Denny Zartman

The conspirators, in order to get away with it, had to control the narrative. That means controlling the investigation and the evidence. Sure, the mob had plenty of experience with killings that were not traceable back to the actual players because the actual players remained unknown. Do you have any historical examples where the mob regularly used patsies to cover up mob killings?

So the mob just got lucky that the US government immediately leaped into action and did everything in its power to discourage any investigation or speculation and to use all their resources to cover the mob's tracks, not just immediately but for decades afterward? I don't buy that at all. I look suspiciously on any element of the assassination that relies on luck as a key factor in success. If the mob didn't want to cover their tracks, why bother setting up Oswald in advance? Why use Oswald at all?

The fact that you take the Paine's testimony at face value or always find an innocent explanation for their behavior will always, in my opinion, be a serious flaw in your overall analysis. This alone causes me to question your conclusions. I believe you haven't yet proven the Furniture Mart incident was truly Oswald based on the argument and evidence you've presented so far in other threads. It's puzzling that you take Ruth Paine to be honest, but then reject her assessment of Oswald's inability to drive. As I see it, your devotion to the concept of the Paine's being innocent and uninvolved in any sort of conspiracy exposes another weakness in your theory. You approach your theory assuming only one person was impersonating Oswald in the lead up to November 22, and have settled on Craford. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to eliminate the consideration of other possible impersonators. The pre-assassination impersonations of Oswald were, in some people's opinions, a co-ordinated effort. It also doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to completely ignore the fact that Michael Paine would have had easy knowledge of Oswald's whereabouts, Oswald's schedule, and the places Oswald frequented. Along with Michael's access to Oswald's belongings, Oswald's family, and Ruth's car, Michael also had a strong resemblance to Lee Oswald. I know there was a difference in height between the two men, but unless a witness to a particular possible Oswald impersonation incident specifically referenced "Oswald" as being short or on the short side, to me, it's folly to consider completely eliminating Michael Paine as a possible Oswald impersonator. I am glad that you are no longer arguing that the Lincoln Mercury test drive was really Oswald. Certainly there were mob connected figures involved in the assassination of JFK, as there were figures connected to Cubans, Texas oilmen, ect. But the overall conclusion that the mob did it all is disproved by the fact that the Mafia, as powerful as it was, could not have gotten into the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Only people in the highest levels of government had that access.

When you're the devil, they let you do it.

I'm looking forward to the four hour version in March. I'm glad it's getting so much attention and praise.

Bob nailed it here.

@W. Niederhut I second the comments made by @Douglas Caddy above. I am grateful for the posts you and others write in this thread. You all are made of stronger stuff than I. You continuously counter the baseless assertions with facts and cogent analysis. It is appreciated.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html https://www.businessinsider.com/wh-staff-trump-blocked-toilet-flushed-wads-paper-report-2022-2

"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.