Denny Zartman

"No coup for you!"

The term "Democrat Party" is not offensive. It's incorrect. If a person uses the term without knowing that the real name is the "Democratic Party" then they are ignorant of American politics at the most basic level. If they use the term while knowing it is incorrect but using it anyway, then they are simple partisans. Either way, they aren't worth the time to engage in serious political discussion because they clearly aren't serious about politics. I, for one, welcome those who use the term. It's terribly convenient to be able to dismiss their political opinion early in any discussion. Saves time and effort.

If someone uses the term "Democrat Party", all their political opinions can be safely dismissed.

That is an interesting theory, one that I had considered for the Mafia and the Texas oilmen. The real conspirators work through these groups by proxy, and then afterwards retract their claws so that any honest investigations would lead to these front groups and not the actual perpetrators.

Whether or not Oswald was surreptitiously recorded during his interrogation is, in my view, a rabbit hole. What's the practical takeaway? If he was secretly recorded, that recording was going to be kept secret no matter what. No one questioning him was interested in solving the case or finding any accomplices. If a recording existed and we on this forum know about it, then the persons involved in the cover-up knew about it too. They covered up what they said was a spilled cherry soda within a few days. What do you think they would have done about a recording of Oswald's interrogation?

Two questions for the authors on this forum. Apologies for my ignorance. One, do you ever cite e-books as sources in your books, and if so, how do you approach specifying locations in the e-book for your cite, as you would do for page numbers in a printed source? Two, specifically about "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes" book by Max Holland. I was able to figure out on my own that Holland was a questionable writer from the way he tries to use his commentary to tell the reader not to always believe what they're reading. It's understandable why he would do that as the LN he is, because in my opinion there are more than a few conversations transcribed in his book that indicate suspicious happenings. So, theoretically, would you cite Holland's book as a source if you wanted to quote from the transcribed conversations, or would you use, and cite, a different source for the same content?

Greg, that makes no sense. Why would the Dallas police ever want a recording of their interrogation techniques? They were ready to beat a confession out of Wes Frazier.

That's an excellent positive review, very complimentary.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it, John. I've always liked Dr. Wecht.

That the critics of JFK Revisited have to make such a stretch shows how little they have to fault the documentary on the basic facts.

I always appreciate your insight, @Joe Bauer. Great post.

Doesn't this sound similar to the description of one of the men Acquilla Clemons reported seeing at the scene of J.D. Tippit's killing?

I'm wishing the very best for you, Joe. I'm sorry you're feeling so bad, and I really hope you get well soon. I always appreciate your insight on this forum. Imho you're one of the most valued members here.

Wow. Another important story of which I was unaware. It very much mirrors Tip O'Neill's recounting of Powers and O'Donnell's similar comments and reasoning.

Thanks! I look forward to getting "JFK and Vietnam" as soon as I can and learning more about that meeting.

They must have been the only people in America not watching tv or listening to the radio after hearing the news.

Interesting. I had not heard of this secret meeting in Hawaii. I'd be interested in learning more.

Also, Lie 3 is very important and worthy of pointing out again. I once pressed a prominent LN writer on his false claim that Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing after the assassination. He replied that Oswald was the only one missing that mattered; as if any investigator could possibly know that at the time. It still makes me shake my head.

Good work, Gil! I enjoyed it very much. Great points on the dry firing. The guy doing the test firing couldn't even get the rifle back up to his face for the third shot by 5.6 seconds, and thats allowing exactly 0.0 seconds for reaquiring a moving target between shots 1 and 2.

If true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then the "controversy" over Ford's book had to be totally manufactured, wouldn't you say?

@W. NiederhutI want to thank you for your contributions to this forum, and for your work in this thread in particular. You, @Matt Allison, @Kirk Gallaway and others have done outstanding jobs at "keeping them honest" and bringing rationality to the discussion. It is greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the heads up, Joseph. I'm reading it now.

I'm sorry to hear that, James. I know times are tough and many of us are struggling to make ends meet. Thank you for all you have done. Here's hoping that the forum can be saved.

I enjoyed it quite a bit, thanks, Vince. The reportage of the rifle as being a Mauser had one moment around 27:20 where the reporter says it was a Mauser and that it had one bullet in the chamber. It's so difficult for me to believe that the rifle was handled and examined to such a point where they could find a bullet inside of it but somehow still not be able to correctly report in what country it was made nor the correct caliber.

They can answer it, they just don't want to. Over the past ten years I've had the opportunity to discuss the JFK assassination on other websites, and there are invariably half a dozen folks with extensive experience with rifles and target shooting chiming in with their opinions on how it was an easy shot from the sixth window, how Oswald was actually good with a rifle, ect. But when I point out that Oswald had no other rifle ammunition or rifle cleaning equipment among his possessions and ask if that's the usual state of affairs with themselves or their rifle enthusiast friends, there's never any reply at all. Now, maybe I've walked between the raindrops and just by chance every person whom I've asked has been unable to reply for unrelated reasons, but let's get real. If Oswald was practicing with his rifle on a regular basis he would have rifle ammunition and rifle cleaning equipment among his possessions. Instead he's apparently assembling and disassembling and maintaining his rifle with only a dime, and that he was practicing target shooting regularly without ever cleaning or even oiling down his rifle, and was literally down to his last four rifle bullets that morning.