Denny Zartman

Hi Jim, That was quite enjoyable to listen to, thanks very much for the heads up. It gave me a lot to think about. I have to look into Ralph Leon Yates, and I wasn't aware that the rifle was paid for with an uncashed money order. That's interesting. I was surprised that there was someone else thought the Johnson/Hoover telephone call felt staged. It's something I've always suspected.

Hi James, I quite like "Reclaiming Parkland" and I'm grateful that you did the work to write a detailed rebuttal against Bugliosi's book. Thanks. To me, Bugliosi's book read like something he mostly dictated into an audio recorder and barely bothered to edit. There's so much focus on himself and attacking conspiracy theorists that if I were a neutral reader I would wonder about Bugliosi's objectivity. And his reasoning is so circular it's almost ridiculous. It's basically "we know Oswald is guilty because we know Oswald is guilty, and we know that anything we can't explain can be explained in a way that's consistent with Oswald's guilt, because we know Oswald is guilty" rephrased a thousand different ways.

Wasn't it David Atlee Phillips that said the people he was with were told they were on a mission to prevent the assassination? I don't believe Oswald was the lone assassin, but it's obvious (at least it was and is to me) that Oswald was involved in the machinery of the conspiracy. I don't know what role Oswald believed he was playing, but you're correct, the conspirators certainly considered him part of the plot since he was to be the patsy.

Who?

Who says that Oswald was not connected to the events that day?

I don't think there's any innocent way to spin the Earlene Roberts story. The tapping of the horn and then slowly driving away sounds like a signal was being given to Oswald, and it does not sound consistent with the typical behavior of policemen. It appears to indicate a conspiracy involving Dallas police or people posing as Dallas police possibly with the assistance of individuals in the DPD. A fellow conspirator in a police uniform and driving a police car would explain why Oswald was not reluctant to approach Tippit. Has anyone mentioned the convenient extra police uniform Tippit appears to have had with him at the time he stopped LHO? I believe I've heard enough about Westbrook to consider him suspicious.

This forum is great, thank you. I feel privileged to be able to post and interact with people so knowledgeable and with authors who names grace my bookshelves this very moment. The JFK assassination remains of interest to me because it seems like no matter how many books or articles or posts I read, I always find out something I didn't know before. It's such a complex case with so many characters and that requires studying minutia as well as trying to grasp the larger picture in order to piece together the truth. It's also endlessly fascinating to me how intelligent people can look at the same set of evidence and draw such radically different conclusions. I guess it's only fair that I should share my own story, since I enjoy reading how other people's opinions on this subject have evolved over time. I was born nearly a decade after the assassination, and I grew up with the lone assassin story as the official history. There were only two books my parents had in the house that addressed it. One I think was called "Lincoln/Kennedy", I'm not sure of the author. As I recall, it was a fairly thin book recounting the two assassinations, had illustrations and pictures, and supported the Lone Nut story. I paged through it and read a bit, but it wasn't that interesting to me as a child. The other book that we had (and I still have) was "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination" by Sylvan Fox. It had no illustrations, so as a kid I had even less interest in it than I did "Lincoln/Kennedy." I have a vague memory of seeing part of the 1978 TV movie "Ruby & Oswald" at one time, but had no clue what it was about. I was in my early 20's when Oliver Stone's "JFK" came out. I saw it on the original release. I thought Stone's film made a solid case for conspiracy, but my family also subscribed to Newsweek and I was an avid reader of the magazine. Newsweek did a fairly sustained anti-"JFK" series of articles at the time, and I suppose they were effective in making me believe that a lot of the stuff in JFK was questionable at best. Stone was also the brunt of a good deal of ridicule in popular culture as well and I was young enough to let that ridicule influence my opinion of Stone's work. Truth be told, the film also presented such a huge wall of information in a relatively short period that I wasn't able to properly absorb it all at the time. In the end, I was still pretty much indifferent to the JFK assassination. The thing that turned me around, ironically enough, was Gerald Posner's "Case Closed." I checked it out from the library on a whim and read it straight through. I had no problems with his LN recounting of history until the story of the Tippit shooting. It didn't pass the smell test. Would a guy who had just shot the president and made a squeaky-clean getaway just casually walk toward a policeman that called him over to his police car? That's a red flag for me, but maybe it could be explained away as that Oswald didn't want to act too suspicious right at that moment. Okay, then. But, would a policeman, seeing a person matching the description of the suspect in the killing of the president of the USA, just sit in his patrol car, wave that subject over, and hope that the suspect complies? That doesn't seem plausible and that's a second red flag. But, maybe that can also be explained away as Tippit not wanting to scare the suspect into fleeing. All right, for the sake of argument I can accept that. Yet at this point there is also a third red flag, which is Tippit passing up his first opportunity to call in on his radio and report his location and that he sees a person fitting the description of the suspect being sought. Again, I can set aside even this third red flag for the sake of argument, because maybe at this point Tippit was still evaluating the situation at hand. That's reasonable. So, Oswald walks over to Tippit's police car and the two men either exchange a few words through an open car window. Tippit exits his car, possibly reaching for his gun, when Oswald draws his own gun and shoots Tippit dead as Tippit is crossing the front corner of his police car. Inside that series of events, there's a fourth red flag, and I can't dismiss it as I did the others. I believe, in combination with the other red flags, it's incriminating. After the conversation with Oswald, Tippit, as indicated by his own subsequent actions, seemed to believe that Oswald either needed more interrogation, investigation, or possibly even apprehension. Whatever their conversation, it clearly did not make Tippit believe that Oswald was a person of no further interest. So, why did Tippit again not call in to the police station via his radio and report this encounter with a possible presidential assassin after speaking with Oswald? This is his second opportunity to do so, and his second failure to do so. The first failure to call in can be reasonably rationalized as Tippit possibly needing more information before proceeding. But, after the conversation with Oswald, Tippit had this information and it did not exclude Oswald from being a person of interest. This is where the threads of the LN theory began to unravel for me. I found that the more questions I began to ask, the more uncertain the picture became. Why didn't Oswald have any escape plan? If he killed JFK to "be somebody" and secure his place in history, why did he deny the crime at every opportunity? Why weren't his interrogation sessions recorded? Because there wasn't enough room in the room to have a recording device? Anyone that's seen news footage of that day can see that the narrow hallway outside the interrogation room was crammed with reporters carrying recording equipment, and one recorder couldn't fit in the office? One single stenographer could not be found? Because recording interrogations was just not the way Dallas police did things back then? Please. All this stuff is not conclusive evidence of course, but they're examples of things that just don't pass the smell test. Later learning that Earlene Roberts reported seeing a police car stop and the driver tap his horn twice outside the boarding house during the few minutes that Oswald was inside was a turning point for me, because it explains why Oswald would be unafraid to calmly approach a police car - he had at least one confederate that was a policeman or was posing as one.

If Oswald wanted to kill Connelly instead of JFK, why didn't Oswald fire into Connelly's face when the limo was coming up Houston St.? No obstructions, no other path except going in an almost straight line toward Oswald, so little chance of a quick escape. Where's your evidence that Oswald was nutty? As for your question about why Oswald would get his handgun, I believe very few CT's argue that Oswald was not involved in the assassination in any way. He likely returned to his boarding house to get his gun because he knew plans had already gone awry. That's the way it looks to me. Look at the official version of Oswald's alleged escape route. Do you see the path of a man genuinely trying to make an escape?

This is an interesting thread. I often wonder how people first got into in the JFK assassination and how their thinking evolved as they began to learn more about it. It was one of the reasons I read Mr. Litwin's book. Even if I don't agree with his current conclusion, it might have been enlightening to understand what originally made him think there was a conspiracy, and what happened to change his mind. There's little of that in his book, unfortunately. So, I'm enjoying reading the stories of others describing their intellectual journey regarding this subject.

Hi Lance, nice to talk to you, I enjoy your posts. I am aware of these examples. I did some research before posting this thread. That's why I was so specific in my question. I wonder why it is not obvious to you that you're taking both sides of this argument. You seem to say in one post that you're willing to bet that this Witt protest was maybe the only such recorded public protest of JFK with an umbrella, then you Googled it, and then you came in with an example of JFK being taunted with an umbrella by being sent one by schoolchildren from Bonn as well as quoting an explanation as to why the Kennedy's thought umbrellas to be so utterly vexing. So, if this is true, and umbrellas were indeed a commonly known "sore spot" with the Kennedy's, and finding an example of JFK being mailed an umbrella by Bonn schoolchildren is just a Google search away, surely there are other examples of this type of Umbrella Man protest during one of JFK's public appearances. Remember when someone on another thread recently pointed out that, just before Ruby shot Oswald, a car horn honks just as Oswald is emerging from the doorway in the police station garage and then a second horn honks immediately before Ruby shoots (or the same horn honks again). Someone pointed out that there was a lot of horn honking going on in that garage all day long, and it was silly to associate those two specific honks as signals from a confederate. Okay, I can accept that. A horn honk in a garage is an ordinary event. But it seems to me, by the same logic, if a JFK umbrella protest was even a semi-common occurrence, there should be some other examples of JFK umbrella protests at his many personal appearances around the world over his political lifetime. The LN's argue that an ordinary event has no significance, yet see nothing contradictory in also consistently arguing that extraordinary events also have no significance. When there are so many extraordinary events that defy common sense, does it make sense to continually dismiss them all? You believe that Witt got the idea to heckle JFK from a co-worker who told Witt that the Kennedy's were annoyed by umbrellas. And so, for the first and only time in his life, the slightly conservative but otherwise apolitical Witt decided to protest JFK's public appearance with an umbrella in a way that people all around the world who politically protest on a regular or semi-regular basis (and surely at least one knew of the significance of the umbrella and that Kennedy would be annoyed by it) never did or never even thought to do. Even an average Dallas office worker knows how much the Kennedy's are annoyed by umbrellas, yet you seem to genuinely think it's plausible that Witt was the first and only person in the world during JFK's lifetime to put two-and-two together and heckle JFK in public with an umbrella on a non-rainy day. You seem to say you believe that Witt could literally be the first and last person to ever think of protesting one of JFK's public appearances with an umbrella, and it just happened to be in the very 5.6 seconds JFK was shot. And Witt just happened to be one of only two people who sat down calmly after the assassination when everyone else appeared to still be crouching from the gunfire or running up toward the fence on the knoll. And Witt just by accident, so crazy it's gotta be true, just happened by the bad luck of fate to sit down next to the only other calm man in the area. And the only other calm man just happened to appear to briefly talk into a two-way radio. Bad luck for both these guys. Hey, maybe DC Man's radio was not a two-way radio, but only a transistor radio. Maybe DC Man was just checking the baseball score, or seeing if his favorite song was coming up on the countdown, or something equally believable. I mean, according to Witt, DC Man was traumatized at that moment, but a traumatized man suddenly wanting to listen to the radio seems perfectly logical. It's so wacky, that it has to be true. It's so unbelievable, and that's exactly what makes it believable and why you believe it. But, if it's innocently explained as DC Man holding a transistor radio and wanting to hear his favorite song in a time of extreme stress or checking to see if his favorite team was ahead heading into the ninth, why doesn't he just keep on innocently listening to his radio as common sense would indicate a genuinely innocent person would likely do? Why stuff it in the back of his pants and walk away as if he had someplace to go? (There I go, seeing something suspicious in suspicious behavior and not realizing that because it's so suspicious it's proof of how non-suspicious it really is. Logic so topsy-turvy that it's just gotta be sound.) Why does Witt say he didn't see the assassination because the umbrella was blocking his view? Pictures clearly show the umbrella is over his head. In my opinion "It's so wacky' it's gotta be true" is perhaps not the most effective guiding principle when attempting to evaluate complex evidence from an incomplete record. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not the way I personally would choose to approach the issues.

Hi Lance, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)?

Hi Tracy, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)?

And this is one more I have to point out, because it's an example of how so many things simply don't pass the smell test. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm We're supposed to believe that Witt, who was interested enough to go see JFK and engage in the only act of political protest in his lifetime, wasn't interested enough to read a single book or newspaper article about the assassination that Witt allegedly stood just a few feet away from. You'd think Witt would want to read just one JFK book if only to find out what he'd missed seeing because of the umbrella that was magically simultaneously over his head and blocking his view. He also says that somehow he wasn't aware of the books and controversies in the fifteen years after the assassination. Unless he was living in some arctic wilderness during that time, I don't see how that's possible to be anything but a lie.

It is bizarre how Witt describes the statements he allegedly heard spoken by a woman and DC Man, yet Witt also claims that he didn't know JFK was even shot until after he got back to his workplace. Setting aside everything else for the sake of argument, I just don't see how this is possible or plausible. This blatant contradiction alone would make me suspicious. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm Compare those statements above to the following statements: I could understand Witt going back to work and not knowing that JFK was actually pronounced dead or not, but it doesn't say that Witt came back to the office and was told JFK was dead - only that he was shot. He clarifies it in the second statement in the quoted passages above. Witt was trying to claim that he didn't know JFK was even shot by the time Witt got back to his office. That's impossible for me to believe, and I don't see how anyone could possibly accept these statements as truthful. What did Witt think DC Man and the unidentified woman Witt reportedly overheard repeatedly saying variations of "they were shot" were talking about?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm

These are all good points. My follow-ups to the question I posed in the headline and first post would be: Why does Witt claim to have not seen the assassination because the umbrella was blocking his view, when it's clear that he was holding the open umbrella over his head at the time the shots were fired? What's the innocent explanation for this, or are we wrong when we see Umbrella Man holding the umbrella over his head during the assassination? Why does Witt claim that he didn't even know JFK was shot until Witt had returned to his office? According to his own story, the DC Man and an un-identified woman nearby repeated the word "shot" or some close variation at least twice each. And Witt even demonstrates the rate of gunfire by knocking on the table. And we're supposed to believe that the commotion in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination didn't finally clue him in?

http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2018/10/tosh-plumly-with-rosselli-in-dallas.html http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rich_n.htm Interesting coincidence?

Hi everyone, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)? I have a follow-up question as well. Thanks.

As far as I know the official story has been three shots. I'm not aware of any official story that claims only two. I suppose that if we realistically accept the possibility there there were only two shots, it's not much of a stretch to then suppose that there was maybe really only one shot that went through JFK and Connally, through the limo windshield, looped back around and through the chrome trim, hit the curb near Tague (causing the second sound that only sounded like a gunshot), and then ricocheted back to hit JFK in the head (that being the third loud report) before bouncing back into Connally's clothing and then falling out onto a stretcher. As long as we're thinking about it, perhaps there were no shots fired at all, and JFK's head just spontaneously exploded. All the injuries to Connally and Tague were as a result of being hit by skull fragments. Sounds almost as reasonable to me. But, back here in reality, JFK was hit in the back with a bullet that did not go through his body and only made a shallow wound. JFK was also hit in the front of the throat by a separate bullet. Every medical professional that saw the anterior throat wound before the tracheostomy thought it was one of entrance. There were more fragments left in Connally than could have possibly come from the nearly pristine bullet that was alleged to have caused seven wounds on two men going through at least five layers of clothing and two bones, and then came out of Connally's thigh, on it's own and was not only barely deformed but also clean of blood, tissue, and fibers. Have we all forgotten that the single bullet theory was not one that was arrived at by medical professionals or even the initial FBI investigators, but one that was constructed by WC assistant Arlen Specter, who didn't even look at the autopsy photos or X-Rays?

Okay. I suppose I just misunderstood you. It sounded like you believed Tague was hit by a fragment from the third head shot and that there was no first missed shot.

I don't get what you're trying to say. I'm not saying anything about which shot missed. It seems like you're saying that the shot that hit JFK in the head also produced a fragment that made a mark on the curb near Tague and then bounced and hit Tague on the face? You think a fragment from the headshot went on to strike the curb and Tague, in addition to another shot that missed entirely?

I'm curious. Is there any evidence of anyone else protesting JFK with an umbrella in this manner at any of JFK's other public appearances when it wasn't raining?

Sure. ? It seems like you're saying that the shot that hit also produced a fragment that made a mark on the curb near Tague and then bounced and hit Tague on the face, but that shot was the shot that the WC called a missed shot, wasn't it?

CT's can understand that. Can LN's understand that evidence can be faked and planted? Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces? If LN's are going to rely solely on evidence, why do they wave away any problems with the chain of evidence as immaterial? Of course some witnesses recall things differently, but that doesn't discount the usefulness of witness testimony. With as many people claiming to be lawyers on this forum, that truth should be evident. If someone stole my purple hat, and I call a detective, and the detective finds multiple witnesses all saying they saw someone with a purple hat in their hands running up Main street and going into the orange building, the detective doesn't get to go back to the police station and shrug her shoulders and say "Sorry, I have no leads whatsoever. That hat is as good as gone." IT would be foolish to admit otherwise. LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well. Helen Markham was the most prominent witness relied upon for the Tippit killing, and one of the WC's own investigators admitted that she was a "goofball." But that doesn't stop LN's from believing her and other witnesses. They just accept the ones that support their version of events and discount the ones that don't. Acquilla Clemons, who was NOT called a "goofball" by the WC's own staff, and who says she WAS pressured to keep quiet about what she had seen, is conveniently ignored, and Markham unquestioningly accepted. LN's also seem to completely ignore any witnesses that say they were pressured to change their stories because the investigators had already decided on their conclusion - the same conclusion arrived at just a few hours after the assassination.

Are you seriously suggesting that one of the shots at JFK both hit AND missed? You can't have a shot that hit the target and had a fragment come off, and then call that shot a miss as well.