Denny Zartman

I'm not so sure anymore that the JFK assassination was supposed to lead directly to Cuba/USSR and a military confrontation. With JFK out of the way, the conspirators would have free reign to do whatever they wanted at their own pace. They didn't necessarily want to be hemmed in to one specific course of action. But the fear of the consequences of a possible foreign conspiracy was used as leverage to implement a cover-up from the beginning. From what I can see in Larry's work and in other's, Dulles and Helms are identified as the ones likeliest to have been at the top of the conspiracy food chain. Was there anyone higher? It appears not, at least not at the time the conspiracy was being planned. But what about after the assassination? Is that relevant? Who, personally as an individual and not as a head of a group, stood to benefit the most from the death of JFK? It's a question asked in basic crime investigation. Who benefits? I tend to look skeptically at any aspect of the assassination that requires luck, and it certainly seems to me that the conspirators were fortunate to have a president in waiting who was willing to join in the coverup at the earliest moment, as well as willing to use his power to steer the entire investigation toward a pre-determined conclusion.

Very interesting and educational. Thank you for posting your book, Larry. It was exciting to read possible names for Umbrella Man and DC Man. That's something I hadn't seen before. It's unfortunate that information was in a footnote. I like the idea of using the process of elimination to identify potential suspects. It seems to be a logical approach at a time when new information is scarce. I think it's also wise to examine the other assassination plots for clues as to how the JFK assassination probably played out, as Larry does here.

Merry Christmas everyone, all the best to you and yours.

Greer's testimony on this seems to be compelling, in my opinion. Apparently Greer had been driving JFK in this specially built limo since it came out in 1961, and he was involved with attaching and removing the tops during all that time. Is this a fair and accurate description? For someone to have occupied the driver's seat in a professional capacity in a two year period and to have also been involved with attaching/removing the bubble tops during that time and not noticed that indentation is difficult to believe. It seems to me the only way that indentation could have gotten there innocently would have to have been during the process of attaching or removing the bubble top. Whatever made that hole had to have struck the frame pretty hard. That's not a scratch. It doesn't even look like a dent to me; it looks like a straight up hole. It appears that areas of metal around the dent are misshapen as well. It seems to me Greer would have to have known if there was a piece in the front center of the bubble top that could have hit the limo that hard by accident during the process of attaching or removing the top. What was Geis' statement on the dent? I can't seem to find it at the moment. I'm curious as to how many others have made any statements on the record about this dent and what they've said.

The picture of the dent is in Robert Groden's "The Killing Of A President" page 41. It looks to be maybe an inch or less to the right of the rearview mirror. It sure looks like a bullet hole to me.

You'd think this would be an easy issue to resolve. There just aren't enough high-res photos of the limo with this portion visible, I guess?

I'll have to get both books! It looks like there will be at least four new JFK books on my reading list in the next few months. The best thing about Bugliosi is that he sabotaged himself. I guarantee you that not a single person new to the case read that thing all the way through from beginning to end. They might have made it through the shorter version, but the original? No way. It's fascinating to me that he spent all those years writing it and ended up with such an unreadable mess, especially since he should have known better. His publishers could only find the strength to stand up to him after publication, when his failure could no longer be ignored.

The JFK assassination case is likely never going to court again. If it were that easy, it would have been done many times over in the past. Nearly sixty years after the event, you'd be fortunate to have a small handful of elderly witnesses. And go through "all" the evidence? Good luck on that. You're going to find a retired judge, an empty courthouse, somehow a jury of the most enlightened minds on the planet, and think the case will be officially re-opened? Again, best of luck. If it is that easy to do, we look forward to hearing your progress in organizing it. I'll give you moral support, but you have to have a legal reason to go to court. You can't just get a retired judge and rent a courtroom and expect it to have any legal weight. And if you want a mock JFK trial, what would that prove and to who? You think it's going to convince the general public? Besides, they've already conducted a mock trial of Oswald, decades ago. You can watch it on YouTube. How many people did it convince? If all it took was a mock trial to end debate, there wouldn't be any debate today. Anyone who says they know everything about the JFK assassination is suspect, in my opinion. Therefore, I believe that no reliable researchers will ever tell you that they always have all the answers to all the questions. For my part, I try to remain uncommitted on many issues large and small. I believe this is important because I feel that once one publicly commits to a certain position, part of their mind becomes closed off from fairly evaluating conflicting evidence and/or arguments. Discussion of the case can then become more about defending one's ego than seriously considering what could be valid evidence or a logical argument. That said, if you really, really want an opinion, I'll give you one. Why? National security. National security was the reason most involved believed they had to do what they were doing. In their opinion, JFK was weak and letting Communism encroach closer to America. Taking him out was a necessary and ultimately patriotic action in their view. I think one could probably point to the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, his intent to damage/destroy the CIA, his intent to deescalate tensions with the USSR, and his intent to deescalate American involvement in Vietnam as some of the evidence that (to them) JFK posed a serious and growing threat to national security. An added but not at all insignificant benefit of removing a president intent on de-escalation of wars and relaxing tensions with enemies is that the Military Industrial Complex ends up getting fed, which is what happened in Vietnam. Who did it? I have no real reason to doubt the theory that James Angleton was likely the chief coordinator. Was he the one who ultimately initiated it? I don't know. I do believe that Angleton, Helms, Dulles, Hoover, and Johnson were all in on it and in agreement. Who else would be needed at the uppermost top level? I'm not sure I believe in the theory that an assassination could only happen if there was only one single individual jabbing their finger on their desk formally ordering that JFK be killed, like in a movie. Perhaps it was just someone, or a small group of powerful people like those named above, who assessed the situation and recognized an opportunity to make what would be, for them, a beneficial tactical move.

I'm curious. How useful do others find Max Holland's book "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes"? I have heard that Holland is untrustworthy (red flags went up for me just reading the introduction) ,so I am not sure how I should regard using it as a source.

IMO unsolved mysteries are always going to be compelling on some level. People still write books on Jack the Ripper. I recently noticed someone's YouTube video on the American Civil War had amassed several million views in just three years. The Civil War still sparks interest, and there's no mystery element there. In contrast, the JFK assassination is filled with ancillary mysteries, many of them complex. Some of the mysteries are brutally simple, and it's continually challenging to seek out as many answers as we can. Has the Buzzfeed Unsolved Mysteries episode on JFK been discussed here? One of the things that stood out to me in relation the topic of this thread was when one host asked the other if he had any prior knowledge of the case, and he replied "Someday I'll read a 700 page book on it." So it appears that even some people in the unsolved mysteries business aren't interested enough in the subject to explore it further, seemingly daunted by the sheer volume of information. I think that's part of what keeps it from attracting more interest. It's daunting enough to read a 700 page book, much less one that demands at least some knowledge of the politics of the era and has complicated (and conflicting) medical and ballistic evidence. And where does an average person even start when first exploring books on the assassination? The knowledge that you could be reading a 700 page book on the JFK assassination, and there would still be waiting for you another 700 page book out there arguing the exact opposite of what you just read, has to be discouraging to some people, I would imagine.

Thanks very much!

From what I've read, the tests on the hands could give a false positive because the same chemicals could have gotten there from handling other materials like cardboard boxes. However, Mark Lane believed a lack of nitrates on the cheek would have been court admitted evidence that someone did not fire a rifle. That's my understanding of it anyway, it could be wrong or not apply to Texas laws at the time.

Oswald's barber, Clifton M. Shasteen: https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shasteen.htm It's almost comical that after nearly sixty years we're still playing these games and can't even get a straight yes or no answer on a simple three-word question: "Could Oswald drive?" The answer is "kinda?" What kind of answer is that? He couldn't drive well enough in an empty parking lot to warrant further lessons, a month later he was driving surface streets at night and expressways at high speeds without incident, yet less than a month later he couldn't drive well enough to make a getaway after committing the crime of the century? At what point do reasonable people drop the fantasy?

Pardon me, but where is your source for the Bogard quote characterizing Oswald driving "like a maniac"? I am unable to find any quote from Bogard where he characterizes Oswald as driving "like a maniac." If someone can drive high speeds on the highway, then they can drive. Someone who cannot drive cannot drive 60-70 miles an hour on the expressway. https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bogard.htm Yet this is the same man who could barely drive three blocks on surface streets, whose apparent entire experience driving was on a total of two occasions, and apparently demonstrated to Ruth Paine, in a parking lot no less, that his driving abilities were negligible at best and it was useless to give him further instruction. There is a huge disconnect here. You're telling me that Ruth said Oswald could not drive, but then Ruth said that he could. Okay, let's look at that. According to Ruth, Oswald said he never learned how to drive. According to Ruth, Oswald bragged to Ruth that Oswald's uncle let him drive uncle's car. According to Ruth, one Sunday in the first two weeks of October 1963 Oswald drove three blocks on surface streets to the parking lot for the lesson that Ruth gave him. According to Ruth, further driving lessons in that parking lot proved fruitless because of Oswald's demonstrated lack of basic driving ability. According to Albert Guy Bogard, on November 9, 1963, Oswald got into a car with Bogard (an experienced car salesman and driver), took a high-speed test drive with him on the expressway going 60-70 mph, and returned to the dealership with no notable damage to the car and no impression left on Bogard's mind that Oswald lacked driving skills. Either Oswald could drive or he couldn't. Level of skill has little to do with it: it's the difference between a speed-reader and someone who has to point at every word and moves their lips - they can still both read. Now it's being changed to "Oswald could drive, he just couldn't drive very well in Ruth Paine's opinion." That still answers the question: Taking Ruth Paine at her word, Oswald could indeed drive. You believe that Oswald could get into a car with an auto salesman, drive high speeds on the expressway with that salesman, and return to the car dealership without accident and without revealing to the salesman that he, the driver, lacked the most basic driving skills. So, again the conclusion is clear: Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Let's be clear and realistic here: if someone can get into an unfamiliar car and drive it at high speeds on the expressway without incident or accident, they can indeed drive. So, why didn't Oswald obtain a getaway car for his escape from Dealey Plaza? When and where did he learn to drive in the span of a month? Who taught him? Did he always know how to drive and was just acting like he couldn't for Ruth's benefit? If so, why would he do such a thing?

If this is so, then why did Ruth Paine say that Oswald could not drive?

This was made for me by another forum member in another thread about this subject. And what I believe has been said to possibly be the Coley pool of blood and a gif of the passing man who appears to be looking at it and/or walking around it.

Officially, there were no Secret Service agents on foot at or left behind in Dealey Plaza, but then we have stories like this one from Dallas police officer Joe M. Smith: https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/smith_j1.htm And then the following, from Jim Marrs's "Crossfire" first edition, 1989, pg 78, where Marrs quotes Dealey Plaza witness Gordon Arnold: A quote from Dealey Plaza witness Malcolm Summers: http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html And this from Dallas police Sergeant D. V. Harkness, who went to the rear of the TSBD to seal it off at 12:36 PM: https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/harkness.htm

I'm sorry David. I didn't mean to offend you. That was not my intent, and I apologize.

Hi Chris, I'm the one who did the transcript of the Osanic/Coley interview that was linked in the second post. It is definitely one of the many mysteries in this case that fascinates me. Contrary to what @David Andrews posted, it seems that at least two people (Mal Couch and Jean Hill) reported observing a trail of something they believed to be blood in Dealey Plaza that day. If I may be so bold as to quote myself from this 2016 thread: I also remember a statement from a Parkland doctor or administrator that said that soon after Kennedy's death a Secret Service man who was injured came to the doctor/admin and asked about alternative exits from the hospital. And of course we have those early reports of a Secret Service man being hit or even killed, along with Seth Kantor's memorable quote "They even have to die in secret." Finally, from what I am aware of, all of the debunking of the blood as actually being soda comes from Hugh Aynesworth, a Dallas reporter generally considered to be a supporter of the Lone Nut theory. This is curious, because I seem to recall that one person was told it was not soda, but snow cone flavoring. Millican's observation may not be valid or relevant. I only included it to try and be as comprehensive as possible. I think the statements of Couch and Hill support Coley's story in that there was red liquid on the ground that was immediately believed to be blood by two separate observers. I'd go so far as to say Aynesworth's reporting proves to a certainty that there was indeed red liquid on the ground in Dealey Plaza just after the assassination, we're only debating what that liquid was. Was it blood? It's not certain, but then, what to make of Nurse Lozano's statement? Who was coincidentally bleeding at the time of the assassination, and was also a VIP whose presence in the hospital needed to be kept secret? What could the innocent explanation for that possibly be? Was it something like a Mayor or city councilperson that coincidentally cut themselves with a knife while making lunch five miles away or something like that? Sure, that's a possibility - but then why would something like that need to be kept a secret?

Regarding the rifle palm print, I would suggest checking out Sylvia Meagher's book "Accessories After The Fact" pgs 120-127 and see if any of that information answers your questions. I'm not 100% convinced it was Oswald that shot Tippit, but I'll try to go along with the theoretical. To me, the Tippit shooting is very suspicious even if Oswald was the killer. It was this aspect of the case that first began to pique my interest, because the official version doesn't pass the smell test, in my opinion. While Oswald was in his rooming house getting a jacket and a handgun, a police car pulled up front and honked its horn lightly twice before driving away. Were there really two cops (or men dressed as cops) in the car? Or is it possible that it was one cop in the driver's seat and a cop's uniform hung near the window, as was the case with J.D. Tippit? Either way, I believe the occupant or occupants of the police car outside Oswald's rooming house were conspirators that were signaling Oswald. If so, that seems to me would explain why Oswald would be able to walk calmly up to Tippit's police car instead of running in the opposite way, the way one might expect an assassin to do when attempting to escape the authorities after committing the crime of the century. Could Tippit reasonably be a conspirator? If I'm correct, he was out of his jurisdiction at the time of his death. Additionally, there was a report of him making a mysterious short phone call at a record store just prior to his shooting. Tippit wasn't there to drive Oswald to a safe house or Redbird airport, like Oswald might have believed. That would have become clear to Oswald during their conversation through the car window. What ever was said or seen during that conversation, as a result Oswald might thought his life was in immediate danger. Reasonably so, in my opinion, since Officer Tippit had ignored two crucial opportunities to call for backup and apparently was drawing his gun at the time he was shot. If mere apprehension and arrest were Oswald's true fear, wouldn't he have made better getaway plans? This is a man who had the ability, according to the official story, to leave and re-enter the country at a moment's notice using nothing but public transportation. Yet he makes a clean getaway from two crimes, boarding at least two motor vehicles during that time, and for some mysterious reason he couldn't get any farther away than a movie theater. It seems to me that if Oswald did indeed shoot Tippit, it was because Tippit was intending to kill Oswald. I also believe that Oswald was meant to be shot in the Texas Theater as plan B. Heck, I believe it is possible that it was a policeman's gun that misfired in the arrest scuffle, not Oswald's. That might just be speculation on my part, though.

Hi Tommy, welcome to the forum. You might want to check out Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgement" and Chapter 5 "Why Oswald Was Wanted" for a more thorough explanation. The short version is that there was no roll call at the TSBD just after 12:30 PM, and Oswald was not the only employee missing out of those who were working on the sixth floor. The description that fit Oswald but didn't contain Oswald's name went out on the police radio at 12:45 PM. According to the Warren Report, Oswald wasn't noted missing until at least 1:00 PM, and probably not before 1:22 PM (when the rifle was discovered.) Warren Report, pg. 156 Testimony of Roy Truly, Superintendent/Director of the TSBD Oswald was not the only 6th floor employee missing. Charles Givens was also not present. Testimony of Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer. Testimony of Charles Givens

It's disappointing but not that surprising. In Oliver's defense, he's a stand up comedian. Since he's been working on The Daily Show and his own show dealing with current events in a more intelligent and insightful way than most, there's now an illusion around him that he's an actual newsman or something more than he really is: a talented, charismatic comedian with a smart writing staff and clever producers. Before the Daily Show, he was just an average person subject to the same media saturation on this subject that most people have been for decades. Still, it's disappointing that someone who appears so smart and able to see through the BS as Oliver would parrot the same simple Lone Nut argument. Oliver says people believe in a conspiracy because they can't accept the fact that one lone nut changed the course of history. The funny thing to me is that it seems the opposite could also be argued. Maybe everyone who believes Oswald acted alone holds this belief because on an elemental level they can't accept that the government would/could run such a deadly operation and keep it a secret. Surely someone would have talked. Well, like @Larry Hancock 's book says, many have talked. But truly listening and understanding what they have to say involves learning about lots of not-so-well-known people and organizations, many of whom operated in secret. It also means analyzing some complex and sometimes contradictory evidence from an incomplete record. Finally, it means overcoming a lifetime of media conditioning and exposure to the same inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, and outright falsehoods that people end up repeating to each other again and again. That's an investment of time and effort that most folks aren't that interested in undertaking, unless you're like many of us on this forum who find the mystery endlessly fascinating and will gladly read a book on the subject for pleasure.

And I screwed it up. I should have voted "specific knowledge." My mistake.

I'm voting "generally aware" even though I believe Oswald was in contact with conspirators. He obviously didn't know everything because he didn't know the true identity of the designated fall guy, namely himself. Yet he knew enough about the plot and the people that the conspirators believed he had to be silenced. I don't think Oswald was intended to be apprehended alive in the first place. I think Norman and Joe are right in that there is also a possibility that Oswald believed he was part of a secret counter-assassination plot or something along those lines. I suspect a number of players in the conspiracy believed the same, at least initially. So, yes, I believe Oswald had some working knowledge of the planned assassination, but what role he thought he was playing is still a mystery to me.