Denny Zartman

A few more notes on the book: I asked Jefferson Morley about Chana Willis. Willis claims that late in his life her father Freddie Philmon Spainhouer told her that he had led a Naval photo intelligence team in Dealey Plaza, and that Oswald was part of that team. Morley shot it all down immediately. Willis is apparently in the process of writing a book. In her "Killing Kennedy" interview she claims her father taught her photo manipulation techniques in a sub-basement of the Dallas Police station. I imagine details like that would be fairly easy to verify, which would go some way in judging her basic honesty. I'd go along with doubting her at this point, but her story is interesting and sometimes sounds plausible. Also, I have a nagging recollection of reading something long ago about a JFK film shot from another angle. My memory is that it was a brief scene from a short story or novel but I could be wrong on that. So, in my view jury's out on Willis until we see what kind of evidence she may have to back up the story about her father. Saint John Hunt is a different story, because his father was unquestionably an insider involved with clandestine criminal political activity. E. Howard Hunt has also been linked with the JFK assassination outside of Saint John's claims. Kris Millegan, who has done extensive studies on secret societies, is the son of Lloyd S. Millegan, former CIA branch chief. Kris believes that Edward Lansdale was a key planner of the JFKA. Toni Glover, who was eleven years old at the time of the assassination had a very interesting little thing she said in passing. She claims to have woken early on the 22nd to get the newspaper and find out the final route of the presidential motorcade. Was the final route of the motorcade really not publicly known until the morning of the 22nd? If so, then doesn't that blow a hole in the lone assassin theory? Glover recalls the man with the seizure and that the ambulance arrived a few minutes before JFK. She also says that the first shot was not recognizable to her as a rifle shot, while the second shot definitely was. Pat Hall's grandmother owned & rented Oswald the room at North Beckley. Hall was also eleven at the time, and remembers Oswald as a friendly and gentle person who would stop what he was doing and play with the kids. She also claims Oswald stopped a fight between her brothers and admonished them against the use of violence.

I had already forgotten about it as life has been busy. Here are a few of my notes from the book. Larry Rivera believes he has proven it is Roscoe White's body in the backyard photos. I'm not clear exactly how, since he mentions pupillary distance, and I'm not sure how he determined that from Oswald's face. There is a brief mention of a mock JFK trial held in Houston in 2017, but no more detail. I've since learned that there have been seven mock trials? That's totally new to me. I had only been aware of one. Larry Rivera mentions an author named Fred Newcomb, who wrote a book with Perry Adams in 1971 called "Murder From Within" Newcomb interviewed a number of witnesses, and Rivera has heard the tapes of these interviews. Apparently multiple police officers at the scene say the Zapruder film doesn't reflect what they saw that day. Other than that, there's not much more detail about what's on these tapes. Rivera believes alternate patsies were Buell Wesley Frazier, another TSBD employee named Joe Molina, and Billy Lovelady, and that these alternate patsies explain the different "mistaken" identifications of the assassination rifle. Rivera also believes Bill Shelley was Oswald's handler. The interview with William Matson Law was good. Law sounds genuine. I'm a fan of his work. One interesting tidbit I hadn't heard before: Law says he spoke with Marina on the phone and that Marina told him that she took the backyard photos, but that Lee was holding something other than a rifle. She doesn't specify what it was. I know Judyth Vary Baker is controversial and that many doubt her. When considering the whole case, I mentally edit her out of the equation, like I do with Beverly Oliver. So, I haven't looked into Baker's story closely. She seems to have convinced some researchers that she's genuine. I don't know what evidence they're basing their belief on. I can only assume it's more than just her word. But in this interview one of the things she claims is that James Angleton was Oswald's direct handler, and I have a tremendous difficulty believing this was the case. I want to be fair, but honestly there were more than a few things she said that made me feel skeptical.

Thanks to @Joe Bauer and everyone for sharing their memories with us here.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

It was cool. It just ended now. Very interesting talk. The hour flew by!

How much you want to bet that it will be back here in no time?

Killing Kennedy - Book by Jack Roth, 2022 - The researchers: David Mantik Doctor, physicist, and author, made detailed studies of the autopsy X-rays and Zapruder film. Larry Rivera Engineer, author of "The JFK Horsemen", photo analysis and motorcade motorcycle escort officers expert. Phil Nelson Author of several non-fiction books, including "LBJ: The Mastermind Of The JFK Assassination" and "LBJ: From Mastermind To Colossus." William Matson Law Author of "In The Eye Of History" interviewed key witnesses to JFK's autopsy. Vince Palamara Author of several JFK books and the foremost civilian expert on the Secret Service. - New Orleans Summer of 1963: Ed Haslam Jr. Author "Dr. Mary's Monkey" about Oswald, David Ferrie, and Mary Sherman, a JFK mistress murdered in New Orleans in 1964. Judyth Vary Baker Scientist, author of "Me And Lee", claims to have been Oswald's mistress and partner in cancer research with Oswald and David Ferrie. Victoria Sulzer High school classmate of Lee Harvey Oswald, friend of Mary Sherman. - My father was in the CIA: Saint John Hunt Son of Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt, who late in life claimed low-level involvement in the JFKA. Peter Janney Son of CIA official Wistar Janney and author of "Mary's Mosaic" about childhood friend, ex-CIA wife, and JFK mistress Mary Pinchot Meyer. Chana Willis Daughter of Navy photographic intelligence officer Freddie Philmon "Phil" Spainhouer, who allegedly filmed the assassination from another angle. Kris Millegan Son of CIA branch chief Lloyd S. Millegan, studies secret societies like Skull and Bones. During World War 2, Lloyd worked in CIA psychological warfare with Edward Lansdale. - Two little girls: Toni Glover Dealey Plaza witness, 11 at the time. Pat Hall Owner of the Oswald Rooming House Museum in Dallas, Texas, 11 at the time of the assassination, knew Oswald. - Deep State and Fourth Estate: Peter Dale Scott Author of "Dallas '63" and other books, expert on covert operations by the US Government. Donald Jeffries Author of "Hidden History" and "Bullyocracy", expert on US political crimes and cover-ups. Jefferson Morley Author of "Our Man In Mexico" and "The Ghost", veteran Washington D.C. journalist. - Psychological Philosophical and Social Perspectives: Frances Shure Counselor and adjunct university instructor at Naropa University in Boulder, Colorado, specializing in psychology. Lee Basham Philosopher and professor at South Texas College and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Dorothy Lorig Councilor and psychologist. David Denton Social science instructor at Olney Central College in Illinois, teaches a course on political assassinations of the 1960's. - Keeping the story alive: Lorien Fenton JFK conference producer and podcast host. Jeffrey Holmes Leads a Lee Harvey Oswald tour in New Orleans, Louisiana. Randolph Benson Filmmaker, "The Searchers", documentary about JFK researchers.

I have a quarter of the book left to read and hope to finish it tonight. For me, the book seems to have peaked in the middle, as the second half (so far) is more philosophical and ruminative as it tries to take a look at the big picture. There's some interesting and thought provoking discussions there, but I'm more about searching out facts I hadn't read before. It's just not nearly as interesting (and potentially revelatory) as the "kids of the CIA" section.

This isn't a Biden forum. It's a JFK assassination forum. Take it somewhere else, please.

I'm halfway through the book now. It's a series of interviews with a variety of people. At first I was worried because some of the interviews seem like they're answering a generic list of questions via email, but fortunately not all the interviews are like that. Some are very interesting and revealing. I'll try to go through it here later in a little detail. It's a good book so far. I can say that somehow "Dr. Mary's Monkey" had slipped under my radar. I think I confused it with "Mary's Mosaic" and overlooked it. That seems to be a big miss on my part, because that story is wild. I'm going to have to get that book soon.

I understand and appreciate that we have a lot of intelligent forum members here who are plugged into politics and that they would occasionally like to discuss other historical issues as well as current events. At times I was tempted to engage. But the thread was off-topic. Were you all having any success at convincing Benjamin that January 6 was a violent coup attempt? Because all I saw was everyone constantly going in circles on that issue, and almost every page filled with insults. My point is that there are other places online to discuss other topics, even if just other areas of the forum. As I see it, having those discussions in that thread (and others) was/is 1. Unnecessarily fostering personal animosity and division 2. Cluttering the forum with off-topic personal invective 3. Getting no one anywhere when it comes to researching and studying the JFKA. Just my opinion. I was not a fan of that thread. I thought it was ugly and reflected poorly on us all. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Thank goodness. In my opinion that thread has been a problem for a long time. The fact that it was not only allowed to continue here after becoming so controversial but promoted to a sticky sure appeared that, at best, angry and off-topic political arguments were tolerated, and, at worst, being officially encouraged. If that's an incorrect assessment, I apologize. But honestly that's the way it looked to me. The personal vindictiveness I've seen here lately is dispiriting. I feel it's ultimately counter-productive. I have zero need to agree with any member of this forum on any topic outside the JFK assassination. If they have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion of the JFKA, I don't care who they pulled the lever for in the last election. Why dwell on it? Why go out of our way to attack each other over politics? I like reading the posts of those with good arguments and interesting bits of evidence. To develop a grudge against someone who has a solid JFKA argument because they hold an unrelated political opinion does me no good at all when studying the JFKA. I don't see why so many here are driven to discuss divisive issues that are off-topic. If that must be the case, I'd suggest we state our positions succinctly, politely, respectfully, and refrain from personally attacking each other. If that's not possible, let's use the ignore feature or just take it to another Education Forum sub-forum. Aren't there enough opportunities to fight with folks about politics on Facebook and Twitter?

That man has no neck.

In my view it still seems to be a bit of a stretch with a number of assumptions that are necessary to make the theory work. Do you know if all these weights quoted above are pre or post-formalin?

November 24: Ruby is so broken up about the death of his beloved President John F. Kennedy that Ruby is ready and willing to risk riding the lightning to relieve poor Jackie Kennedy of the unimaginable emotional trauma of having to come back to Dallas and testify in a trial. November 22: Ruby wouldn't cross the street to see John and Jackie Kennedy in person. - Apparently, to some folks, this makes perfect sense.

It doesn't automatically make it false, as you well know. Why are you polluting the forum with nonsense? So, yes, you believe it wasn't Ruby that called because the report that it was Ruby that called came out too late for you to personally accept as a fact. Like you would ever have been convinced even if it came out earlier. Would you care to go down the list of witnesses who said things in the '60's and the '70's that were contrary to the lone nut theory and you can then acknowledge that they're all true by virtue of the fact they were said before the 1980's? Give me a break. And you're going to lecture us on critical thinking?

The two honks from the car horn is a dead giveaway too.

I'm sorry that happened and I hope you're feeling better now, @Joe Bauer.

citizenkaneapplause.gif

It's totally understandable, at least it is from my perspective. That's why I've begun refraining from posting here often. It's genuinely difficult for me to continue arguing with LN's over the most basic stuff. I feel like I've been doing it for years because I have. I once went round and round and wasted a day arguing with someone who thought Oswald was trying to kill Connolly. It gets frustrating at times. And I personally believe some LN's seem to be doing it as an intellectual exercise. I'd like to know what actually happened that day and why, and it's hard to arrive at that conclusion by constantly arguing with people who think the case was satisfactorily solved in a couple of hours sixty years ago.

Many people, when faced with a tough decision, make a list of pros and cons. For the government (and anyone sitting in the big chair who would be considering releasing these documents) the list is long on the cons and the pros has exactly one item: the truth. I recognize any of us here would vehemently argue that the truth outweighs an infinite list of cons. I myself would agree. But, unfortunately, reality shows that even someone like Trump, who would gladly burn it all down, says "no thanks" when confronted with the CIA's presentation about the evidence. In my view, that says something. It's essentially the question "Should we release these secret photos?" and learning the photos are horrible beyond imagination. Fortunately, through the process of elimination we know for certain that, whatever it is, it's not Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, it's not Carlos Marcello, and it's not George Hickey. If it were any of those three, or even if it was Fidel Castro, they'd release all the files in a New York Minute. Every single person reading these words knows it's true. Actually, I'm surprised they kept anything incriminating. I figured those files would have been disappeared long, long ago or never committed to paper in the first place.

You really know your stuff @David Josephs, thanks for all your hard work and for sharing it here with us.

My observations: One: It's bipartisan. Whether you're Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else, they all agree that it will do no one in the government any good now to reveal the truth about what happened then. It's all downside. They all get a presentation, and at the end of it they all reach the same conclusion. Trump by far would have been the individual most likely to defy them and release everything even if just out of sheer spite, but even he was convinced. Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.