Denny Zartman

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.)

You and I may find what we believe to be simple and obvious explanations for a lot of these details. There's a reason I haven't participated in the Prayer Man threads. But the truth is that this case is complex because there are others who look at the same details and also find a simple explanation which just happen to be completely at odds with our own "simple" explanation. If Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, the explanation for why the authorities insisted that he did is not simple and straightforward. We can not agree that he did or did not go. If he did go, why? If he didn't go, why do they continue to insist that he did? If after more than half a century we can't answer the question "could Oswald drive?" that's not a simple case. A lot of the evidence has been destroyed or hidden or falsified, a lot of testimony changed, a lot of witnesses intimidated or even eliminated, and a lot of intentional disinformation has been spread. Probably more than we will ever really know. Saying that the murder of JFK isn't that complex given that we are relying upon a distorted, incomplete, and often contradictory record IMHO doesn't reflect the true nature of this case. We also possibly have a number of participants who were actively trying to hide their roles and pretending to be other people. Piecing together what really happened from that distorted, incomplete, and contradictory record isn't an easy task. If it were truly simple, I doubt we would still be battling over these details today.

I'm glad there are people out there who will micro analyze every detail of this case. I'm not knocking them or their efforts, nor am I saying that they shouldn't be micro analyzing. The case is important enough to deserve close scrutiny. I'm saying the complexity and the amount of details being analyzed might initially seem overwhelming to a beginner, and that might explain some of the perceived waning interest. As someone who's been reading JFK books for years, I'm still bewildered by the sheer amount of information that I still need to study. I'd imagine that for someone coming in cold, it would be utterly mystifying. If I were a beginner I would be daunted by the mountain of minutia being endlessly debated. I'm not a beginner and I'm still daunted.

Does anyone think we need another breakdown of Dealey Plaza witness? As in, location, number of shots, direction of shots, and any other relevant statements? https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm The one linked above is the one I've been using the most, but it appears not to have been updated in over 15 years. It also seems other sources (including Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment and Craig Ciccone's Master List Of Witnesses) have some additional names. I've already collected names from those three sources and put them on index cards, but haven't yet really dug into examining the statements of each witness and trying to put it all together. I'm wondering if it's even necessary, or if it's just my OCD acting up again. I know there was never a true survey of all the witnesses (and that many witnesses were bullied into going along with the official story), but it always bugs me whenever I read a JFK book and they use vague terms in describing how many people heard how many shots and where they thought they were coming from.

I grew up in the '70's and the JFK assassination was barely in our history books then. Oliver Stone's "JFK" probably did the most to bring it back into public consciousness, but even memory of that film is fading. Now it's mostly YouTube videos and websites, most with inconsistent messages. I wouldn't want to be someone just starting to read about the JFK assassination today. The case does look extraordinarily complex. Look at the backyard photo thread that's going on right now and try to see that through the eyes of someone who knows nothing at all about the assassination. I'd guess that they could barely make heads or tails out of it. Determining which sources are trustworthy and which ones aren't is another serious challenge for a beginner. Finally, the concept of a "conspiracy theorist" now has a seemingly inescapable stigma about it. I hope to somehow, someday, play a role in helping people understand what went on and exactly what makes this case so endlessly fascinating for those of us who continue to study it after so many years. It's a challenge to take the many aspects of this case and make it comprehensible to someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about it.

It is mind blowing. Not only is it a violation of the suspect's rights, I can't see how it could do anything at all but hinder an investigation as well as any potential prosecution. Were there no crimes in Dallas where more than one person was involved, or that had a suspect intent on lying? Investigators are going to want to ask for a suspect's story again and again and see if it changes. To identify and track inconsistencies in a suspect's story, you have to know what those inconsistencies are. How in the world is it possible to go out and accurately check the details of a suspect's story or alibi without having detailed notes... or any notes at all?

I listened to the interview of Mary Ferrell in 1975 last night. Very interesting. I don't think I've ever heard her speak before, so it was a treat to listen to a true pioneer in JFK assassination research. There's an unfortunate dip in the audio about halfway through, but most of the interview is audible. The historical value is still worth it. 11 minutes in, Ferrell talks about an unidentified CIA agent and his friend being at Parkland. this vaguely rings a bell for me, but I don't remember any details of that reported encounter. Anyone else know more? I didn't note the time in the video, but at one point Ferrell was talking about Oswald's first cousin Marilyn Dorothy Murrett possibly recruiting Oswald for the CIA, and that files on Murrett were still being kept secret (this being 12 years after the assassination). This detail about Oswald's cousin also something I seem to remember reading long before I was actively trying to study this case seriously, but I don't know much about this at all. Has anything more been learned about Marilyn Dorothy Murrett? Ferrell interestingly describes Marguerite Oswald as "impossible" but also "truthful." 35 minutes in, Ferrell describes Agent Hosty as being on the extreme far right of the political spectrum. Ferrell also talks about a WC executive session on January 27th where Allen Dulles was doubting a story about the FBI interviewing Oswald for two hours, but this was where the audio was dropping out and I didn't get the full gist of this particular story. I'd be interested in learning more. Ferrell speaks about a particular rare edition of a newspaper that apparently mentioned a warning the FBI received in regards to a threat on Oswald's life. Later it seems someone wanted to drop this particular newspaper edition down the memory hole by buying up all the copies and getting rid of them. Ferrell also makes a great point that is so obvious that it often gets missed entirely. If Oswald really delivered a note to the FBI with a bomb threat or some other threat of violent action, they would have arrested him, plain and simple. It's ridiculous to imagine someone doing something like that and not getting arrested. Ferrell theorizes that the note was more like Oswald threatening to tell his own superiors in D.C. about what Oswald saw as Hosty's harassment than an actual threat to blow anything up.

Deleted

I agree. At times it's stunning how many suspicious events and unsolved mysteries are still out there to be discovered. I'm always amazed at how I can constantly learn something new no matter how much I read. There's just question after question. If someone is an LN, I suppose there are no more questions and no remaining mysteries. But not even Bugliosi could fully dismiss Sylvia Odio and her story.

Thanks for the links and the summaries, Robert. I'll consider it carefully.

Robert, I have to be honest and confess that I don't understand your Jesuit angle, and multiple references to Zionism is a red flag for me. From all the stuff I've read in books and online in the last 20 years, I've never read a theory that posited that the Jesuits were behind the JFK assassination, other than yours right here on this forum. Are there any books you can point me to that supports this theory?

There are probably a dozen questions that, for me, would be competing for the title of First Question. What really happened during the Odio incident? Who were those guys and what was their purpose? Is there a direct connection between the Odio incident and the Parrot Jungle incident? Can Buell Wesley Frazier's observations be trusted? Did Frazier have a connection to Ralph Yates? From the interviews I've watched, I find Buell Wesley Frazier to be an honest man. Frazier now appears to believe Oswald didn't do it. Frazier's testimony seems to be strong evidence that Oswald was not carrying an entire disassembled version of the alleged rifle. Other than Oswald's mother, Frazier also appears to be the only witness I've ever seen in the entire JFK history that showed anything resembling sympathy for Lee Harvey Oswald. I also realize that Frazier was under extraordinary pressure from investigators. It also appears no one other than Frazier and his sister saw Oswald with a long package that day. I have no specific reason to either trust or distrust Linnie Mae Randle, but I believe I read somewhere that she was in Ruth Paine's social circle, which, if true, would automatically make me suspicious. Yet I can not discount their reporting of Oswald claiming the package contained "curtain rods". It appears that the specific mention of curtain rods is backed up by the statements of Ralph Yates, who said that he picked up a hitchhiker around Wednesday November 20 with "curtain rods" that talked suspiciously about assassinating JFK and was dropped off at the corner of Elm and Houston. How much of the official version of the time between Oswald's escape and his capture is true? What was Oswald's role actual role? I know he was the designated patsy, but before that, exactly what role was he playing, or, what role did he believe he was playing prior to the assassination? How many conspirators were on the ground in Dealey Plaza and the surrounding buildings? Is it possible to name one person who most likely gave the whole operation the "Go"? I suppose the unanswered question that looms largest for me right now is understanding the disconnect between what seems to be considerable time and effort spent setting up Oswald as an assassin working for Cuba and/or the USSR, and the almost immediate official conclusion that Oswald was working completely alone. It's hard for me to understand that the conspirators and those who seemed to be immediately implementing a lone assassin cover up story were not one and the same. I know LBJ used the fear of an international conspiracy to implement and maintain the cover up. Perhaps that was the actual reason for the pre-assassination conspirators planting of so many Cuban/Russian leads, but that's still hard for me to fully comprehend and accept. It really seems to appear (to me, at least) that the conspirators carrying out the assassination clearly intended the investigation of Oswald not to reveal that he acted alone, but to lead directly to Cuba and Russia. Yet the official conclusion of Oswald acting completely alone was pushed immediately after the assassination in Dallas and in Washington, D.C..

Vince Palamara's most recent book "Who's Who In The Secret Service" has a Secret Service document in Appendix III on pages 277-279 that indicates someone closely resembling Oswald was seen in Washington D.C. on September 27, 1963. The witness is a man named Bernard Thompson, the chauffeur of then Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman. I have no idea if this story is relevant, but it's not every day that you have a witness like Mr. Thompson with both a personal friend and character witness in Secret Service agent Floyd Boring. And it appears that Thompson's encounter was more substantial than just passing someone on the street. You can read it and decide for yourselves. Vince's text before the reproduction of this report says that Ruth Paine had returned to New Orleans from Washington D.C. some time not long before September 27, where Paine had visited CIA headquarters while seeing her sister. In view of this, Vince appears to have an interesting hypothesis on the possible Oswald lookalike. Here's my transcription of the document:

Hi Ron, I purchased Wilderness of Mirrors based on David's suggestion. I have only started reading it, but I'm already impressed. I've read The Devil's Chessboard, but not yet gotten Ghost or Cold Warrior. It appears that John Newman, in the addendum to the 2008 edition of "Oswald And The CIA", used the process of elimination to determine that Angleton was the one most likely to have planted information about Oswald's supposed visit to Mexico City. I agree with your "invisible glue" theory, and it does make sense. From my limited understanding of him, he certainly seems to fit the profile of someone who would have been a/the major cog in the assassination machine. From what I understand, things do seem to center around Angleton, Dulles, and Helms. I've read that Helms was not the type to initiate action though; apparently he was the sort that would only go through with something if it had been approved by a higher up. So your question is a good one: who would that higher up be?

I'm not underestimating the fury that Carlos Marcello had for the Kennedy brothers. I understand and recognize that. But I have a difficult time believing that the mob's first step in planning and executing the assassination of a president would be to go to the feds. Do you have any evidence of any other times on record where the mob went to the FBI for help in planning and executing a major crime?

Could the mob really get into the Bethesda autopsy room? I have a difficult time believing that the mob, in making a decision to kill a US President, would make their first step going to the FBI. Do you have some historical evidence of that kind of working relationship between the mob and the FBI, where the mob felt free enough to approach the FBI for assistance when planning a major crime? And for the mob to go to the feds just to take the long way around to finally arrive back at more mob assassins doesn't seem plausible to me. From what I understand, the mob tends to keep things in the family. I suppose that if anyone has been paying attention to my posts (unlikely), my silence on Prayer Man is conspicuous.

Let's not forget the Abraham Lincoln assassination, which was not only a conspiracy, but featured an assassin that couldn't wait to take credit for his crime.