Denny Zartman

Lee Harvey Oswald: Schrodinger's Driver. He can drive just enough for the theory. If Lee could indeed drive, why didn't he escape in a car after the assassination? I think your analysis has problems. You put absolute faith in Ruth Paine. If she's not telling the truth, then it seems to me that there are significant holes in your argument. Occam’s Razor suggests it was Michael Paine. He resembled Lee, had access to Ruth's car, and was known to Marina.

Very cool. I look forward to it. Hopefully there will be even more.

Theory presented without evidence - Rejected because there was no evidence. Theory presented with evidence - Rejected because it's "too good to be true." - It seems there is no way to win. Personally, I give more consideration to a theory that has evidence to support it.

I was reading a JFK discussion on another forum yesterday and, like clockwork, four or five people state authoritatively that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot and killed JFK. They never know Hickey's name, and that to me always says a lot. If the theory they believe was true, they literally have the name of the real killer of Kennedy on hand, and they don't care enough to retain it in their minds. The basic attitude seems to be "Case solved, move on." I think I try to keep as open a mind as I can whenever I can in this case, but I just can't buy the Hickey theory. To me, it's strained and unbelievable, not supported by significant evidence, and in the end doesn't provide any useful answers. I think I do understand the appeal of the Hickey theory, though. It's simple. "JFK Revisited" brings it home that to understand the Kennedy assassination is to demand some knowledge of complex 1960's geopolitics and to be willing to walk into a virtual blizzard of names. Names of many folks who lived their entire professional lives in clandestine shadows. Not a lot of people are willing to step up to those requirements. In contrast, from what I see, the Hickey theory is just "Whoops, lost my footing and had an accident". Everyone makes mistakes, and all of us understand the motivation to want to try and cover it up whenever someone has made an embarrassing, tragic mistake. It's easy to understand, it's relatable, and it doesn't demand any knowledge of geopolitics from half a century ago or keeping track of dozens of relatively obscure names of people who were intentionally trying to remain obscure. For many who seem to automatically advocate the Hickey theory, they don't even bother to keep track of Hickey's name. Really, what could be easier than that?

Cross posting this for Denise - Hi Denise, thanks for sharing your work. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it. I'll try to watch some of your documentary when I can. I appreciate your summary. It's not exactly clear from your summary where in the firing sequence you think the AR-15 shot took place. I am sure your documentary covers this. If it was the final head shot, there are significant questions outstanding. If it was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot, and therefore difficult to understand why this would be urgent focus of an extensive multi-decade cover-up. Either way, the Hickey scenario does not explain the evidence indicating that shots were fired from in front of JFK's limo, nor the myriad other mysteries that exist in this case. The documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", which advocates the Hickey theory, relies primarily on Senator Ralph Yarborough's testimony of smelling gunsmoke at street level and Jean Hill's testimony that she initially believed the Secret Service was shooting back. Hickey was in front of Yarborough. Yarborough placed the gunfire he heard as coming from behind. Hill placed the source of the shots she heard as coming from the grassy knoll. Neither Hill nor Yarborough placed the sound of shots as coming from Hickey's position relative to themselves. Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, riding in the limo with Hickey, told former speaker of the House Tip O'Neill that they (Powers and O'Donnell) believed the gunfire was coming from in front of them. Hickey was in the seat behind Powers and O'Donnell at the time. If you have other witnesses who stated that they thought the gunfire was coming from inside one of the cars, I'd be interested in reading what they had to say. I haven't ever heard of them, and from what I recall, they were not highlighted in "JFK: The Smoking Gun". If the alleged AR-15 shot was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot. Therefore it is very hard to believe that an immediate cover-up would take place just to save the feelings of a Secret Service man who had an accident and didn't even fire a fatal shot. More importantly, the remaining documents that were scheduled for release this year were delayed again until December 2022 because they felt there was a potential for endangering national security. I am genuinely curious: how could Hickey's accident and a benign cover up to save him the shame of being branded by history as the killer of a president in 1963 possibly endanger US national security in 2021? If the alleged AR-15 shot was the final head shot, then it does not explain the doctors and nurses at Parkland who report that there was a large exit wound in the right rear of Kennedy's skull. An exit wound in the rear of the head would not have occurred if the shot had also been fired from behind. A shot from Hickey would also not explain JFK's head and body being driven backward and to the left, toward Hickey and not away from him. And then there's Jackie's behavior to consider. Either she was going back to 1. retrieve a piece of JFK's skull which had been driven backwards from JFK's head, or 2. she was trying to escape from a shooter. Either one is inconsistent with a headshot shooter behind JFK.

Hi Denise, thanks for sharing your work. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it. I'll try to watch some of your documentary when I can. I appreciate your summary. It's not exactly clear from your summary where in the firing sequence you think the AR-15 shot took place. I am sure your documentary covers this. If it was the final head shot, there are significant questions outstanding. If it was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot, and therefore difficult to understand why this would be urgent focus of an extensive multi-decade cover-up. Either way, the Hickey scenario does not explain the evidence indicating that shots were fired from in front of JFK's limo, nor the myriad other mysteries that exist in this case. The documentary "JFK: The Smoking Gun", which advocates the Hickey theory, relies primarily on Senator Ralph Yarborough's testimony of smelling gunsmoke at street level and Jean Hill's testimony that she initially believed the Secret Service was shooting back. Hickey was in front of Yarborough. Yarborough placed the gunfire he heard as coming from behind. Hill placed the source of the shots she heard as coming from the grassy knoll. Neither Hill nor Yarborough placed the sound of shots as coming from Hickey's position relative to themselves. Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell, riding in the limo with Hickey, told former speaker of the House Tip O'Neill that they (Powers and O'Donnell) believed the gunfire was coming from in front of them. Hickey was in the seat behind Powers and O'Donnell at the time. If you have other witnesses who stated that they thought the gunfire was coming from inside one of the cars, I'd be interested in reading what they had to say. I haven't ever heard of them, and from what I recall, they were not highlighted in "JFK: The Smoking Gun". If the alleged AR-15 shot was not the final head shot, then it was not a fatal shot. Therefore it is very hard to believe that an immediate cover-up would take place just to save the feelings of a Secret Service man who had an accident and didn't even fire a fatal shot. More importantly, the remaining documents that were scheduled for release this year were delayed again until December 2022 because they felt there was a potential for endangering national security. I am genuinely curious: how could Hickey's accident and a benign cover up to save him the shame of being branded by history as the killer of a president in 1963 possibly endanger US national security in 2021? If the alleged AR-15 shot was the final head shot, then it does not explain the doctors and nurses at Parkland who report that there was a large exit wound in the right rear of Kennedy's skull. An exit wound in the rear of the head would not have occurred if the shot had also been fired from behind. A shot from Hickey would also not explain JFK's head and body being driven backward and to the left, toward Hickey and not away from him. And then there's Jackie's behavior to consider. Either she was going back to 1. retrieve a piece of JFK's skull which had been driven backwards from JFK's head, or 2. she was trying to escape from a shooter. Either one is inconsistent with a headshot shooter behind JFK.

Very good piece, thanks for sharing the link. He says it best here, I think: That's an undeniable fact and, in my opinion, says volumes. I also was of the belief that there are no smoking guns in those files. I believed anything that could have been remotely considered a smoking gun was surely destroyed long ago or never committed to paper in the first place. But now I think there's simply no alternative to assuming that incriminating documents still exist in official files. I can think of no other plausible explanation.

If they paid him by the word, that would explain the rise in the National Debt.

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, Joseph. He sure does sound like he was a good guy. My condolences to his family and friends.

Thank you for the update, Larry. Much appreciated. That's a very impressive lineup. It should be a good conference.

My copy just arrived. I'm looking forward to reading it and following the discussion here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/verify-what-happens-next-if-electoral-college-votes-arent-certified-on-january-6/ar-BB1cxiUt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/15/jan-6-i-alone-can-fix-it-book-excerpt/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-vp-pence-e2-80-99s-chief-of-staff-reveals-new-details-about-evacuation-deployment-of-nat-e2-80-99l-guard-during-capitol-insurrection/ar-BB1dOmDz - The rioters were trying to prevent the certification of the election. Keith Kellogg was a senior official in the Trump White House. Both Kellogg and Pence recognized that once Pence was taken away, he may not have been allowed to return. It's just fiction to pretend that removing Pence's ability to certify the election was not the goal of Trump and the rioters on January 6th. Conservatives used to be all about the Constitution. Congress was trying to do its Constitutional duty by certifying the election starting on January 6th. And those that used to lecture us endlessly about the Constitution are now like "Eh, do it whenever. There's no law against it that I know of."

You said Pence overturning the election was something that could not happen. Trump clearly believed otherwise, and certainly his state of mind is relevant, since he 1. has been accused of formenting the riot, 2. was the person that stood to benefit from any disruption in the process of confirming Biden's win, and 3. was the head of the executive branch that includes the Vice President. What powers the President believed the Vice President had in regard to election certification is certainly relevant. Then I'll ask a second time: why did Pence not want to leave the Capitol on January 6th, if, as you believe, he could come back at any time and legally certify the election?

Hmm. Then why do you think Pence was reluctant to leave the Capitol on January 6th if, as you seem to believe, he could come back any time to certify the election?

Tell that to Donald Trump, who has clearly and explicitly articulated his belief that Pence had the power to make it happen. Trump still believes that if only Pence had willed it, Trump would be President today.

Wasn't the goal to remove Pence from the Capitol for security reasons and therefore prevent him from certifying the election?

Hi Richard, I'm consulting the 2009 "Master List of Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" by Craig Ciccone and the 2018 "The JFK Assassination Witness Index" by Mike Davis, and neither one lists the name Robert Davison.

As far as I am aware, Craig is the only one who claims to have seen someone who looked like Oswald get into a Rambler at Dealey Plaza just after the assassination. Since Oswald escaping in a Rambler wasn't "the official story", there's no other evidence that I know of that would suggest what Oswald would have been doing for those 20 minutes. Going to Ruby's is not a bad guess, but it still leaves the question as to why the driver of the Rambler wouldn't just take him much farther and make a clean getaway, instead of dropping him off somewhere where he makes his way to the Texas Theater... to do what? Meet someone and make a second getaway? The situation seems to only make some sense if one looks at the situation and realizes that Oswald wasn't trying to make a getaway at all. As the designated patsy, the conspirators had no intention of getting him to a distant safehouse, and it doesn't seem like getting to a safehouse or out of the country was Oswald's goal anyway. If it was, why go to the movies? I would note two more things in particular: 1. Even the official story doesn't chronicle Oswald's whereabouts at all times with 100% certainty. His assumed route is often depicted as a dashed line on maps. 2. If it was Ruth Paine's Rambler that Oswald got into (and allegedly said it was), then the person Craig saw might very well have been Michael Paine. Michael had a very strong resemblance to Lee Oswald.

I didn't see it on the online schedule for Showtime either. I just Googled the title and Showtime and it took me to a page on Showtime's website that had an option to watch it on demand. I added the Showtime app on my TV and re-subscribed. (The sister app Showtime On Roku, didn't seem to have the documentary and didn't even have a search function that I could see.)

The two hour version of Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio's documentary "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" is now available for streaming on Showtime. I just finished watching it. I found it very enjoyable and well-produced. It tells some dramatic stories and is packed with information. The second hour is more complex as the geopolitics of the Vietnam war are studied in depth. I look forward to watching it again and reading the discussion about it here.

It's now streaming on demand on Showtime.

"Reclaiming History" is simply a badly written book. The good news is that hardly anyone in the world has ever (and will ever) read the entire thing. I tried to read it from the beginning, but that introduction just went on and on, attacking all the critics again and again and again and again instead of getting to the point. Say what you will about "Case Closed", at least Posner was not jabbering on for hundreds of pages grinding his own personal axe. "Reclaiming History" would have some use as a one-stop guide to all possible Lone Nut arguments, but even that has dubious value. Whenever cornered by a piece of evidence, Bugliosi repeatedly falls back on circular logic: Anything that can't be explained in a way consistent with Oswald's guilt can be explained in a way consistent with Oswald's guilt because... we know Oswald's guilty. On and on and on. Around and around.

I just finished reading it. The main text runs 225 pages, so compared to most JFK books it's short. But it's fairly dense with information and was an interesting read. I don't think there was any serious overlap between this book and Jim's original "Reclaiming Parkland." It's the same subject, but there's no discussion at all about the HBO and Tom Hanks deals. Jim was mentioned once in reference to an interview Jim had done with a witness, but from what I saw there was no direct citation or mention of the book "Reclaiming Parkland." The most recent book in the "Suggested Reading" section appears to be a 2008 edition of a book from 1995. Honestly, "Reclaiming Reality" seems most influenced by Jesse Ventura's book than anything else. The author Gregory Donges seems smart and thorough, and it certainly appears that he started writing it soon after the release of "Reclaiming History." Even after noting Bugliosi's death at the beginning, the rest of the book refers to Bugliosi in the present tense. Chapter One is "Dealey Plaza", and runs from pages 11 to 66. Chapter Two is titled "The Patsy", covers Oswald in general and the Tippit shooting, and runs from pages 67 to 90. Chapter Three is the longest section of the book "Indications of Conspiracy" 91 to 195, featuring 32 individual indications of conspiracy, according to the author. Chapter Four is titled "The Plot" and runs from pages 196 to 225. Then there are three pages of illustrations, then endnotes, suggested further reading, and an index. The usual suspects of Angleton, Dulles, and Helms are identified, but Donges appears to believe there might have been a group above Angleton and Dulles, a "Star Chamber" of sorts - perhaps the Council of Foreign Relations and/or the Bilderberg Group.

Thank you, David! That's very useful. There's additional footage on that video that seems to fill in some gaps. The closest date I had found so far was a mention of a re-enactment done in December 1963.