Denny Zartman

I just happened to be working on this subject and happened to see this thread. The pdf link in the first post is dead. Does anyone have a working link or a copy?

I'm not doubting James DiEugenio or Larry Hancock, two researchers I respect and to whom I will defer. They say they're not at liberty to discuss the details, so I don't feel comfortable pressing them for more information or making guesses even though I still don't fully understand. The fact that there's still legal sensitivity right this minute regarding Hunt's JFK assassination confession, even though Hunt's been dead for over a decade, speaks for itself.

I'm not down, David. I'm as happy as a bug in a rug. Thanks for your reply. You make some good points in your post, but I don't see anything that would cause me to believe that E. Howard Hunt definitely wasn't involved on some level. I don't need to be "persuaded" to believe the verdict of the retrial of Hunt v Liberty Lobby. That verdict alone is enough to settle the issue in my mind. The other instances are supporting circumstantial evidence. The questions for me now are: to what extent was Hunt involved, what role did he play, and how much (if any) of his alleged confession is accurate? Hunt died in 2007 and "Mary's Mosaic" was published in 2012. Hunt certainly didn't use "Mary's Mosaic" as his source on Cord Meyer, and I'm reasonably certain author Peter Janney didn't rely solely upon Hunt's confession as his source of information regarding Cord Meyer's possible involvement or Cord's quote at the end blaming Mary's death on the same people who killed Kennedy. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am. I understand being suspicious of Thornley. He was not a professional researcher, and from what I've read, some suspect him of intentionally planting disinformation that would tend to incriminate Oswald. You rightly pointed out his error in Hunt's first name, a simple one that should have been caught by Thornley or his editors somewhere along the way. It's only the preface of a short novel, for goodness' sake. I wonder how Thornley knew Hunt was Atsugi when Thornley claims to have not met Hunt at the time? How did anybody know who Hunt was at that time anyway? Accepting all the understandable skepticism about Thornley, it still stands that Thornley did know Oswald in the Marines, so he's always going to have some inherent value as a witness. Judging by Thornley's other book "Oswald", Thornley is a LN. What would motivate an LN to make up a lie about knowing Hunt on CIA assignment at Atsugi at the same time as Oswald? That kind of lie is not in the LN wheelhouse. If it was a lie to get attention and sell more books, why not play it up more instead of an offhand reference in a preface? If it was a lie to get attention and sell more books, why not at least get Hunt's first name right? Setting aside Thornley's statement and Hunt's confession for the moment, how do you explain Sheeran's linking of Hunt and Ferrie? How do you explain Haldemans belief about Nixon's references to the Bay of Pigs? I don't believe Hunt was just a dying old man poking around on the internet collecting little bits of JFK conspiracy theories to set his kid up with a book deal after he died. (JFK conspiracy theories that Hunt just happened to "get lucky" to have been in litigation about.) I'd say it's arguable that at a moment in time Nixon's presidency hinged on keeping E. Howard Hunt quiet about what Hunt knew, and Nixon's Chief of Staff has stated for the record that he thought those secrets Hunt was involved in included the JFK assassination. I believe history has proven beyond a doubt that E. Howard Hunt was as involved in top-level clandestine government activity as anyone has ever been. Simply put, he was in a position to know. He was in extended litigation to try and deny being in Dallas on the day of the assassination, and he lost that lawsuit in a retrial.

I'm slowly moving to the stage when I'm forcing myself to draw some conclusions about this case, and one of them is believing that E. Howard Hunt likely did play a role in the JFK assassination. Losing the retrial of Hunt v Liberty Lobby. That alone would seem to prove Hunt's involvement on some level. H.R, Haldeman believed that when Nixon was discussing hush payments to Hunt during Watergate and referring to "the Bay of Pigs", Nixon was actually referring to the JFK assassination. In the book "I Heard You Paint Houses" by Charles Brandt, 2016 edition, pgs 128 - 129: Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran, a labor union official that worked for Russell Bufalino, (Mafia boss of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Bufalino family from 1959 to 1989) and labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa, describes meeting Carlos Marcello’s (Mafia boss of New Orleans) pilot David Ferrie (initially the central figure in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s 1966 JFK investigation.) Sheeran says that some time before the 1961 failed Bay Of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he was told by Hoffa to drive a truck to Baltimore, Maryland, and meet Ferrie at a landing strip at the Harry C. Campbell concrete plant. A group of soldiers loaded military uniforms, weapons, and ammunition onto Sheeran's truck and Sheeran drove the weapons to Orange Grove, Florida. According to Sheeran, Ferrie told him to deliver the weapons to E. Howard Hunt., even describing Hunt’s large ears. Sheeran says he delivered the weapons to Hunt and a group of anti-Castro Cubans. In the book "The Idle Warriors" by Kerry Thornley, 1991 edition, pg 13, Thornley, who served with Oswald in the Marine Corps, writes in the preface "When I was stationed at Atsugi Naval Air Station undergoing much of the grist for this book, Edward Howard Hunt (the Watergate burglar was also there, on CIA assignment. We did not meet, but I was an outspoken radical with a reputation for "stirring up s**t" and so, perhaps, I came to his attention." Hunt appears to name Cord Meyer as one of the principal figures in the conspiracy, which seems to line up with the revelations in the 2012 book "Mary's Mosaic" by Peter Janney. Add the confession on top of all that, and in my personal opinion it's fairly compelling circumstantial evidence from a variety of disparate sources. There may even be other stories placing Hunt on the periphery or the inside of the JFK assassination. Judging from Thornley's other book "Oswald", he seems to be firmly in the LN camp, so the motive to make up a lie about Hunt being at Atsugi on CIA assignment at the same time Oswald was there seems questionable. At least, that's the way I look at it.

I believe I've seen Angleton named in several books; Mary's Mosaic, Oswald And The CIA, and another one I can't recall off the top of my head that mentioned he was seen at a location possibly rummaging for evidence as he was alleged to have done in Mary's Mosaic. He certainly seems to be a suspicious individual with the means and opportunity.

I agree. I was going to mention Bethesda, but I didn't want to clutter up my original post with too much stuff. Rich right wing oilmen and the Mafia are certainly powerful and had motives, but could they get into the operating room at Bethesda? My instinct says it is unlikely. For me, this is part of trying to untangle the puzzle. A lot of time and effort was spent making Oswald look like a Castro & Russian sympathizer, and it would have been easy for the government to use JFK's assassination as pretext for attacking Cuba and/or the USSR. Yet the cover story of Oswald acting completely alone appears to have been implemented almost immediately. Some seem to theorize that that indicates the conspirators and those doing the cover-up were two different groups. I find that hard to believe. I also don't believe that Hoover and the FBI would have immediately jumped in of their own volition and almost immediately start covering up a crime that they didn't know the truth about. All the logic seems to indicate that either Hoover must have been told in advance by someone fairly high ranking or that there was someone above Hoover that was able to get in contact with him minutes after the assassination and tell him how the lone assassin scenario was going to go down. Angleton? Helms? LeMay? LBJ? Someone else?

I look forward to hearing it. I just received The Inheritance and Who's Who In The Secret Service too.

In my opinion, logic seems to suggest a conspiracy would have to have originated from J. Edgar Hoover, or from someone with the authority and ability to tell J. Edgar Hoover what the official story was going to be. Since few people seem to believe that an assassination plot is the FBI's type of thing, I'd guess that it's more likely this instruction to Hoover came from outside. But who really had the authority to tell Hoover (either before the assassination or immediately afterward) that a lone nut was to be the assigned patsy? Who even had the ability to speak to Hoover one on one, much less have the authority to get him to follow an instruction such as this? There seems to be at least one obvious person who fits the bill, but I wanted to pose the questions to the forum before doing any more guessing. Thanks!

Merry Christmas, everyone. I hope everyone has a peaceful and happy day.

Hi Robert, I haven't read Farewell America yet. Looks like it's out of print. The copies I do see for sale are pretty pricey now, but it appears to be reproduced online here: Farewell America I'll definitely check it out. It sounds interesting and your summary appears reasonable.

James, in my humble opinion you deserve a lot of credit for being here to counter the seemingly constant stream of disinformation coming from the loyal opposition. I don't know how you find the patience, but it is appreciated. You have an enviable grasp of the facts of this case. I apologize for engaging the person who started this thread when I should have known better. I'll try not to make that mistake again in the future. After thinking about it carefully these past few days, I've come to the conclusion it appears there's only so much that can be accomplished by debating the same points again and again with people who have no inclination to consider anything but a lone assassin. That is their right to hold that belief and I respect that right. I've just come to think that little of anything productive can come from repeatedly going in circles. If someone has gotten this far in life learning about the details of the JFK assassination and truly finds nothing at all suspicious about it, I doubt that can ever be changed. I believe in strong advocates for all sides. I still support the most rigorous examination of the evidence and the most vigorous debate possible among those who passionately represent their side of the issue. I hope this examination and debate will continue. I also understand the visceral appeal and the value of the intellectual exercise that comes with arguing about any controversial and complex case. But, if there are people who are arguing almost entirely just for the sake of argument and treating debate like a game, in my opinion that's barely better than trolling. Unfortunately, I believe many of the regular members on this forum are vulnerable to that sort of trolling behavior precisely because they take this case seriously. If we lose thoughtful and knowledgeable forum members like Joe Bauer, the quality of the forum will decline. I know that I have not posted much, but I've been lurking and reading for years. In my opinion, the quality of the forum declines when certain members use the forum for personal amusement and intellectual sport instead of the valuable resource it is.

I agree, that's an impressive amount of work. Thanks for sharing it and doing all that research.

Hey Lance? I'm going to be completely serious here. From your posts on other threads, it appears that part of the reason you're debating on this forum is for the fun of it, for the intellectual exercise, and to rile up the CT's. If I've mischaracterized your reasons, I apologize. While I appreciate having a loyal opposition and a vigorous examination of all the evidence from every perspective possible, I confess that I'm not inclined to spend my time debating with you if you're not going to debate with me in good faith. Please, either stop with the personal insults, or, if you truly think I'm nutty, please just put me on ignore. Thanks. You keep saying that they're "penniless" as well, when that's also not true. In his three wallets, Oswald had a total of $183.87 on November 22, 1963. That's not penniless. You have no evidence that Ruth Paine took other poor people into her home to live. You have no evidence that Ruth Paine cold-called any other businesses and got someone else a job anywhere at any time. I have to note that here you don't deny the fact that Ruth Paine kept evidence at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive camera that this, according to your description, "penniless" couple was somehow able to purchase despite the camera having a serial number that indicated it wasn't for retail sale, and that the Dallas police actively tried to hide. If the conclusion of the HSCA report was based on an acoustics analysis that you honestly believe has been "thoroughly discredited", then instead of debating someone online that you find "nutty", perhaps you should using your time writing to an American congressperson or another government official and urging them to support a new investigation. Until the official stance of the US government is changed, the unpleasant fact will remain: the US government currently opines that the JFK assassination was probably as a result of conspiracy. (And let's be perfectly honest here. The only reason that it's "probably" instead of "definitely" is that the HSCA couldn't rule out the possibility that two assassins working independently of each other just happened to choose the same six second window of time to shoot at JFK. Given the sheer number of coincidences that LN's accept unquestioningly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of them accept that as well.) "Widely considered to be discredited" is not the same as "thoroughly discredited." In my opinion, facts are not nonsense and fluff. I believe facts are essential to untangling this case and trying to discover the truth about what happened. You have not refuted a single assertion of fact that I've made in this thread. You're trying to argue your way around their significance and the conclusions a reasonable person could infer from those facts, but you can't deny the facts themselves. Here you go. https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpaine.htm

Sorry to intrude, but I had to say that I'm damn honored to be included on that list of names. And I should say that in my opinion you enhance the forum and don't detract from it at all. Much appreciated, Joe.

This thread is about George de Mohrenschildt, you claim it's not about George de Mohrenschildt, and you're calling me delusional? On this we agree. Sure, whatever you say. Unfortunately, until it is changed, the position of the United States government still stands to this day: JFK was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. Don't like it? Write a congressman. Ruth Paine set Oswald up with his job at the TSBD. Ruth Paine had evidence at her home that the Dallas police tried to hide. You can not provide any evidence whatsoever to the contrary. You don't know Ruth Paine and neither do I. She certainly did have something to do with the Kennedy assassination, as the accused assassin's family and the murder weapon were kept at her home along with an expensive camera that the police actively tried to cover up and that you can only continue to ignore. Instead of continuing to think uncritically, why not ask why the Dallas police department would feel the need to even try to cover up that camera? Paine got the accused assassin his job at the TSBD, placing him at the scene of the crime. The accused assassin denied the crime and claimed to be a patsy. It seems that true critical thinking would demand one examine the circumstances placing the accused assassin at the scene of the crime, and there is no person, including Oswald himself, that was responsible for placing Oswald at the scene of the crime other than Ruth Paine. You really seem to know nothing at all about critical thinking. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Courts convict people on circumstantial evidence all the time. And you have not countered a single piece of the circumstantial evidence I've cited. You only continue to claim it doesn't exist. I'm not the one being delusional. I will accept your admission of defeat in this debate. We'll end it here. I'll do my best to refrain from responding to your posts in the future. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

If that's true, why didn't the WC identify Titovets as one of Oswald's friends? If that's true, why didn't the WC identify any member of the Ziger family as one of Oswald's friends? For goodness sake, why do you keep saying this? You might not find it unlikely, but de Mohrenschildt himself said he wouldn't have contacted Oswald in a million years had it not been for the encouragement of a man in the CIA. Paine was the key factor in putting the man accused of the assassination at the scene of a crime for which the accused claimed he was a patsy and that the US government now officially believes was a probable conspiracy. Paine also kept evidence at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive camera that was not available for retail sale, and that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up. If you don't find any of that suspicious, I wonder what you would find suspicious. I don't think it's that hard to understand. de Mohrenschildt and Paine were Oswald's handlers. Moore made it clear that de Mohrenschildt might get assistance in Haiti if de Mohrenschildt debriefed Oswald about the USSR. de Mohrenschildt introduced Paine to Oswald. Paine took in Marina and the children because she knew Oswald was always likely to return to them, so that made it easier to keep tabs on him.

The topic of this thread is George de Mohrenschildt. I have plenty of circumstantial evidence, topped by the fact that she cold-called the TSBD and got Oswald a job there a week and a month before the assassination. CIA man Moore encouraged de Mohrenschildt to meet Oswald. In de Mohrenschildt's own words "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it." de Mohrenschildt, a globetrotting socialite with connections to French, German, and American intelligence, encouraged Oswald to move to Dallas. de Mohrenschildt introduced Oswald to Paine, a woman whose husband and brother in law held high security clearances, whose father was suspected of working for the CIA, and whose sister straight up worked for the CIA. Paine takes in Oswald's wife and kids, had the alleged assassination rifle in her garage, had an expensive spy camera that wasn't for retail sale that the Dallas police actively tried to cover up, and, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, Paine cold-called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge, and Paine got Oswald his job there. Paine set up Oswald. Paine set Oswald up with a job at the TSBD. There is a clear line from CIA man Moore, to intelligence connected de Mohrenschildt, to CIA connected Ruth Paine, that brings Oswald to Dallas Texas and puts him inside the TSBD on November 22, 1963. You seem to believe all this happened innocently. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about credulous. I assume you believe one can walk through a thunderstorm and not get wet as long as one walks between the raindrops. I looked through much of Paine's testimony. I could find no other instance in her life where she had taken in a young family and let them live in her home. When exchange students came in from the Soviet Union, she didn't take them in. Do you have any evidence that Paine had taken a needy person or family and allowed them to live in her home done before or after, or are you completely comfortable that, with the Oswald's, this was just a unique, innocent event? According to Roy Truly, he had never talked to Ruth Paine before she cold-called Truly. Let's also note that Paine called the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge. Do you have any evidence that Paine had called up businesses before and found any other needy unemployed person a job, or, again, are you okay with the fact that this was another innocent and unique event? The current official position of the government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of conspiracy. If a conspiracy was probable, it only makes sense to consider the circumstances that led Oswald to be at the scene. This isn't a case of "I knew a friend in college that later committed a crime, does that make me responsible?" What kind of critical thinking is that? This is a case of a probable conspiracy. If you had a friend in college that was later accused of committing a crime and she said she was being set up to take the fall for the crime, and it turned out that YOU were the one responsible for your friend being at the scene of the crime on the day the crime was committed, you better believe that you're a suspect. In what world would you not be a suspect?

Do you agree that he probably did not act alone?

I have to disagree with you somewhat here, or at least argue that this behavior is not widespread and shared equally by both sides. For example, very few serious CT'rs believe that George Hickey Jr. shot JFK by accident. That's a theory that has gotten a fair amount of media coverage due to Mortal Error and JFK: The Smoking Gun, but again, from what I've seen, few serious CT'rs endorse it. On the LN side, it seems that whenever I'm on an online forum and the subject of the JFK assassination comes up, invariably someone will suggest the possibility that Oswald was actually intending to kill Connally, a theory I find fairly ridiculous.

Since we're trying to stay away from wild speculation, what documented behavior are you basing this belief that Oswald was saving his reasons for killing JFK so that he could deliver a political polemic at his trial, or delaying taking credit for the actions that he thought would bring him fame in Cuba? If killing JFK would make Oswald a hero in Cuba, why did Castro initially respond to the news of JFK's killing by saying it was very bad?

Interesting post, Tracy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate you attempting to save others from wasting their time on conspiracy theories, but unless I'm mistaken the current position of the US government is that the JFK assassination was probably a conspiracy. So, those who believe it was probably or definitely not a conspiracy are on the wrong side of the official position and are (in my opinion) arguably the ones that are wasting their time, not conspiracy theorists. Even the WC did not say that there wasn't a conspiracy, only that they could find no evidence of one. Members of the WC expressed doubt in the single bullet theory, which most of us seem to agree is essential in advocating the theory of a lone assassin. Lyndon Johnson himself said he wasn't able to completely dismiss the possibility of conspiracy.

I get what you're saying here. I've thought that about those researchers who are into Jack the Ripper. It's no fun for them if the case is solved, so there's equal enthusiasm for knocking down other theories as there is for promoting one above the others. But there Lone Assassin theory supporters who I assume find it fun because they keep coming back to argue a case that, for them, is already settled.

Hi Lance, That's a good post with a lot of points worthy of consideration and discussion. I agree with a few of them. It seems to me there are people on the Lone Assassin side that are just as determined to continue debating this subject as are people who favor the idea of conspiracy. I find that strange, because for those on the Lone Assassin side there is nothing left to be investigated. As far as Lone Assassin supporters are concerned, the case is solved. Yet there are those still determined to debate the details again and again. I don't know what drives them. At least those on the conspiracy side are still ostensibly investigating unresolved issues and have some excuse to keep pursuing the case and debating the fine points. If I recall correctly, the idea of a benign cover-up was promoted by Newsweek the year Oliver Stone's JFK came out. So you're right in that a benign cover-your-ass cover-up was not exactly a new idea, but I believe the theory has been out there long enough to say that it's probably been given an adequate amount of attention. In my view, the problem with that theory is that it still doesn't explain a few important things. What about the instances of foreknowledge, like the Odio incident? What was Oswald's motive? Why didn't Oswald have a getaway plan? If Oswald was truly acting alone, why did some people receive death threats against their families ordering them to keep quiet? I'll try to address some of your other points in future posts.

Thanks David. Your statement is just true. From what I know, there is no medical evidence that indicates the bullet went through the body. I'm hoping Paul can provide it. Humes could feel the end of the opening with his finger. Testimony from Jenkins and Knudsen indicate probes were also used. I've never heard of a single X-Ray or any other medical examination that indicated a bullet pathway. From what I understand, after Humes probed the wound, there was confusion in the autopsy room as to where the bullet went. When they doctors were alerted to the discovery of CE 399 in Parkland, they concluded that the bullet must have worked its way out of the shallow back wound during cardiac massage. To the best of my knowledge, the doctors at the autopsy did not conclude that the bullet traveled through the body and exited the throat. Where is the medical evidence that shows us that there was a bullet hole that was tracked from point A on his back to point B on the front of his throat? What is the medical explanation for Humes saying he could feel the end with his finger, if the bullet hole did indeed traverse the body? I hope Paul can explain this.

Excuse me, Paul, The doctors at the autopsy probed JFK's back wound. Humes could feel the end of it with his finger. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, the single bullet theory ends there. Please. Where is your medical evidence that JFK's back wound was tracked through JFK's body and to the front of JFK's throat?