Denny Zartman

Sorry, Jim. I wasn't trying to disparage those books or use "outdated" as a pejorative. I just wanted to acknowledge that much has been learned since they were written, as you yourself said in the introduction of your latest book. I'd continue to recommend the first edition of "Crossfire" to beginners and "Accessories After The Fact" to anyone wanting a useful reference book on the JFK assassination. A few months ago, I was able to quickly and easily find an obscure fact in "Accessories..." that had defied my Google-Fu, so I definitely believe "Accessories..." still has tremendous value. I apologize if it seemed like I was belittling either book.

Good luck, David. I don't know how anyone could teach a short course on this subject, especially using short texts and no full JFK books. I hope you'll keep us updated on how it goes. I'd be very curious as to the questions your students come up with after their first exposure to the subject. Mark Lane's "A Lawyer's Brief" is quite outdated but still worth reading. Fidel Castro's two speeches also bring up some good points worth consideration. For the anti-conspiracy side, I don't think you can do much better than the WC report and "Case Closed". "Reclaiming History" would be good for you to have on hand as a reference work when you want to use the index and know the LN side of any argument, but no one other than a dedicated researcher is ever going to read "Reclaiming History" book straight through. It seems that you're not looking for books to use in the course, but maybe at the end you could provide a list of further reading for students who might have their interest sparked. Here would be a few of my suggestions to add. "The JFK Assassination Evidence Handbook" by Mike Davis. Maybe the best current comprehensive JFK conspiracy book that's under 200 pages. The first edition of "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs. Outdated, but IMHO for beginners a slightly more accessible book than most, including Marrs's own later edition. "Accessories After The Fact" Sylvia Meagher. Also outdated but excellently organized and still quite useful, especially when examining the internal contradictions of the Warren Report. "Head Shot" by G. Paul Chambers. Gives a decent overview of a few assorted aspects of the assassination from the perspective of a physicist, which makes it a bit different from many other JFK assassination books. And it's shorter than most, as well. (I think this is an important book that often gets overlooked.) "Best Evidence" by David Lifton. It's long and much more focused on the medical evidence than giving an overview of the entire assassination. The personal narrative makes it compelling reading, it's educational when it comes to understanding the medical evidence, and of course the theory Lifton proposes makes it a landmark work whether or not you agree with his conclusion.

Dr. Baxter is quoted in the WC as saying the wound "could well represent either exit or entry wound" but completely contradicts himself in an interview taped in 1979, where he reportedly said it was an entrance wound. Other than Dr. Baxter, I haven't found any medical professional from Parkland on record as saying JFK's anterior neck wound was possibly one of exit. I also have not yet found a medical professional at Parkland that opined JFK's anterior neck wound was definitely one of exit. Using Vincent Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" as my master source, I find that, in addition to Dr. Malcolm Perry and Nurse Audrey Bell, the following persons at Parkland also characterized JFK's anterior neck wound as one of entrance. Dr. William Clark: "Dr. Kemp Clark...said that there were two wounds, a traumatic wound in the back of the head and a small entrance wound below the Adam's apple..." Pg. 1 Dr. Robert McClelland.: "this [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound." ... "Dr. Robert Mc Clelland ... told me afterward that they still believed it [the neck wound] to be an entry wound." Pgs. 7-8 Dr. Marion Jenkins: saw an entry wound on JFK's neck; would let their 1963 observations stand. Pg. 13 Dr. Charles Carrico: "small penetrating wound of ent. neck" Pg. 14 Dr. Ronald Jones: "The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient." ... "compatible with an entrance wound ... I would stand by my original impression." Pgs. 15-16 Dr. Gene Akin: "this [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound..." Pg. 17 Dr. Paul Peters: "...we saw the wound of entry in the throat..." Pg. 19 Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "There were two wounds to the President that we observed at parkland. The first was a small and neat entrance wound to the throat..." Pg. 22 Dr. Charles Baxter: The wound in the neck was "no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound." Pg. 24 Dr. Joe Goldstritch: "...I realized how impossible it would have been for the neck wound I saw to have been an exit wound..." Pg. 44 Nurse Diana Bowron: "...the entry wound in his throat...looked like an entry wound." Pg. 33 Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe: "...a little hole in the middle of his neck ... About as big as the end of my little finger...An entrance bullet hole---it looked to me like...I have never seen an exit bullet hole---I don't remember seeing one that looked like that."; "...it was just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen." ... "She also insisted the President had an "entry" wound in his throat." ... "Throat wound---Definitely an entrance wound. Resented Arlen Specter trying to get her to say it might be an exit wound..." Pgs 35-36 In summary, Adding Dr. Perry and Nurse Bell, that seems to total 11 Parkland doctors and 3 nurses characterizing JFK's anterior neck wound as an entrance wound, with only one (Dr. Baxter) once saying that it could have either been entrance or exit, and then later contradicting himself and claiming that he believed it was one of entrance. On the opposite end of this, there seems to be not one medical professional at Parkland who saw JFK's neck wound and consistently said that they believed it could have been either one of entrance or exit, or that they believed it was one of exit.

How does that change the quote from Dr. Perry? Livingstone quotes Perry as saying "My whole credibility as a trauma surgeon was at stake... I couldn't have made a mistake like that. It destroys my integrity if I don't know an entrance wound from an exit wound!"

It doesn't make sense because, among other reasons, Oswald didn't have a motive and Oswald didn't have an escape plan.

David really wanted to make sure that the new guy Chris didn't get any ideas in his head about Oswald being not guilty. It's very important to this man, whose job is verifying the truth in the news department of WFAA, in 2019, to make sure all the news anchors believe Oswald is guilty.

Interesting. I'm looking forward to checking it out.

Reported.

Gee whiz, it's been proven that Oswald was in the sniper's nest merrily shooting away. Why oh why would anyone have to threaten Frazier about anything at all? Keep silent about what? If everything points conclusively to Oswald's guilt, there should be nothing to keep silent about, right?

I know it's probably an actual oddity rather than anything significant, but when I read it, my first thought was "Wow. No way in the world that's real." I was positive that it had to be some joke by a Wikipedia editor, yet it seems to be a fact. I'm sure much better minds than mine have noticed this long ago. I'm just struck by, out of all of the names in the country, it just happened to be that particular one. I don't think of Oswald as being a common last name, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I try to always be skeptical of anything in this case that relies on sheer coincidence for an explanation. I'm not making any theory about it (I don't think), just noting how unlikely and strange it is.

I think it's a significant find, and I also thank you for bringing it to our attention. It's an important piece of the puzzle.

So anti-JFK Hunt or his people decided after the assassination to have a meeting with the lone assassin's widow in order to mitigate potential criticism from pro-JFK folks? That doesn't seem to make sense. Seems to me if you don't want to bring attention to your previous anti-JFK positions, you don't go around making contact with the killer's widow. And how exactly would this criticism-mitigating pr plan work if the meeting is kept secret?

Why in the world would Hunt want to meet with Marina? I'd also like to know more about this alleged meeting. Steve is right. If there was a meeting, the Hunt note should probably be reevaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson And Boom goes the Mind. Probably of no material significance, but seriously, what are the chances of a coincidence that weird?

Did Marina socialize with anyone during her time in Dallas?

Excellent post, Robert. I'm giving it a lot of thought. Thanks.

Wow. I didn't think the information in this thread could get worse for our LN friends, but certainly seems to have happened. By the LN's own logic, this statement by "Officer E" shows the timeline to be: Officer E enters the building on the first floor, Officer E confronts Oswald, Truly clears Oswald, Truly shows Officer E upstairs apparently after trying and failing to get someone to send the elevator down. According to this statement by "Officer E" Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor, on his way down from the sixth floor, or even on the second floor. Oswald was on the first floor.

If Oswald wanted to be connected to that rifle (as the backyard photos would seem to indicate), he could have ordered it under his own name. He could have carved his initials into the wood. Instead, he didn't even bother to leave prints on it until after he was dead. If Oswald didn't want to be connected to that rifle, he could have purchased in person with cash and left no paper trail whatsoever. He also could have, y' know, avoided posing for photos with it, too. That might have helped a little bit. We're talking about an assassin that had it so together he was able to dash upstairs, use his misaligned rifle to fire two accurate shots (and one shot that missed both the limo and the street surrounding it) at a moving target, wipe the rifle of prints, run a maze of boxes to hide the rifle, dash downstairs past at least one law officer, get outside, board at least two vehicles, and make a clean getaway... but who was so disorganized he drops one of his three wallets at the scene of the Tippit murder, carries around an ID with the alias he used to order a rifle that he plans on denying he owns, and can't think of anywhere better to escape to than a movie theater.

It never fails to amaze me how the LN's can whiplash back and forth between claiming LHO wasn't telling the truth in order to hide his guilt and claiming LHO wanted to earn his place in history. Why did LHO claim to be on the lower floors? He was lying to hide his guilt. Why did LHO not have a getaway plan? He wanted to be caught. Why did LHO deny both murders? He was lying to hide his guilt until he could go to trial and announce his guilt. 🙄 Why did LHO order a rifle and a revolver using an alias? He didn't want to be connected to the rifle. Why did LHO order a rifle and a revolver using an alias, (when he could have gone into any gun store in Texas, paid cash, and left no paper trail if he REALLY didn't want to be connected to the rifle) and then carry an ID with that alias with him when committing his crimes? He wanted to be connected to the rifle. Why did LHO have his picture taken with his weapons and with Russian newspapers? He wanted to be connected to the rifle and explain his political motive. Why did LHO deny owning a rifle at all? He was lying to hide his guilt. Why did LHO kill JFK? He desperately wanted to be "somebody" and earn his place in history. Why did LHO say he didn't kill anyone and had nothing against JFK? He was lying to hide his guilt.

I believe the LN's on this forum have run out of gas. It appears that they have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding of this particular case. It's little more than circular arguments and personal insults at this point, and it seems to have been this way for quite a while. It's grown tiresome, IMHO. I wouldn't be replying to the LN's in question or addressing the situation at all, but our LN friends are determined to continue to louse up the forum with their nonsense. It's a shame, because I'm sure it discourages other good, fair-minded folks from engaging in the conversation and contributing something of actual value. It looks like this note is not proof that LHO was outside or on the first floor. It does seem to be proof that LHO's story of being on the lower floors was consistent, and that the authorities didn't want this consistent story to come to light. The LN's failure to understand this should be evidence that they don't really comprehend the evidence. It's okay to admit that. There's lots of evidence I don't comprehend, and hopefully I'll be the first one to admit that. Their refusal to admit that there could be evidence that they don't understand is why they should be more humble.

It's sad that you have nothing better to contribute than attacks and personal insults. You should be more humble.

You should be more humble.

Thanks very much for the tip! I'll definitely get it.

I've seen that before, but thanks for linking to it again. It's hard for me to get a tremendous amount from it, but that's my fault. I just find most of it difficult to read. I do appreciate the work that went into it, and the pictures from the "sniper's nest". It also helps me to understand where the Harper fragment was found (something I've never been 100% clear on.)