Denny Zartman

Quite true. That does say a lot, doesn't it?

I don't really know what to say. I've re-read these threads and tried to look carefully at all the photos. There's just so few of them, and going by the pictures alone, I don't think they're conclusive. I don't think there's anything specifically dissimilar about Umbrella Man and Hargraves, and it's possible that they do look a lot alike. That one picture of Santiago matches up with DCM better, I think. Same body type, same shape of head, same prominent nose. FWIW, I read up on Hargraves first, and when I saw he was giving interviews in the '90's I thought that was a possible strike against the possibility that he was part of the team there that day. I felt that there was a higher than normal probability that some (maybe most) actual ground-level members of the conspiracy died in relatively short order. Then, I read the bio of Santiago to discover he died in March 1964. Well, if nothing else, Santiago passed that little impromptu mind experiment.

Unless I'm mistaken, the LN's don't really have a unified theory either. They've never been able to say definitively which shot missed, what caused the missed shot, or even if any shot missed. I've debated LN's who seem to imply the injury to Tague could have been caused by a fragment.

These are interesting questions, and the discussion here and on the other thread has been fascinating. I think at the time there was a lot of psychological value in having the world know of the existence of the film and people for the most part were reassured knowing it was in the hands of a private institution as big and well-respected as Life. People knew it was in the hands of investigators, scientists, ect. and probably felt it would be an invaluable aid to finding out exactly what happened. So the known existence of the film adds to the credibility of Life for whatever it reports on the details of that day. People trusted they would be reporting accurately. It would also be understandable why the film wouldn't be screened in full, due to the graphic nature and the sensitivities to the Kennedy family. That makes for a good public excuse. But the back and to the left head snap indicates an impact from the front. That would be the real primary reason to keep it unreleased. I guess I'm kind of halfway on the Z film. There seems to be pretty convincing evidence of some tampering going on, with the story of the two presentations and all. I'm not fully convinced that it's full of special effects and travelling mattes like some are, but there was probably some alteration. I personally would guess there were frames removed that showed bullets striking in or near the limo, and of course the whole tight left turn onto Elm was excised.

It really is. To me, it just screams conspiracy at a volume level that very few other things do in this whole case. He was the President's personal physician and the only medical professional to see Kennedy's body at Parkland and at Bethesda. There's only one reason that he wouldn't testify, only one possible reason: he wasn't going to support the official story. What he would have said under oath was not going to be favorable to the story of a lone shooter from behind. There's just no other reasonable way to interpret the lack of him testifying to the Warren Commission. I have to admire him, even if he didn't come out and fully say what he knew for the historical record. He wouldn't be bullied or bow to what must have been the most considerable pressure.

Thanks very much. It's a shame that so many pictures are missing.

This is old news to many, I'm sure, but it was something new I learned from Larry Hancock's 2021 book "Tipping Point." I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the possibility that Felipe Vidal Santiago and Roy Hargraves were Dark Complected Man and Umbrella Man. I didn't know much about these two and I haven't read much else beyond "Tipping Point" and the information contained in the links below: https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsantiago.htm https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhargraves.htm Thanks!

Nobody says he was totally uninvolved. No one. Why do you think the only options are him in the snipers nest or him being a 100% innocent bystander? In your scenario he was a professional part of a professional fake flag operation. Why wasn't he in place on the sixth floor at 12:25, the time when Kennedy's car was supposed to pass? In your scenario, in five minutes he ran up five flights of stairs, ran the entire diagonal length of the sixth floor from the nw corner to the se corner through a maze of boxes, grabbed a rifle of some sort, and fired at the last few possible seconds. That's what he has to do in five minutes. And then in the next three minutes immediately following, he ran back the full diagonal length of the sixth floor through a maze of boxes, stashed the Mauser, then ran down five flights of creaky stairs, not seen or heard by others also descending at the time. After all this, he was not sweating or out of breath. It's just not humanly possible to do all that in that length of time, and not be noticeably sweating or out of breath, it simply isn't. This isn't a matter of differing opinions and agreeing to disagree about a meaningless piece of trivia, this is about common sense and reality. No matter how young and in shape you are, you're still going to show some signs of exertion running up five flights of stairs, a maze twice, and down four flights all in one go. Olympic athletes are in the best possible physical condition, and even they display physical signs after strenuous exertions. Oswald might have been young, but he was no Olympian. How many years since basic training? Any witnesses say he was exercising regularly? These facts matter. And we are not even mentioning: - Lack of nitrates on his cheek. - That he was not seen or heard by others descending those creaky stairs at the same time. If he was "practically going downhill" then he would be dropping his full body weight repeatedly on those stairs every flight. You know that, I know that, anyone who has ever descended a flight of stairs rapidly knows that. - The natural stress that would also come along with the act of firing a rifle at the president of the United States. Not only was he fitter than an Olympian, he was lighter than a feather, invisible, the world's greatest actor, and also had nerves of steel. A real pro, so why wasn't he in position at the time the target was passing?

This was my view from behind the fence in 2010, arrow pointing to the x on the street.

Benjamin, why do you persist in believing Oswald was on the sixth floor shooting? Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25 and on the second floor at 12:32, and he was not sweating or out of breath. That's just not possible. Do the facts not matter to you at all?

Wasn't the rifle that was found a Mauser?

And yet the new Republican Party ceaselessly, and without apology, tells us that Democrats are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-led socialists hell-bent on imposing socialism, taking away everyone's hamburgers, and cancelling everything. Certainly an accurate way of describing a party that is walking hand-in-hand with Wall Street and multinational corporations, wouldn't you agree? Unless I'm mistaken, I think it would be fair to say that a reasonable percentage of people in the "national security state" could be described as either military, former military, or at the least military-friendly. And I'm sure those types of people just loooooove The Squad and the Democrats in general. The "Deep State", which is either not all-powerful since both Obama and Trump were elected, or is all-powerful and so mysterious and seemingly contradictory in their reasoning as to be virtually indistinguishable from random chance that they engineered the elections of both Obama and Trump. And what was the result of Trump's trade policies? https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/trump-s-trade-policy-assessment https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2021-02-05/2020-trade-gap-6787-billion#:~:text=The U.S. international trade deficit,exports decreased more than imports. https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746 - Benjamin, in my opinion your piece just reads as thinly-veiled pro-Trump propaganda and as I see it the relevancy to discussion of the JFK assassination is dubious. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve from this op-ed. There have always been moneyed forces behind the scenes throughout history. I believe it's probably rare when there isn't. That's said not to support the concept in any way or say that's the way things should be; I'm just saying it's already a well-known fact of life and probably not news to many. I personally don't believe the forum benefits from going off-topic again discussing issues whether or not Russia interfered with the 2016 election or whether or not Donald Trump was fit for public office. Discussions on the "Deep State" and whether or not Trump was treated fairly or not just serve to divide us on non-JFK topics and ultimately distract from the forum's purpose.

On my Amazon order at this moment it says July 20 is the release date.

In a just world, a certain someone and her husband would have done some time in prison for being [title of book by Sylvia Meagher].

Congratulations, that's quite an honor!

I just ordered my copy, and I look forward to reading it. It's a privilege to have the opportunity to discuss the case with you here. Thanks very much, Larry, it's greatly appreciated.

The firecracker sounding noise was not necessarily the first shot that hit Kennedy. James Fetzer "Murder In Dealey Plaza" Pg. 36. http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/zapruder.html I couldn't disagree more. Look at the way the deformation stretches several inches on either side horizontally. It doesn't look like a minor dent or a scratch to me, and it's very difficult to believe that the president's limousine would be allowed to have such an obvious structural defect that would be right in the line of sight for the president, the first lady, and any other dignitaries riding in that limo. This was not a junker; this was the President's show car. I think we've been over this on another thread, where I believe it was confirmed that the bubble top did not latch near that spot and did not cause that round hole. I'm not sure about that, but that's what I recall. Plus, as far as I've seen, there are no photographs showing the defect there prior to the Dallas motorcade.

I can see that you put some thought and work into your article, Benjamin. You also have courage to share your theory of the case and subject it to scrutiny. I personally find much of the logic flawed and/or not supported by the evidence at hand. Too much goes into unsupported assumptions, and many important witnesses and events seem to be ignored. No serious researcher asserts this. Because someone doesn’t believe the evidence shows Oswald to be in the sixth floor snipers nest doesn’t mean that they believe he was a totally innocent bystander with absolutely no involvement on any level. He had a role to play during the shooting, even if it wasn’t as the sixth floor shooter. Loyalty has nothing to do with expendability. A general would not refuse to send a soldier into battle simply because the soldier has shown loyalty to the military, any more than a general would send only disloyal soldiers into battle. That’s why it appears that Oswald was to be killed during his apprehension. According to the official story, one officer (Tippit) had already drawn a weapon on Oswald, and another one hit Oswald in the face during his arrest. How do we know the handgun Oswald allegedly had on him (that either misfired and left a dent on the shell, or had the hammer come down on an officer’s hand and didn’t hit the shell at all) wasn’t one used by the police attempting and failing to shoot Oswald during the theater scuffle? More on that later... You might be aware of the story of Jerry Coley, employee of the Dallas Morning News newspaper, who took a photographer down to the plaza and photographed what they believed was a puddle of blood. The feds later came down to the newspaper offices, took the negatives, and told Coley and the others to keep quiet about it all. Intrepid reporter Hugh Aynesworth reported that the puddle was merely a puddle of red soda pop (complete with a nearby broken soda bottle, I believe.) Now, if you believe Coley’s story, and that the feds would come down and confiscate a picture and tell multiple newspapermen to keep quiet about a puddle of cherry soda, what do you think they would have done or said to anyone who claimed to have been standing next to Oswald at the time of the shooting? Oswald had a job to do. What that was, we do not know for certain. Because he was not seen by a reported witness at the time of the shooting does not automatically mean he was in the sixth floor sniper’s nest. He was seen on the first floor at 12:25 and again on the second floor at 12:32, and he reportedly said during interrogations that he was on the lower floors at the time of the shooting. It’s not possible for someone in five minutes to run up four or five flights of stars, run the diagonal length of the floor from the northwest corner to the southeast corner through a maze of boxes, fire on the president, and then, in the next TWO minutes, again run the entire diagonal length of the sixth floor from the southeast corner to the northwest corner through a maze of boxes, stash the rifle, run down four flights of stairs (while not being seen by witnesses reportedly descending the stairs at the same time) and not be out of breath or noticeably sweating. It’s just not possible. It’s really not. No matter how fanciful one’s imagination gets, it’s not possible to do all that in seven minutes and not be noticeably winded or sweating. In my opinion, your theory breaks down there. There are still more unanswered questions that arise from assuming Oswald was shooting from the sixth floor. You refer to Oswald as being fairly well-read and at least moderately versed in the art of intelligence and spycraft, as well as involved to a fairly high level in this particular operation as the designated fake shooter in your theory. Then please tell me why someone like Joseph Milteer could predict that Kennedy would be shot from an office building with a high powered rifle, and that someone would be picked up afterward to throw off the investigation, but Oswald could not? Either Milteer knew it, which adds to your number of people wittingly involved, or Milteer guessed it. Milteer knew or guessed a patsy would be picked up, something that the comparatively worldly and more involved operationally Oswald did not know or could not guess. That’s very hard to believe, especially if Oswald is using his own rifle and carrying ID on him that links him to it. So where was Oswald? Could he have been doing something like waiting on a phone call? He wouldn’t have gotten that call if he did. Apparently the power to the building went out just before the assassination and was restored just afterwards, disabling the phones and the elevators. According to Vincent Palamara’s “Honest Answers”, the power switch to the building was on the first floor, near the segregated lunchroom that Oswald often used and near an office. Could Oswald have been the one instructed to turn the power off and on? It would have kept him out of the public eye. And if he wasn’t the one who turned the building power off and on, who did? If it was someone else, doesn’t that just add to the number of conspirators involved? And let’s not forget that there are a number of serious researchers out there that do believe Oswald was photographed outside the TSBD at the time of the assassination, so your assertion that Oswald was “invisible” at the time of the shooting is debatable to say the least. I just don’t follow this logic. Was the false flag intended to be blamed on multiple shooters? Then who was the intended patsy to be picked up and blamed for shooting from the knoll? Why would anyone want to divert attention from their false flag? Aren't flags intended to attract attention? The story of Amos Euins is so amusing when you realize that there were two cars worth of press people crawling north on Houston street straight toward the south face of the TSBD. One press person even had the time to point out a shooter who, by some accounts, either slowly withdrew the rifle barrel after the shooting, or, in Euins’s account, actually leaned out the window to get “a look at his work” - yet somehow not one photographer managed to snap a photograph of a person that was leaning out the window so far a fifteen-year-old could see the top of his head. The southern face of the building was bathed in bright sunlight and there was the sound of firing weapons coming from it, and two cars of professional press people managed to talk about it but not one managed to take one picture. So curious. So convenient. If Oswald only fired once in your scenario, who put down the other two shells on the floor? Again, this is a false dichotomy. The only two options are not "Oswald was firing in the sniper's nest" or "Oswald was a bystander completely uninvolved in any way." Most serious students of this case believe he was involved, just not necessarily the shooter. What’s your source on this? My research indicates LBJ brought it up himself immediately after Kennedy’s death. Restrained? According to the official story, one officer had already drawn his weapon at Oswald, and another hit him in the face during the arrest. I’m also not convinced that Oswald was the one who pulled a gun and either had a misfire or had the hammer stopped. Either the shell had a dent or it didn't. What’s more probable, that the worldly ex-Marine who was eventually killed with a handgun thought he was going to shoot his way to freedom, or that the DPD unsuccessfully tried to silence him for possibly the second time that day? Obviously they did in Ruby’s case. And it seems Oswald did too, at least to how I’m hearing your theory. Again, I just don't follow the logic that makes you come to this "Oswald fired once" theory. What are you basing it on, and who put down the other two shells reportedly found on the floor in the sniper's nest? How do you arrive at the conclusion that the cast was washed prior to testing? Your quote from Pat Speer seems to indicate that the cast was washed and taken home after testing rather than thrown away as was custom. Are we really going to entertain every possibility, no matter how farfetched? As a wise man once said, “Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. But use your eyes, your common sense.” If you had a piece of paper with a curve on it found at the scene, or a piece of Saran Wrap found in Oswald’s pocket, or a witness that saw him washing his face with a garden hose, then maybe you could start to make a case for something like this. Without any evidence, it’s just fanciful talk that, IMHO hurts your theory rather than helps it. I’d be interested to see you cite a court case where nitrate evidence was thrown out because of swirling air. Lawyer Mark Lane said that the negative nitrate cheek test would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle that day. Until I hear a persuasive argument by another lawyer as to why it wouldn’t be considered legally admissible in a court of law, I’m going to have to go with Lane’s interpretation of the contemporary rules of evidence.

How do you know for sure the throat shot was the first shot? How do you know for sure that was intended to be a successful head kill shot? What about the witnesses that heard more than three shots? What about the witnesses that saw bullets hitting the street? What about the bullet hole in the top of the limo windshield trim? And if it had stayed straight or turned right it wouldn't have exposed JFK to the back-up team? What kind of professional operation would that be, leaving something that important up to absolute chance?

Great book, Vince! It's certainly packed with images of documents and extensive footnotes sourcing everything. It sure does feel like the reader is getting their money's worth. One of the things that keeps me endlessly interested in this case is the fact that it seems no matter how many books I read on the subject, I always manage to learn something new. In this case, I was pleased and interested to read some supporting evidence for a theory I had considered but didn't think there was any way of confirming. Page 218 of "Honest Answers" quotes John Armstrong saying that the TSBD electrical panels were on the first floor near the first floor segregated lunchroom, where Oswald was seen and said he was at the time. So, I now feel fairly confident that it's, in my mind, more likely than not that Oswald's role during the operation was to turn the building power off thereby disabling the phones and elevators. For the sake of argument, assuming this could be true, it seems to me to be a slight indicator that possibly Oswald thought he was part of a counter-assassination team. Assuming again that the power and phones were restored within minutes after the assassination and didn't seem to hinder subsequent police activity, cutting the power appears (to me) to be something that could only interfere with an assassination team already in the building.

I pre-ordered my copy earlier this week, and I look forward to reading your new book, Vince!

I've ordered it as a hardback via Amazon.

I was a bit of a Richard Nixon buff a few years back. I read a few biographies including the multi-volume one, and a few of his books. I visited the Nixon museum out in California a couple of times too. It is a great film, weaving together many themes and threads in a complex narrative. I'll have to give it a watch. It seems to me that Nixon's aides didn't always tell him the full story of what was going on with Watergate; sometimes to protect him (to give him plausible deniability) and sometimes to protect themselves. So, Nixon made a lot of bad decisions early on based on incomplete information. The discussions about what to do about Watergate got circular and increasingly confused. They would discuss what really happened in a particular incident, and then they would discuss what would be a believable lie to cover up what happened in that incident. Well, as time went on, it became harder for them to distinguish between the facts and the cover stories they had concocted. Often within one conversation they would have to go back and forth trying to clarify if they were talking about facts or the cover story used to obscure the facts. So, it was like sinking in quicksand. It always gets me that Haldeman and Ehrlichman were mad at Nixon when he finally let them go, when they of all people should have realized that if Nixon had cut them loose right at the beginning, he very well might have survived. Nixon chose to side with the people who he thought were showing him loyalty and were doing all these things ultimately on his behalf. But he sided with them over siding with truth and with lawfulness. And when Nixon did eventually fire them, he definitely did not want to do it.

Good points @Jamey Flanagan. All those press cars were in the best place to photograph the alleged assassin, but in the worst place to take pictures of an assassin on the knoll. I suspect that was no coincidence. Anyone who did happen to take pictures on Houston street probably had their film seized right away. Amos Euins wasn't even taking pictures during the shooting, only beforehand. And he says his camera was still taken away and never returned. Then there's the story of Jerry Coley of the Dallas Morning News and the pool of blood. Coley had a photographer co-worker take a picture, the prints and negatives which were later, according to Coley, confiscated by FBI men. These FBI men also told Coley and his co-workers to keep quiet about it all. They may not have been the only media organization to have inconvenient film seized and then urged to maintain secrecy. That, to me, seems more likely than several cars worth of press people all facing the TSBD and not being able to snap one single photograph as a rifleperson fires at the president, a rifleperson that even takes the time to slowly withdraw the rifle barrel. The only way a picture of the rifleman would be inconvenient is if it didn't incriminate Oswald alone.

But what good is it if it doesn't fit the facts?