Denny Zartman

I look forward to your reply. Thanks.

Hi Vince, I just finished listening to your interview. It was excellent, and sure didn't feel like 90 minutes. I had not heard about Thomas Shipman before, and that was a fascinating story. I'm getting Who's Who In The Secret Service for myself for Christmas. I look forward to reading it. It's great to read your posts on this forum and to have the opportunity to benefit from your expertise. Thanks!

It couldn't happen under innocent terms because they didn't casually meet. The only reason De Mohrenschildt and Oswald were ever introduced to each other was because Dallas CIA domestic contacts man J. Walton Moore wanted it to happen. According to the Warren Commission, George De Mohrenschildt was the only person even close to being Oswald's friend. They wouldn't commit to even that, saying only that Oswald may have respected De Mohrenschildt a bit. Otherwise, Oswald had no friends, at least as far as they could determine. If Oswald were really and truly the type of genuinely sympathetic human being that could innocently engender a friendship with a sophisticated stranger, don't you think that he have happened on at least one or two other friends in his life, even if by accident? Oswald didn't make friends with anyone at any of the places he worked. Oswald wasn't even able to develop a friendship with Buell Wesley Frazier, despite riding in his car alone with him regularly.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diary/dem.htm De Mohrenschildt did not become friends with Lee Harvey Oswald on a whim or by accident. De Mohrenschildt was encouraged to meet Oswald by CIA domestic contacts man J. Walton Moore, and that is the only reason De Mohrenschildt ever met Oswald, according to De Mohrenschildt himself.

François, Sure. Ruth Paine was an average Dallas housewife who 1. just happened to have a husband and brother in law with high level military clearance, who 2. just happened to have a sister who straight up worked for the CIA, who 3. just happened to be acquainted with a globetrotting socialite with intelligence connections to three countries, who 4. just happened to speak Russian, who 5. just happened to get on the telephone herself, dial up the TSBD, and get Lee Harvey Oswald a job there one month and one week before the assassination, who 6. just happened to have had Oswald's belongings at her home, including the alleged murder weapon and an expensive miniature spy camera with a serial number that indicated it wasn't for retail sale (and that the Dallas cops tried to cover up and call a light meter for totally innocent reasons.) François Carlier, you say in your bio that you're interested in critical thinking, but you seem to be very credulous when it comes to Ruth Paine and the JFK evidence in general. You really believe that all those things cited in the above paragraph are just coincidences? You believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was some sort of nutty, violent, unstable loner with delusions of grandeur, but that he also had such an absolutely charming and winning personality that people like Paine and de Mohrenschildt were just irresistibly attracted to him and driven to help him out in every way possible? Ruth Paine certainly did do something on purpose before the assassination. Ruth Paine took in Lee Harvey Oswald's family. Ruth Paine allowed Oswald to keep the murder weapon at her home. Ruth Paine got on the telephone, Ruth Paine cold-called up the TSBD and Ruth Paine got LHO a job in a building that overlooked the motorcade route. You can't deny the facts. CIA domestic contacts man J Walton Moore encouraged French, German, and American intelligence connected upper class socialite George de Mohrenschildt to meet Oswald. "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it." de Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to move his family to Dallas. de Mohrenschildt introduced Oswald to Ruth Paine, a woman whose sister was in the CIA and whose husband and brother in law both held high level military clearances. Ruth Paine got Oswald his job at the TSBD, and had some of his belongings at her home, including a spy camera that the police actively attempted to cover up. How much more blatant does a pattern have to be before a person can reasonably find it suspicious?

In one of the first conversations I ever had with anyone about the assassination, my friend said "Guys like George de Mohrenschildt don't just 'make friends' with guys like Lee Harvey Oswald." If we believe the Warren Commission, de Mohrenschildt, a high-society man with connections to German, French, and American intelligence was possibly LHO's only friend. CIA domestic contact service man J. Walton Moore tells de Mohrenschildt to make contact with Oswald. de Mohrenschildt later says "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years, if Moore had not sanctioned it." de Mohrenschildt convinces Oswald to move to Dallas. de Mohrenschildt introduces Oswald to Ruth Paine, average Dallas housewife that just happens to have CIA and high level military connections herself. Ruth Paine helps Oswald get a job at the TSBD a month and a week before the assassination.

I just finished reading "I Heard You Paint Houses" (2016 paperback edition), and I think there are some portions worthy of further discussion that weren't fully touched on in the posts above. This is my breakdown of the portions of the book I think are most relevant to the JFK assassination: Frank Sheeran, a labor union official, worked for Russell Bufalino, (Mafia boss of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Bufalino family from 1959 to 1989) and labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Sheeran had a criminal career from 1945 to 1975, including multiple murders. Sheeran claims to have murdered Hoffa in 1975. Pg. 119 – Sheeran says he met Jack Ruby several times. Sheeran says that he saw Ruby in the company of Sam Giancana (the boss of the Mafia’s Chicago Outfit from 1957–1966), and Paul “Red” Dorfman (the head of the Chicago Waste Handler's Union and a member of the Chicago Outfit.) Pgs. 128 – 129 – Sheeran 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. Pgs 162 – 163 – Sheeran says that a few days before the JFK assassination he was told by Russell Bufalino to go to a restaurant in New York, New York. At the restaurant Sheeran was given a duffel bag of what he assumed to be rifles and was instructed to take the bag to David Ferrie at the concrete plant landing strip in Baltimore, Maryland. Sheeran says that he did as instructed, delivering the bag to Ferrie and another man that Sheeran declined to name but recognized as a member of New York’s Genovese crime family. Pgs 241-242 – Sheeran claims that in October 1974 Jimmy Hoffa gave Sheeran more details about Sheeran’s November 1963 mission to Baltimore, Maryland. Hoffa allegedly told Sheeran: - The duffel bag contained high powered rifles intended for the JFK assassination - The rifles were replacements for rifles that were in the trunk of a Ford Thunderbird that was totaled in a drunk driving accident - Ferrie was delivering the replacement rifles - Actual police officers, and conspirators posing as police officers, were part of the assassination - Policemen friends of Jack Ruby were originally intended to kill Oswald, but somehow Ruby “bungled” it, and had to take care of Oswald himself - Ruby feared being tortured and murdered if he failed to kill Oswald - Mob bosses Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, and Santo Trafficante Jr. (Mafia boss of Florida and Cuba) were involved in the assassination - Says that all the conspirators were also involved in the Bay Of Pigs Pgs 332 – 335 – Author Charles Brandt questions Sheeran about why so many people were involved in the killing of Jimmy Hoffa. Sheeran responds that it is essentially a precautionary measure for the assassins. A single assassin would themselves be killed after the assassination just to keep things quiet, but when multiple assassins are used in a hit, the conspirators are not likely to have all the assassins killed.

This whole post was well-said, and a excellent defense of hardworking people like Roberts. What kind of attention-getting or exaggerated story is that anyway? If Earlene Roberts was truly the type who wanted to exaggerate a detail to get attention, doesn't it seem logical that Oswald would be the subject? Imagine the attention she would have gotten if she told the world that Oswald passed by her muttering a confession to killing JFK and his intent to kill a policeman next.

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?