Denny Zartman

I found the article very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. I am always for getting a closer look at the Tippit murder, which remains a huge mystery to me. I think the article makes a persuasive case that Sgt. Kenneth Croy and Capt. W.R. Westbrook were involved with the Tippit shooting. There was a lot to absorb there, and I'm not sure I got it all, but upon first read it didn't seem to conflict with any known facts and seems to be a plausible scenario as I understand it. The information on Oswald's wallets was much appreciated. That has always been deeply suspicious. I'm looking forward to hearing any LN's debate the evidence presented in the link, if they find themselves so inclined. While even J. Edgar Hoover believed that someone was using Oswald's identity, I still have trouble believing that there was an exact double of Oswald running around. It seems implausible to me, but I can't fully dismiss it. The theory does seem to answer some questions: The alleged test drive at the automobile dealership, how George de Mohrenschildt believed Oswald spoke Russian like a native, ect. Right at the moment I remain unconvinced. I would have to study it some more.

-

This was a very interesting speech. It was especially interesting when he pointed out that the telescopic sight at that distance, and on a bolt action instead of an automatic rifle, would actually be a hindrance when trying to re-aim between shots. And I read somewhere a few months back pointing out how silly it was to have three shells on the floor, since the third shell would not have been ejected had the shooter not been preparing for a fourth shot, which brings up the image of LHO seeing JFK's head explode and thinking "Ah, I might need one more to finish the job."

And Mr. King refers to the JFK assassination as "the same simple American story." A guy got lucky. In my opinion that's a very pat way of looking at it. It's easier to say, "a guy got lucky, happens every day" than confront the fact that many political assassins brag about their crimes instead of steadfastly denying them. And we wouldn't want to consider the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, which was both a conspiracy and featured an assassin who literally broke his leg rushing to take credit for his crime.

I find King's afterword very depressing. It's very sad to think that Fidel Castro five days after the assassination had more common sense insight into the crime than Stephen King, who had five decades to think about it. Mr. King says "...all of the accounts, including those written by conspiracy theorists, tell the same simple American story: here was a dangerous little fame-junkie who found himself in just the right place to get lucky. Were the odds of it happening just the way it did long? Yes. So are the odds on winning the lottery, but someone wins one every day." First of all, what kind of reasonable person looks at books like "Crossfire" or "Reclaiming History" and thinks either one of them is telling a "simple" story? When evidence is officially locked away for 75 years, does Mr. King really believe that there's "nothing to see here." Second, if Lee Harvey Oswald was a fame-junkie, why did he take every single opportunity to deny his crime? Third, King characterizes Oswald's circumstance to being in the "right place", and getting "lucky", and even "winning the lottery," when under the BEST circumstances LHO was going to spend the rest of his life behind bars before facing being put to death. In the worst circumstance (which Mr. King compares to "winning the lottery", and which actually did happen) Oswald is killed while in custody. Jack Ruby stalked Oswald at the police department, trying to go into a door when a cop said "You can't go in there, Jack." Ruby admitted to being armed during the press conference where he actually corrected a statement about Oswald and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (interesting that so soon after the assassination a nightclub owner knew more about LHO than the police and all the reporters, isn't it?) Ruby wrote a note saying he made up the "so Jackie wouldn't have to testify" excuse. He practically begged the Warren Commission to take him to Washington to testify because he had important information, and made remarks about how the truth wouldn't be known and implied that LBJ might have even been in on it. Even without all that, in my opinion you would have to be pretty gullible to believe that Ruby just up and decided that he was tired of not living behind bars and would gladly risk Death Row in order to spare a widow he had never met some anguish. It's stunning to think that a man of Stephen King's intelligence wouldn't find anything suspicious.

I am reading "A Citizen's Dissent" right now (strangely enough, I stopped reading "Praise From A Future Generation" to read Lane's book.) Boy, the BBC really did a number on Lane. They invited him to participate in a program with Arlen Specter following a screeing of the film "Rush To Judgment", and then seemingly did everything in their power to stack the deck against him. It was almost comic. Also a relief that the people watching the broadcast still thought Lane won the "debate." And the CBS shenanigans are pretty shocking. I'm reading about how they fudged the rifle tests. Many times they had to stop the test because of rifle difficulties, but didn't ever factor in the stops when calculating the average shooting times.

My current research seems to be pointing toward Allen Dulles as the head of the plot, but most sources I've seen also say Dulles would not have taken any action until he had approval from all the other high level people needed. I personally believe that usual standard deductive reasoning does lead to LBJ. He seems to have had the motive, means, and opportunity. When asked why he would agree to be JFK's VP candidate, LBJ reportedly made comments along the lines of "many presidents have died in office... I'd be a heartbeat away... I'm a gambling man, darlin'". And he did engage in the coverup almost immediately by insinuating that there would be nuclear war if the truth had gotten out. Here's a question: From what I can tell, apparently most researchers do not believe that Hoover and the FBI were the instigators of the plot nor were they involved in the actual assassination. So, it seems that at some point in time someone in authority who was involved in the plot had to have told Hoover how his investigation was going proceed and the predetermined conclusion of a lone shooter. There were phone outages in Washington D.C. immediately following the assassination, but of course Hoover could have been informed prior to November 22. So, who had the ability to contact Hoover, and who had the authority to tell him exactly how the FBI investigation was going to go down? Hoover and LBJ were apparently neighbors and close friends, but this doesn't preclude the possibility of someone like Dulles (who reportedly spent the weekend of the assassination in a CIA compound) giving the ultimate orders. Regardless, I would suppose the list of people that had the authority to tell J. Edgar Hoover what to do would be fairly short. Also, considerable effort was made to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be a Cuban or Russian agent. Was this intended to provide a justification for war against either country in addition to removing JFK? Did LBJ deviate from the goals of the plotters by insisting that LHO be named the lone gunman?

I haven't seen the show nor read the book, and don't plan to. It's hard enough trying to figure this case out without reading fictional accounts. Plus, King's writing quality has declined, in my opinion. After reading "Doctor Sleep" I have no interest in reading a new novel by him anytime soon. For what it's worth, apparently 11-22-63's executive producer and screenwriter Bridget Carpenter changed her mind and rejected the lone gunman theory after working on the miniseries. http://www.star-telegram.com/living/article60025591.html The relevant quote is pasted below. (I'm having terrible trouble copying and pasting for some reason. Is this a common problem on this site? Even pasting web page text into a word document and then re-copying and pasting it here doesn't seem to work consistently.) - Bridget Carpenter — the writer/producer who developed the new miniseries version of King’s acclaimed bestseller — used to accept the Lone Gunman Theory as fact, too. “But after two years of working on Stephen’s story, I don’t believe it anymore,” she says. “There were too many strange things surrounding Oswald for me to believe he did it completely alone.” Carpenter, the executive producer and showrunner for 11.22.63 (which debuts Monday — Presidents Day — on Hulu), suspects now that Oswald had to have been connected to the CIA, that maybe he went rogue in Dallas on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963, that a massive cover-up was organized to hide the embarrassing truth.

Didn't the FBI initially conclude that three bullets hit the two men?

Hi everyone, I'm a forum lurker, and decided to join after hearing the news of Mark Lane's passing. He really was a pioneer as part of the first generation of JFK research and inspiration for many with his tireless work. The entire US government was working against him, and it's hard to imagine the resentment he must have also generated from average Americans merely for daring to defend Oswald. He also did this at a time when JFK research was literally in it's infancy. When you think of how much has been learned since 1964, it's pretty amazing how he was able to do so much with (relatively) so little. In the past few weeks I had been listening to his debates posted on YouTube, and am continually impressed with his passion, thoroughness, and wit. It's easy to hear that anyone debating him was up against a formidable intellect. The debate with William F. Buckley also demonstrates how unflappable Lane was. Thanks to everyone for sharing their personal moments with him.

I'm an actor, writer, and musician, currently living in Atlanta, Georgia.