Denny Zartman

Hi Greg. I studied to be a paralegal in college. While I try to never overestimate my intelligence, I do hope that I can say with some confidence that I might possibly have a remedial understanding of evidence and hearsay. And you are correct. I cited that same page in my earlier post, and I acknowledged that I personally have no other evidence that I can provide other than Fruge and Dischler's claims that the allegation was verified. If you and others want to use that as a basis for dismissing everything about Marcades, please be my guest. Using that logic, one would also want to dismiss any and all testimony about JFK's brain, since I can't produce that either. Fruge said it was verified. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that Marcades' was ever actually employed by Ruby. The only two pieces of evidence is that Fruge reported in 1967 that it had been verified and that Dischler apparently reported in 2006 that Fruge had multiple unidentified sources who confirmed Marcades worked for Ruby. Fruge could have been making it all up. But I think it's a mistake to assume that he was making things up. As I tried to make clear in my earlier post, the JFK case is absolutely filled with missing pieces of evidence and witness statements that for one reason or another cannot be independently verified. There's also decades of intentional disinformation to sift through on top of that. It's up to the individual researcher to use their own judgement, to try and consider the evidence in context with other evidence, and to evaluate it all the best they can. It seems you are citing the HSCA interview, dated April 7, 1978. If you have "Rose Cheramie: Gathering Fallen Petals" Second Edition, you should see on page 339 a retyped report on Marcades' death dated April 4, 1967, written in Fruge's own words, reportedly signed by Fruge, in which Fruge unequivocally states that Marcades' employment with Ruby was verified. I'm going to trust 1. the document reportedly signed by Fruge in 1967 and 2. the statement that Dischler said in 2006 that Fruge verified Marcades' employment over one ambiguous "thinks that this might have been checked later" written by a third party in 1978 because I have read stories of other witnesses who have claimed that their statements in the printed record did not accurately reflect their actual statements to authorities. I'm going to go with the two statements by the two principals that say it was verified and believe that it was verified. It seems that you and others would rather ignore those two statements that say it was verified, and instead rely on one ambiguous statement by a third party that says it MAY or MAY NOT have been verified as absolute PROOF that it was NEVER verified.

Steve Roe thinks that because Marcades' employment wasn't verified to his satisfaction, that means it was never verified at all. That's simply illogical.

I'm tired of your games, Steve. You said the Vegas was not a strip club. You were wrong. You said Ruby only owned one strip club. You were wrong. You said Marcades' employment at one of Ruby's clubs was not verified. You were wrong. Game over. I can't show you the verification, because, according to Dishler, Fruge's sources wished to remain unidentified. Dishler and Fruge are on record as saying that Marcades' employment at one of Ruby's clubs was verified. According to the documents in the appendix of "Rose Cherami: Gathering Fallen Petals" Second Edition, it appears that at least a dozen people in the hospital (including Fruge) heard Marcades' prediction before the assassination happened. If you choose to disbelieve Fruge and Dishler, that is your right, but it shows to me that your critical thinking skills are severely lacking, especially in this particular case. The JFK case is absolutely filled with missing evidence and some witness claims that can't be directly substantiated. That's when we look at the other evidence surrounding it, give it the smell test, and use some common sense and some deductive reasoning. Because evidence is missing doesn't mean it never existed, and because some witness testimony can't be directly substantiated doesn't mean it is automatically false. And if you've never heard of a stripper in her late thirties, you need to get out more. We have a famous stripper here in Atlanta who is in her mid-fifties. If you really want to nitpick and dismiss Marcades's story because I personally couldn't provide you with the information that Fruge and Dishler were privy to, or that you think Marcades was too old to be a stripper, that's your decision. But in my opinion you are not using proper critical thinking and you certainly aren't contributing anything to our overall understanding of the JFK assassination.

- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm

According to Fruge and Dishler, it was verified. - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm

It can't be said enough. It seems some people are determined to believe Litwin, no matter what.

James didn't say he was putting you on ignore, he said he was no longer going to post in your trolling thread. Why are you wasting everyone's time when you apparently aren't even reading the posts of the person you're trying to badger?

- Why didn't you do your own spadework, Greg? - "Rose Cherami: Gathering Fallen Petals" Second Edition, by Dr. Michael Marcades, Peniel Unlimited, LLC, Pages 328 and 339.

Fred Litwin also said Oswald was the only employee missing after the assassination, a clear falsehood. When I called him on it, he said Oswald was the only missing employee that mattered. He's not someone you can rely on for factual information.

Fred Litwin doesn't even know the contents of his own book.

Congratulations, Vince, that's exciting to be part of of it. It's always hard to make your mark on history, but you've surely done it. Amazing!

I also think the misogyny in 2021 is pretty disheartening too, as most here don't even blink an eye at the "hysterical female" stereotype without a second thought. Hoover tells her brother about the flyer. Hoover's brother goes to the feds. The FBI questions Hoover and Kauffman. They both describe the flyer, Hoover having been in the trailer business, and Kauffman even recalling a club name similar to a club Ruby ran. Kauffman's husband goes to the FBI and says, don't believe them, they're mentally unstable over-emotional about divorce and husbands. Kauffman and her husband have a long talk. Kauffman then tells the FBI that she's confused, unstable, can't remember anything

Way to miss the point and dodge the question at the same time. The question was "Have you read the sources James posted?" The truth is that I knew the answer before I asked the question. Obviously you hadn't read the sources. I'd ask why you didn't read the sources, but I already know the answer to that as well. Reading the sources would mean having to admit you're wrong. According to the material quoted by the person who started this thread, James makes it clear he's reporting the allegation Kauffman told the FBI. If the allegation was made, as even you admit it was, then there is no inaccuracy in the portion of "Destiny Betrayed" quoted above. Therefore, the basic premise of this thread is failed gotcha nonsense. Ms. Hoover said saw the flyer; she said she showed it to her daughter; her daughter confirmed it. That's enough for a reporter to report it. Yes, it is believable that a U.S. District Attorney would decline prosecution of criminals who knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations "due to the emotional instability of the persons involved." You'd never see federal prosecution of emotionally unstable criminals, would you? Of course not. It's just too much of a hassle. All that crying and wailing, and then you have to get them tissues. Only emotionally stable, composed, and calm criminals get prosecuted. That's the way the justice system rolls. Give us a break. Hoover didn't go to the feds, her brother did. You think they were going to charge Hoover and her daughter for knowingly making false statements just because Hoover couldn't find the flyer? That's not how it works. Hoover says she saw the flyer and the writing and remembered details. Hoover says she showed to to Kauffman and that Kauffman would also remember the details, Kauffman says she saw the flyer and the writing, and she did remember the details. Because the flyer could not be later found does not prove that it never existed or that Hoover and Kauffman did not ever see it. A prosecutor would have to actually prove that Hoover and Kauffman knew that the flyer didn't exist or that it didn't have the writing on it. Where is that proof? What is that proof? How you YOU know for CERTAIN that Hoover and Kauffman were knowingly making false statements? Because the flyer couldn't be produced? Because the FBI wrote a memo considering and then declining prosecution solely because the criminals were too emotional? And you imply that James's evidence is thin?

Use your cursor and hover over their name on the left hand side the screen over their photo and member status. A hover pop-up window should appear, and at the bottom of the window you should have three options, Message, Ignore User, and Find Content. The Ignore User button should take you to a page where you can adjust what content you want to ignore.

I had not heard of the Oxnard call. What a bizarre story! It never fails to amaze me that no matter how much I seem to read and watch, there's always something new to learn. That is definitely a strange mystery. The one I was thinking of, I believe it was a woman at a hotel lobby or maybe a college campus overhearing a man talking on the phone in a nearby booth. I'm sorry to say I can't remember the details. I'll try and look through my notes and see if I can't find anything more on that. Here's the report on the Parrot Jungle incident, which sounds like Odio Part II: Commission Document 246 - FBI O'Connor Report of 31 Dec 1963 re: Oswald https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10649&relPageId=2 And an earlier thread here on the forum, which still leaves me a bit confused, to be honest: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14408-parrot-jungle-incident/ I don't know of any direct H. W. Bush connections to Parrot Jungle either.

He doesn't even have one. Have you read the citations James posted?

I think the stories of foreknowledge are important to analyze when trying to determine the mechanics of the plot. @James DiEugenio What is your take on Parrot Jungle? There's also a story about an overheard phone booth conversation, but I'd have to dig through notes to find the details about that one.

Up until 2016, the Republican Party was still lead by the spirit of Reagan. Those days are over. It seems that the GOP is now the party of Trump.

So, you're saying you spread disinformation for free?

Not the interview or the memoir summary, but the full memoir.

From what I recall, he did not describe that journey in any way at all in that book. I was interested to hear what parts of the evidence initially made him believe there was a conspiracy, and then specifically the process of how his thinking evolved to his current position. But there's none of that in his book.

It seems to me that you're holding on to the notion that the Zapruder film convinces 100% of viewers of a frontal shot 100% of the time, when clearly that is not the case. There are people who have viewed it many times and still believe all shots came from behind, or even that agents in the motorcade did the shooting.

This is a fascinating story that I hadn't been familiar with. Thanks for sharing it, James. The first article says it contains a link to Dr. Young's entire memoir, but I can't seem to find that specific link.

Don't forget that DCM also briefly held a radio to his ear and then put it in his back pocket/waistband before walking away.