Denny Zartman

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.

All the best to everyone. Merry Christmas!

Then wouldn't he be expected to have some ammunition and/or rifle cleaning and maintenance equipment among his possessions?

This did not stop him from obtaining a car and driving it to the furniture mart, as Greg asserts he did. If he wasn't trying to get away, why didn't he just buy a movie ticket? My interest right at the moment is more about the Lincoln Mercury test drive and Greg's claim that there were no impersonations of Oswald leading up to the assassination. (I also find the assertion that Oswald drove to the furniture mart dubious as well.) I re-read Ruth's testimony to the WC. Unless I missed it, her last characterization of Lee's driving ability was "very unskilled". She says she gave him a total of three lessons. On one of those last two lessons, according to Ruth, Lee had trouble just turning the car into the driveway. Now we are supposed to believe/assume that after just one more driving lesson from Ruth at best, Lee was able to test drive an unfamiliar car at high speed on the expressway without incident or appearing as if he couldn't drive in the estimation of an experienced car salesman sitting next to him. Lesson one: "Very unskilled in driving" Lesson two or three: Wasn't up to the task of turning into the driveway. Lincoln Mercury dealership: Able to drive an unfamiliar car for the first time recklessly at high speeds without incident. Witness who was professionally experienced in driving was in the car next to him and thought he could drive. I find that impossible to believe, but maybe I'm alone on that. I've seen the driveway. It's not a big hill or weird turn. Anyone struggling to turn into that driveway is not skilled at driving. But, if true and Oswald could indeed drive and drive fast, I still do not understand why he would not have transportation on his mind for after the assassination. He wasn't a shooter, but I haven't heard of anyone who believes he wasn't involved in some level. He was the designated patsy, so certainly he did have a role. Surely he wasn't planning on going to the movies! If he was planning on going to the movies, why not buy a ticket? If he would be willing to "borrow" a vehicle from a family friend - the person that got him his job, the person giving shelter to his wife, child, and baby - for a mundane task, why would he NOT be willing to "borrow" a car from a stranger for what could have been (and ultimately was) a matter of life and death?

Then why didn't he use a getaway car after the assassination?

You don't have a problem with Lee being able to drive?

It's always good to have a clear picture of earlobes, of course, since that can often be an effective method of eliminating someone right away when comparing two people. But I agree with you based on those two pictures. From what I can see there's nothing dissimilar. Nose, lips, and cheeks seem to match. Facial structure on both men seem to be fairly distinctive and identical to each other as far as I can tell. I believe there's even a hint of jowls in both pictures.

And I'd say that those two are a much better match.

Based on my unscientific and amateur interest in the art of caricature, I have to say that I do not think the man is McCord. The 1963 man seems to have a dip in the bridge of his nose that I do not see in the pictures of McCord at the same angle. McCord also has dark colored eyes and full, dark eyebrows, while the man in the 1963 photo seems to have lighter colored eyes, and thin, light colored eyebrows.

Surgeons don't wear masks in the operating room because they want to make a fashion statement. Masks work at preventing the spread of germs. This is beyond elementary. Anyone who says masks don't work must also think washing hands and sterilizing equipment is also useless at preventing the spread of germs. Ridiculous. I think people posting these kinds of statements make the entire forum look bad.

I just finished it. The best part was comparing Thompson's reconstruction photo of the Moorman photo to the actual Moorman photo. I feel that it's possible there was a person in that spot in the Moorman photo. The size and shape seem consistent. Part of my uncertainty about visual artifacts like"Badgeman" has to do with size, so I appreciate having an actual figure standing in the spot and being able to compare that shape to the Moorman picture. It was also interesting to hear about witness Cheryl McKinnon, a journalism student that believed two shots came from the knoll. The brief pieces of footage disproving the "jet effect" theory about JFK's rearward movement was good too. I think anyone calling it "garbage" is being unnecessarily harsh. It's far better than any rehash of the Warren Commission version of events. On the negative side, I'd love a music-free JFK documentary some day! At times the music here was so loud it was distracting. Lots of documentaries do the same thing too. It's just my preference to have the music lower for projects like this. I also couldn't disagree more with what I feel was their incomplete take on Umbrella Man. Imho there are better things in Thompson's book that could have been featured instead.

If someone can drive a car fast and recklessly without incident, then they are able to drive.

Interesting, thanks for the information!

Thanks Paul. How did the Furniture Mart witnesses characterize the height of the man?

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to follow the logic of: LHO trying out the rifle with the scope and deciding the scope is junk Paying money to have the junk scope removed Trying out the rifle without the scope Getting rid of all remaining ammo save the four bullets in the rifle, getting rid of any rifle cleaning/maintenance tools, and not doing any more shooting Deciding to sell the rifle (even though there seems to be no evidence of this intent) Paying more money to have the junk scope put back on the rifle It just seems simpler to offer the rifle and scope for sale as is and let any potential purchaser make the decision of whether or not the scope was worth putting back on the rifle. If Oswald didn't like the scope, how could he expect someone else would? Pay money to have it on the rifle in the first place, pay more money to have the scope removed, pay even more money to have it put back on (as if it really would have made the rifle that much more valuable), and then possibly leave the potential purchaser with the cost of removing the scope again?

I don't see anywhere in the article where you present any evidence that Oswald was intending to sell the rifle. Did he place a "for sale" notice somewhere, or is there testimony of someone who discussed purchasing the rifle from him? Is there someone who said Lee discussed wanting to sell his rifle? Was the Furniture Mart open on Veteran's Day 1963? It is also assumed in your theory that both Lee and Marina would have been willing to take Ruth's car without Ruth's knowledge, risking being stopped by a cop or having an accident with an unlicensed driver at the wheel. Not only would they be knowingly risking Ruth's car, their relationship with Ruth, and Lee's freedom, they would have been risking the safety of their small child and newborn infant. And for an errand that Lee could have easily accomplished using public transportation?

Do you think Oswald was practicing rifle shooting during the time he allegedly owned the rifle?

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.