement by President Biden demolishes the argument that the JFK assassination is ancient history and irrelevant to our lives today, because, according to the U.S. government, revealing even the partial truth about what happened back then has the potential to harm us right now. According to the U.S. government, the "gravity" of what is contained in these documents outweighs the public interest of their "immediate" disclosure.

The silence speaks volumes. At the very least, we can take comfort in knowing that all these decades of study and research on a conspiracy have been validated. Why else would these documents still need to be kept secret? And what was said is significant as well. These documents would be kept secret only for the "strongest possible reasons." The documents are still being kept secret. President Biden had the courage to go through with finally ending the war in Afghanistan, but he doesn't have the courage to release these documents. After 58 years, they still need one more year to make absolutely sure that what happened in November 1963 doesn't cause "identifiable harm" to us right now, two decades into the 21st century. After 58 years, they still need another year with the shredding machine before they feel comfortable releasing the documents that are still in their possession. If It wasn't so tragic and infuriating, it would be comical. It appears that, today, right now in October 2021, the truth of the JFK assassination is worse than a twenty year war that cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and accomplished nothing.

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy OCTOBER 22, 2021•STATEMENTS AND RELEASES Section 1. Policy. In the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the “Act”), the Congress declared that “all Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy . . . should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination.” The Congress also found that “most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records.” Almost 30 years since the Act, the profound national tragedy of President Kennedy’s assassination continues to resonate in American history and in the memories of so many Americans who were alive on that terrible day; meanwhile, the need to protect records concerning the assassination has only grown weaker with the passage of time. It is therefore critical to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency, disclosing all information in records concerning the assassination, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise. Sec. 2. Background. The Act permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information in records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Since 2018, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have been reviewing under this statutory standard each redaction they have proposed that would result in the continued postponement of full public disclosure. This year, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has been reviewing whether it agrees that each redaction continues to meet the statutory standard. The Archivist of the United States (Archivist), however, has reported that “unfortunately, the pandemic has had a significant impact on the agencies” and NARA and that NARA “require[s] additional time to engage with the agencies and to conduct research within the larger collection to maximize the amount of information released.” The Archivist has also noted that “making these decisions is a matter that requires a professional, scholarly, and orderly process; not decisions or releases made in haste.” The Archivist therefore recommends that the President “temporarily certify the continued withholding of all of the information certified in 2018” and “direct two public releases of the information that has” ultimately “been determined to be appropriate for release to the public,” with one interim release later this year and one more comprehensive release in late 2022. Sec. 3. Temporary Certification. In light of the agencies’ proposals for continued postponement under the statutory standard, the Archivist’s request for an extension of time to engage with the agencies, and the need for an appropriate review and disclosure process, I agree with the Archivist’s recommendation. Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure. Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, I hereby certify that all information within records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) shall be withheld from full public disclosure until December 15, 2022. Sec. 4. Interim Release. Any information currently withheld from public disclosure that agencies have not proposed for continued postponement shall be reviewed by NARA before December 15, 2021, and shall be publicly released on that date. Out of respect for the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, such release shall not occur before December 15, 2021. Sec. 5. Intensive 1-Year Review. (a) Over the next year, agencies proposing continued postponement and NARA shall conduct an intensive review of each remaining redaction to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency, disclosing all information in records concerning the assassination, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise. This review shall include documents within the assassination records collection designated as “not believed relevant” by the Assassination Records Review Board established under the Act, but nonetheless placed within the collection by the Assassination Records Review Board. (b) Any information that an agency proposes for continued postponement beyond December 15, 2022, shall be limited to the absolute minimum under the statutory standard. An agency shall not propose to continue redacting information unless the redaction is necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In applying this statutory standard, an agency shall: (i) Accord substantial weight to the public interest in transparency and full disclosure of any record that falls within the scope of the Act; and (ii) Give due consideration that some degree of harm is not grounds for continued postponement unless the degree of harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest. (c) For any record containing information that an agency proposes for continued postponement beyond December 15, 2022, the agency shall provide, no later than December 15, 2021: (i) an unclassified letter, to be signed by the head of the agency, providing a written description of the types of information for which the agency is proposing continued postponement and reasons for which the agency is proposing continued postponement of such information; (ii) an unclassified index identifying for each such record the reasons for which the agency is proposing continued postponement of information in such record; and (iii) a specific proposed date identifying for each such record when the agency reasonably anticipates that continued postponement of information in such record no longer would be necessary or, if that is not possible, a specific proposed date for each such record identifying when the agency would propose to next review again after December 15, 2022, whether the information proposed for continued postponement in such record still satisfies the statutory standard for postponement. (d) NARA shall review each proposed redaction, no later than September 1, 2022, in consultation with: (i) The Department of Defense if the agency proposing the redaction asserts an anticipated harm to the military defense; (ii) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence if the agency proposing the redaction asserts an anticipated harm to intelligence operations; (iii) The Department of Justice if the agency proposing the redaction asserts an anticipated harm to law enforcement; and (iv) The Department of State if the agency proposing the redaction asserts an anticipated harm to the conduct of foreign relations. (e) The relevant consulting agency, as designated pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, shall provide its assessment to NARA as to whether the information proposed for continued postponement satisfies the statutory standard for such postponement. In reviewing a proposed redaction, NARA or the relevant consulting agency, as designated pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, should consult with the agency that proposed the redaction. (f) If NARA does not agree that a proposed redaction meets the statutory standard for continued postponement, it shall inform the agency that proposed the redaction. After consultation with NARA, the agency that proposed the redaction may, no later than October 1, 2022: (i) withdraw the proposed redaction; or (ii) refer the decision on continued postponement to the President through the Counsel to the President, accompanied by an explanation of why continued postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure. (g) If NARA agrees that a proposed redaction meets the asserted statutory standard for continued postponement, the Archivist shall recommend to the President, no later than October 1, 2022, that continued postponement from public disclosure of the information is warranted after December 15, 2022. (h) At the conclusion of the 1-year review, any information still withheld from public disclosure that agencies do not propose for continued postponement beyond December 15, 2022, shall be released to the public on that date. (i) At the conclusion of the 1-year review, each unclassified letter described in subsection (c)(i) of this section and each unclassified index described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section shall be disclosed to the public on December 15, 2022, with any updates made to account for any information initially proposed for continued postponement that is not postponed from public disclosure beyond December 15, 2022. Sec. 6. Digitization and Democratization of Records. (a) Since the 1990s, more than 250,000 records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination — more than 90 percent of NARA’s collection — have been released in full to the public. Only a small fraction of the records contains any remaining redactions. But many records that have been fully disclosed are inaccessible to most members of the public unless they travel to NARA’s location in College Park, Maryland. (b) The Archivist shall issue a plan, no later than December 15, 2021, to digitize and make available online NARA’s entire collection of records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination. (c) The Archivist shall provide additional context online about the records that have been withheld in full under sections 10 and 11 of the Act — primarily documents containing tax-related information of the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration — that are not subject to the Presidential certification requirement under section 5 of the Act. Sec. 7. Publication. The Archivist is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/22/memorandum-for-the-heads-of-executive-departments-and-agencies-on-the-temporary-certification-regarding-disclosure-of-information-in-certain-records-related-to-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-k/

Thanks very much!

There are more recordings of Robert's questioning than Lee's.

Probably not, but truth is its own reward. Something unjust doesn't become just with the passage of time, and the significance of the injustice doesn't diminish because it might not be topically relevant at some future moment.

All the best to you, Robert.

Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses? Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be. To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.

I admire Acquilla Clemons. All witnesses who spoke about events that conflicted with the official story had courage, but in my opinion Ms. Clemons had the most courage of them all. According to Mark Lane, she only spoke to him because she had recognized him as one of the Freedom Riders. Frank Wright is such a huge puzzle. I was not aware that his wife called for an ambulance. If so, it seems to me that would tend to support Frank's story.

I'd guess most every person on this forum has met someone who is well-educated, clear-minded, logical and literate who also just knee-jerk responded with incredulity when someone said they believe Oswald didn't act alone. I'd imagine the first time many people are ever exposed to a conversation about the JFK assassination is in the context of "conspiracy theorists are nutters." It's a cliche at this point. Most average folks have never read even one book on the subject and have been conditioned from a young age to associate JFK conspiracy theorists with UFO's and the Bermuda Triangle and all that. They just accept as a truism that Oswald acted alone and that any conspiracy theories are wholly unsupported by the facts. It's disappointing that someone working under the Washington Post banner apparently does not know the current opinion of the government is that there probably was a conspiracy. I think it's essential to read about the case and come up with your own questions. Relying on conventional wisdom doesn't get one very far. It makes coming up with an online quiz easier, though.

In my opinion this is not the forum for this type of thread. It has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Tucker Carlson is a partisan political commentator; he is not a news anchor nor is he a JFK scholar. In one thread Benjamin is decrying the government/corporate media, and in this thread he's waving the FOX news flag, calling them "often the best" of all these terrible mainstream news organizations and hoping others will agree. Is there no other place online for this type of unrelated, off-topic discussion? If we absolutely must have to have non-JFK discussions on this section of the forum, could we at least keep them on the "Inevitable end result..." thread?

Thank you for the update, Anthony. Much appreciated.

That's excellent. Thanks for the link. Sounds like a fascinating topic.

Your PDF quotes Carolyn Arnold as stating to the FBI: "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot." This is irrelevant because Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM and we are discussing who Carolyn saw and where she saw them at 12:25 PM. The FBI statement you quote makes no mention of when or where she last saw Oswald. Arnold is on record saying that she saw Oswald as she was leaving to go watch the Kennedy motorcade. The first time reported by the FBI was a "fleeting glimpse" of someone she "thought" was Oswald sometime between 12:00 and 12:15 PM. That time was later clarified to be 12:25 PM. She confirmed this 12:25 PM time in the PDF you cited, as well as in an interview with the Dallas Morning News in 1978. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/B Disk/Bronson Charles/Item 27.pdf According to the Dallas Morning News on November 20, 1963, Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to arrive at the Trade Mart at 12:30 PM on November 22. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1364.pdf If Kennedy was scheduled to arrive at the Trade Mart at 12:30 PM, why is Oswald reported sitting in a booth on the second floor of the TSBD having lunch at 12:25 PM? According to this "Oswald as false flag shooter" theory, Oswald is the single most important element in the entire professional/paramilitary operation, both in the fake attempt and in the actual assassination. Again, wouldn't confirming that Oswald was in position be absolutely essential information to all the other conspirators?

"Murder In Dealey Plaza" 2000 Edited by James Fetzer, from Ira David Wood III's "22 November 1963: A Chronology" PG 29: "12:25 PM Depository employee Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald on the first floor near the front door of the building." PG 30: "12:29 PM ... THE MOTORCADE TURNS ONTO HOUSTON FROM MAIN (The motorcade is now five minutes behind schedule.)"

The possibility that Oswald washed his face or that the nitrates came off in his sweat or in some other unknown way is not evidence. The negative test for nitrates on his cheek is evidence. If there were police photos of a wet sink and bar of soap with suds on it at Oswald's rooming house, or of a sweaty shirt in Oswald's possession that had nitrates on it, then that would be evidence. The mere possibility that he washed his face or sweated it out is not evidence. The possibility should not be considered as having equal evidentiary value as an actual negative test for nitrates on the cheek. Benjamin may hand wave away evidence, but I'm fairly certain a court would not. I'm puzzled why anyone would ignore exculpatory evidence anyway. Cognitive bias, I suppose. We get tied to our pet theories and cling to them, even if they are contradicted by the evidence. It's very surprising that we are discussing an assassination that apparently involved extensive pre-planning, preparation, and co-ordination with names like Angleton, Harvey, Lansdale, Hunt, ect. and a cover up that went up immediately, reached to all branches of the government, the top of the FBI, the top of the CIA, and resulted in such a mess that sixty years later we don't even know if Oswald could drive, and we're all seriously entertaining the thought that the whole event relied on one guy's ability to run and superhuman acting ability, a guy who for some unknown reason wasn't even in position at the scheduled time, and who the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, indicates that he hadn't fired a rifle that day. In this "Oswald as a false flag shooter" scenario, wouldn't the other riflepersons need to know if Oswald was in position before the motorcade arrived? Doesn't the whole thing fall apart if he isn't there in the sixth floor window as a shooter? What purpose could it serve to have Oswald wait until beyond the scheduled time of JFK's arrival before getting into his needed position? To give him a semblance of an alibi? Well, gosh, good job there, since we're still arguing about it six decades later.