Denny Zartman

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?

I can imagine an alternate world where the most famous picture from the JFK assassination wasn't a frame from the Zapruder film or the picture of Ruby shooting Oswald, but the photo of the assassin's rifle sticking out of the sixth floor window. Even a blurry snapshot would have become instantly infamous. But, why doesn't that picture exist? Warren Commission testimony of Robert Jackson, photographer for the Dallas Times Herald newspaper: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm The conservative motorcade order and number of cars established in this testimony appears to be: 1. Lead car 2. President's car 3. President's Secret Service 4. Vice President's car 5. Vice President's Secret Service 6. White House press car 1 7. White House press car 2 8. Local photographers press car 1 9. Local photographers press car 2 (with Robert Jackson) (I am sure someone will correct me if this is in error, but it seems to be the order established by this testimony.) Jackson had a camera loaded and ready, sitting in an open convertible that had just rounded the corner and was heading north on Houston. Jackson later goes into more detail about what he saw and what transpired in his car during the shooting sequence: It's astounding to me that Jackson had all this time to verbally point out the rifle in the window, which none of the other occupants of the car seemed to be able to see even though it was dead ahead of them in bright clear daylight and making loud banging noises, yet it did not seem to occur to Jackson to take a picture, even after hearing the sound he apparently recognized as gunfire and recognizing the sight of what he believed to be a rifle barrel. What kind of newsperson has time to talk and point out a rifleman in the process of shooting at a presidential motorcade, but not the instinct to take a photograph - even when hearing gunfire around the president? And it was not just the reporters in Jackson's car and Jackson himself. According to Jackson, there were an additional three or four cars ahead of him filled with press people, all with a closer view, all of them travelling slowly up Houston street looking straight ahead at the southern face of the TSBD in the bright sunshine; a building which I repeat according to the official version of events was emanating the sound of gunfire, and for some reason only one professional photographer could see a rifle in a window and none of them could manage to take a photo of the building during the shooting.

Logic would seem to suggest that Jack Ruby might have been one of the first few names on Oswald's rat out list. While I'm not yet persuaded that there was a false flag operation or that Oswald was a rifleman, I believe there is some witness testimony that indicates some people involved might have thought that they were part of a counter-assassination team. Possibly Oswald believed this as well. Certainly he had some role he was told to play. I personally would be curious to find out the distance from the TSBD second floor lunchroom to a telephone, and especially the distance to the circuit breakers/fuse box.

I'm confused. Isn't this false flag fake assassination theory you've proposed a CIA plot intended to fail?

And as Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said "No one has ever been able to put him in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand.” If Oswald had lived to see trial, he would not have been obligated to prove his innocence. It would have been up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because there are no witness on record saying they were with Oswald doing innocent things at 12:30 PM doesn't mean that he was in the sixth floor sniper's nest. It does not take a witness at the time of a crime for someone to be convicted of a crime or to be absolved with an alibi. The possibility that he could have been up there is not the same as a probability, of course. Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor at 12:25 PM. According to the official story, he was again seen on the 2nd floor at 12:32 PM. At that time, he was reported as not noticeably perspiring or being out of breath. In my opinion, that alone is compelling circumstantial evidence suggesting it is most probable that he remained on the lower floors during the interval of time in question. When one adds the other factors (lack of nitrates, ect.) the probability of Oswald being up in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM lessens even further, I believe. I think you've made this statement before. There seem to be a significant number of assassination researchers who believe Oswald was photographed outside the building during the assassination.

I don't see how the evidence supports Oswald being up in the sixth floor sniper's nest and firing a rifle that day, whether or not he was intending to miss as part of a fake assassination attempt. No nitrates found on his cheek, no prints found on the rifle until after his death, initial reports of a different rifle altogether, Elizabeth Adams not seeing Oswald descending the stairs. Then you have Arnold Rowland seeing two men on the sixth floor at 12:15 PM. Who were they? Oswald was seen by Carolyn Arnold in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM, the same time the motorcade is expected to pass. Why wasn't Oswald in place at the sniper's nest? Was he really that incompetent, or was dashing up four flights of stairs and shooting at the last minute part of the plan?

I don't see why not. Grunts do the grunt work. Fall guys take the fall. Scapegoats take blame. That's what they do. As Joseph Milteer said before the assassination, "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off." Either Milteer knew this for certain or he made a logical assumption. To believe that Oswald would agree to be a rifleman in a false flag plot would mean that he didn't make the same obvious logical assumption that someone would be picked up and assigned the blame, or Oswald had been assured that someone else was going to be the patsy. Since Oswald knew that already fit the profile of a loner with Russian and Cuban sympathies, it seems hard to believe that he would be assigned a rifleman role and also assured that someone else with a similar profile would take the fall for an intentionally failed assassination attempt. If someone with Russian/Cuban sympathies wasn't picked up and assigned the blame, what's the point of a false flag operation at all?

It has always been my understanding that the CIA knew it didn't have enough forces to take Cuba and would have needed full air support authorized by Kennedy in order to succeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

"Two wrongs make a right" has been standard operating procedure for the Grand Old Party for a long time. They feel Q Anon is a public relations problem. Instead of defending Q Anon, they point to the "left's" own conspiracy theory; the unspoken inference being that we wouldn't have off-the-wall conspiracy theories at all if it weren't for the JFK assassination precedent set by liberals. So in their minds Q Anon can essentially be blamed on the left wing, similar to the way many Trump supporters tried to blame the January 6th 2021 Trump-led capitol insurrection violence on anti-fascist agitators. I personally wouldn't worry about it too much. Associating the JFK assassination with the most absurd theories has been media shorthand for decades. If Hollywood wants to depict a typical "conspiracy type", they just put a nerdy looking actor in a tin-foil hat and in front of a short-wave radio, and have them rant about UFO's, the Bermuda Triangle, and how Elvis shot JFK. So, this is nothing new. There are also a litany of differences. There's little evidence for Q Anon, but almost too much evidence in the JFK case. Q Anon is inspiring recent and ongoing threats of violence against the government. The threats posed by Q Anon supporters are current. Crowds aren't out there starting protests or riots or making bomb threats motivated by the Kennedy assassination. For most people today, the JFK assassination is beyond old news. And, of course, the official position of the US Government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. That's been their position for decades now. There's no equivalent official proclamation for Q Anon. If the right wing thinks that they can distract everyone from their Q Anon conspiracy theory by drawing a false equivalence with a "left-wing" conspiracy theory over half-a-century old, I suppose no one can stop them. I believe the effectiveness of that strategy will be limited at best, but I certainly understand how it would be vastly preferable to defending Q Anon. As Q Anon motivated cases continue to work their way through the legal system over the next few months, I suspect it will be rather difficult to deflect attention from each and every one by shouting "But, but, but... whatabout the JFK assassination?!"

Wasn't the Bay Of Pigs invasion a CIA funded mission designed to be blamed on Cuban exiles who were in reality assets of the CIA?

My mistake. My apologies. I'll keep my posts to myself from now on.

Googling this name under both spellings seems to just lead back to the same website. The only other reference I can find is this one from a book called DE GAULLE AND LATIN AMERICA https://books.openedition.org/pur/42542?lang=en Translated from French: Not much to go on, but still interesting. I can only say that I believe the second picture does resemble the "tramp" in question.

In Josiah Thompson's "Last Second In Dallas", Thompson quotes a 2002 oral history by Olan DeGaugh, one of assassination witness Lee Bowers co-workers at the Union Terminal Railroad. DeGaugh said that Bowers shared details that hadn't been shared with the Warren Commission or in interviews with Mark Lane. "Last Second In Dallas", pg. 66:

Corrections and additions are welcome. This was a little tougher because of the poor audio, many instances of crosstalk, and noise.