Denny Zartman

103 days out from the election. From what I've read, Kentucky Governor Beshear IS among those submitting background check information to Harris's team for consideration. But pundits seem to be saying Harris is unlikely to select a running mate for at least two weeks or more. I agree with Jim that it's probably still too early to put much meaning into polls. From what I see many of them are still within the margin of error. It's slightly possible a significant polling gap could happen soon, but I believe the polls that will be taken two weeks after the Democratic convention will give us a better picture. (Of course, the only poll that counts is the one in November.) Debates between Trump and Harris seem to be up in the air right now. Trump appears to be giving some mixed messages, but last I read he had agreed to multiple debates. Secret Service is reportedly urging Trump to hold rallies indoors from now on. I watched the speech Vice President Harris gave yesterday. Right now I'm feeling very good about her and the campaign. But I'm on edge about pretty much everything about the election, since Democrats are historically good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm a bit of an Eeyore. So, I'll try to enjoy the moment, but I fully expect to be back in the doldrums this time next week! That said, Harris's speech was inspiring. She hit the right notes, stayed on message and best of all she didn't go on too long. Her energy and focus was a relief compared to Biden and Trump. (I watch Trump's speeches. They're painful.) It's been a good first two days for the Harris campaign. Democrats seem to be lining up to support her. Fundraising was as good as anyone could want it to be, and it appears that the enthusiasm for Harris is considerable and sizeable at the moment. It may be a honeymoon, or it could be just the beginning, since (as I see it) it's so early in her campaign there's a possibility that her support could grow further. Hopefully Harris can maintain momentum into the convention a little over three weeks from now. Infused with the energy of a younger, newer candidate, it has the potential to be a good convention if they play their cards right.

Kamala Harris secures enough delegates for nomination By Jarrett Renshaw and Nandita Bose July 23, 20243:55 AM EDT July 23 (Reuters) - Vice President Kamala Harris will campaign in the critical battleground state of Wisconsin on Tuesday for the first time as a presidential candidate after enough Democratic delegates pledged to endorse her, clearing her path to the nomination. ... An unofficial survey of delegates by the Associated Press showed Harris with more than 2,500 delegates, well over the 1,976 needed to win a vote in the coming weeks. Delegates could still, technically, change their minds but nobody else received any votes in the AP survey; 54 delegates said they were undecided. ... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-closes-nomination-with-delegates-secured-campaign-wisconsin-2024-07-23/

You did. Good call.

I'm hearing the Harris campaign raised a record $66 million on Sunday, and then promptly broke that record by raising $67 million on Tuesday, all small donations. On the VP nom watch, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's name has been floated in the media and reportedly Walz hasn't ruled it out. Right now it seems to me Kelly and Cooper are at the top. Apparently Cooper and Harris are friendly. It also appears that Beshear's media profile seems to be rapidly rising, so he might be a wild card. I haven't read anything about California Governor Gavin Newsom being in the mix as of yet.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has emerged as another potential VP candidate. I did not know Kentucky had a Democrat as governor. I've only seen a little of him. He seems to be an appealing young man, and winning in such a deep red state is an impressive accomplishment for a Democrat. And as Jim D. pointed out above, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper also looks to be a solid choice from another important battleground state. Also... I couldn't help but notice on CNN this afternoon Maryland Governor Wes Moore dodging the question about being vetted by Harris's team.

Well, it ain't over until it's over. These past eight years have been full of twists and turns, and these past few weeks have been even wilder, like something from a TV series during sweeps. Everything can turn on a dime. It's awfully early in the Post-Biden era of the 2024 campaign, but Harris's record fundraising haul is certainly encouraging. It seems that there's some real enthusiasm and cause for optimism.

It seems Gov. Whitmer is withdrawing herself from consideration. From what I gather, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro are the frontrunners for Vice Presidential candidate.

I'm a "dance with the one that brung ya" and "don't change horses in mid stream" type of person, so normally I would consider replacing Biden as the nominee to be a strategic mistake. And I was rooting for President Biden. I think he has a solid record and I would have gladly cast my ballot for him again. But the debate was a disaster and a change of course was needed. Hopefully the party will line up to support Vice President Kamala Harris. I believe most people want stability and continuity above all, and a smooth passing of the torch from candidate to candidate would help reassure many people, especially with a unified party supporting them. I'm guessing Whitmer and Newsom would be the front runners for Harris's VP pick.

Actor Donald Sutherland passed away at age 88, known for many film roles, including the key role of "X" in Oliver Stone's 1991 film "JFK."

To the owner and the remaining moderators on this forum: The forum looks like garbage, y'all. This new and seemingly incessant use of the term "RFK1A" by Ben Cole is ridiculous. There is no "RFK2A" or "RFK3A" or "RFK4A." Referring to the RFK assassination as "RFK1A" is ridiculous. I open the forum, I see "RFK1A", and the stupidity of it strikes me like an ice cream headache. Why is it being done? Why is it being tolerated? If I'm the only one bugged by it, so be it. But, from my perspective, this is making forum look really bad.

There's no RFK2A, so the term "RFK1A" is complete nonsense. Why is this nonsense being posted? Why is it allowed to be posted? What's the real story? @Benjamin Cole knows there is no RFK2A or RFK3A or RFK4A, ect., but he keeps on posting it anyway. Why? What's actually going on here? No more lies, no more nonsense. What is the point? Am I the only one here who thinks this kind of stuff makes the forum look like garbage?

What is this "RFK1A" bullshit of yours? When did RFK2 get assassinated? Please stop this silly-ass bullshit. This forum looks like garbage, thanks to @Benjamin Cole.

What is this "RFK1A" bullshit? When did RFK2 get assassinated?

Is there no one participating in the RFK assassination discussion section of this forum? Is that why this is posted here?

I guess there are no rules in this forum anymore.

This is not about the JFK assassination. I don't know why you insist on going off topic all the time. Is there really no other place for you to have this discussion? Have you really run out of everything that you have to talk about regarding the JFK assassination? Please stop.

My thanks as well to @Sandy Larsen for his fairness and hard work keeping this forum accurate and equitable under what I know are incredibly difficult conditions. He is to be commended.

Why did you bother to ask for feedback if you've already made up your mind? Why waste everyone's time?

When did I mention photographs? We're not talking about photographs. We're talking about multiple statements. Pat said Jenkins made multiple statements that the wound he saw was in the top of the head. Prove it. Show us two statements and then we can all agree that Pat was right. Pat couldn't provide the proof. I'm sure you can. Read and listen to the statements Jim Jenkins has given over the years. I think you will find no statements where he says in the in the top of the head. That's the claim Pat made and it sure looks like it's completely false.

@James R Gordon Thanks for reaching out to forum members and for summarizing what's been going on from your viewpoint. Let me please say that I've served as a moderator on another website, and I didn't enjoy it at all. It's a difficult job, made much harder if the moderator also wishes to engage in the same discussion and debate as the other regular members do. In sports terms, it's like being a referee and a player at the same time. Regarding Pat Speer: I tapped out early from the most recent argument, so others may wish to get back in the weeds over who started it and who said what, because I don't. From what I understand, Pat claimed Bethesda autopsy witness James Jenkins made multiple statements locating the large head wound as being at the top of the head, but when pressed it seems Mr. Speer was unable to cite one example of Jenkins making this claim. When requested to edit his statements and add qualifiers to show that what he had previously stated as facts was instead his opinion, he apparently refused. I believe people have a right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts. In my personal opinion, I believe Mr. Speer's penalty was justified. In my view, it's not hard to qualify one's statements when stating facts as they are currently understood by that individual. This is not an easy conflict to resolve, so again, I do not envy your job. I think most people would say facts are not a matter of opinion. Facts are facts. But, who is to say what is a definite fact or not, especially when discussing this particular case, where - after more than 60 solid years of intense research - some of the most basic and elemental questions are still total mysteries? Regarding Mark Knight: I only saw a few of his recent posts so I'm not sure what's going on. He really seemed angry, from what I've read. As for my opinion on the present state of the site, I'm unhappy with it, but I've long since come to accept that the forum just is the way it is. There are people in this world that can look at the same set of facts and come away with vastly different takeaways. Takeaways so vastly different that at times it's unbelievable - and unbelievably frustrating. And as for my suggestions at improving the forum, I'll have to give it some more thought. My suggestions might not be good ones anyway. I've been resigned to the fact that the forum is what it is for so long that I haven't devoted much time thinking about what should be changed or how it could be improved. I'll try to get back to you on that. Thanks again.

Thanks for that tip! I didn't know about the Price Exhibits. The letter from Dr. Clark to Dr. Burkley is just the type of information I was looking for. I agree that the earliest statements are the ones most likely to be the most accurate So far I'm referencing: WC H Vol 6 - Testimony WC H Vol 17 CE 392 (Initial written statements from 11/22/63 Drs. Carrico, Perry, Clark, and Jenkins) Press conference from 11/22/63 with Drs. Perry and Clark ARRB Medical exhibits MD 97 and MD 98 (Initial written statements from 11/22 & 11/23/63 by Drs. Baxter and Jones) WC H Vol 21, Price Exhibit #2 (Letter from Dr. Clark to Dr. Burkley, dated 11/23/63) ARRB Medical exhibit MD 99 / WC H vol 21, Price Exhibit #24, Pg 222 (Initial written statement from 11/22/63 by RN Patricia Hutton And this video: Dr. Perry from 1963 (video is labeled as November 27, but according to another source it's from November 22) where he says “Large wound to the head in the right posterior area” - YouTube Real Time 1960’s I don't think it is online, unfortunately. It didn't come up for me in a YouTube search. It was a DVD that came along with the book "In The Eye Of History" by William Law. I'll have to check to see if it's still available or if there is some other way to get the video to you. I'll see what I can do.

I guess Mr. Cole got everyone to agree on another thread that the two assassinations are linked, so it's now open season on RFKA discussion here.

Why should anyone consider voting for a man who could be so easily manipulated by the likes of Mike Pompeo? Why are you going off subject and attacking me about what you imagine are my politics? I make it a point not to post about current political events here.

I guess we've all run out of things to discuss regarding JFK's assassination, huh?

It is very strange, I agree. I wish I knew why this is. The conspirators knew that pictures would say a thousand words for a thousand years, and they were right in that the pictures seemingly have the power to convince even some of those who otherwise believe there was a conspiracy. Jenkins and O'Connor's discussion of the pictures was revealing, and I know that the inconsistencies they highlighted are but a small fraction of the many suspicious details that surround the record. I spent a lot of time over the weekend re-reading the Warren Commission testimony of the medical personnel at Parkland. I also hunted down as many of the earliest statements from the Parkland doctors and nurses as I could find. Reading them and relying only on them - I can't understand how anyone can doubt that the large head wound was observed as being either in the back of the head, or being along the right temple and extending into the back. It just seems abundantly clear, from what I've read and heard. It's a genuine puzzle to me why anyone - especially a conspiracy theorist - would go out of their way to belittle and/or deny what the doctors and nurses at Parkland reportedly observed.