Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mart Hall

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views

Mart Hall's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • One Year In
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

  1. I had read this letter earlier in the week whilst looking for examples of Oswald's Russian hand writing . Before reading your post I only saw the letter as a very flimsy attempt by the plotters to reinforce the Mexico trip and the legend that he was working with the Soviets or Castro. The unnecessary specifics in the letter only seem to serve to tie Oswald (and Oswald only) to the trip to Mexico. After reading your post I still think this is either the direct hand of, or ultimately the work of, the plotters. If Oswald actually wrote that letter then maybe he did go to Mexico (I don't believe he did based on the lack of any incontrovertible evidence surrounding the visits to the Embassy) and was also manipulated to write the letter too. That's the only way Oswald writing it would appear to make sense to me. It's quite late in the UK so please forgive me if I have made a fundamental error in my thought process, but does your work and thoughts lead to a suggestion that as far as Oswald was concerned the trip to Mexico and these letters were one large single plan to have some leverage to gain his military benefits or other financial gain? That would seem very elaborate to me.
  2. Without wishing to derail your thread I recently saw a very interesting (UK ITN, unedited) interview with Oliver Stone from 1991, where he discusses why he made JFK and part way through the interview he makes reference as to why he has not made a documentary (around 8-10 minutes) - the facts have been kept secret by the Government. I hope you don't mind me commenting as I appreciate you have asked a question to another member, but as a relative newbie of 7 years I found the documentaries fascinating, I watched them 3 or 4 times and each time I came away feeling I had learnt a bit more. In parts it reinforced what I had understood from my own research, in a number of places it took me a step further to having a deeper understanding of matters and their implications and it enlighten me in areas which I had previously been less interested in (the autopsy for instance).
  3. "In a statement to NBC News, the National Archives said that nearly half of the remaining documents are beyond the president’s jurisdiction to declassify... ... It asserts there are no classified documents that remain withheld in their entirety." Can anyone advise if the statement in bold is a new claim or simply one that I have missed?
  4. Given the places he was alleged to have visited I would expect there to be incontrovertible evidence provided either to the WC or released years later if Oswald was actually in Mexico. There’s none of that. But the poor attempts to place Oswald there speak for themselves.
  5. There is a video of Larry Florer being arrested in the street, a statement made by Florer that he left the County Records building after trying to use the phone and was pointed out to police whilst he was on the street.
  6. Since you are willing to accept, quite literally, what Oswald says to reporters what do you make of the following exchange: Reporter in corridor: Did you shoot the President? Oswald: I didn’t shoot anyone, no sir.
  7. It could be fair to say that Denham did very well to apprehend a "prisoner" (not just a suspicious individual) on the third floor so quickly after the shots (which Denham didn't know where they had come from) and amid all the chaos. Has this "prisoner" ever been identified? This prisoner had to be either a worker based at the TSBD, probably one who decided not to go outside to watch the parade or a suspect.
  8. There was an officer W H Denham. He attended to the person who had a seizure at 12:15. W H Denham made a written statement included as CE 1358 and made no reference to being inside the TSBD or detaining anyone. In his statement he said he didn't know where the shots came from. If he didn't know where the shots came from what would the timeline be for meeting Hill with a prisoner as Hill came up the stairs? CE 1358.https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1358.pdf
  9. Thanks for posting this, it will take me sometime to go through it and I’m keen to pick up on the Belmont memo you refer to. I want to say a big thank you for your article on K&K which succinctly explains the JFK Act and the implications of the executive memorandum that effectively bypasses law. I had gone through the act over the years but your article gave me a lot of confidence that I had understood it correctly! Many thanks. I look forward to seeing more posts from you Andrew.
  10. I agree with you. The Landis version makes much more sense than the MBT. I would also bet that as the day progressed pressure was applied to shut Landis and any other SS agent involved up, which would be consistent with how other witnesses were treated that day.
  11. Have to agree. I recently read an early memo from Belmont to Tolson that contained parts of the same information as the memo Ben has produced, which would make sense if the information was being passed up the line, but iirc it also said: It was unconfirmed/alleged that LBJ had suffered a heart attack. DP had arrested a man for the murder of the president and he was en route to the DPD. A policeman had been shot with a rifle at 10th and a suspect had been cornered. Referred to shots and checking the 5th floor and the stairs at the TSBD. That a Winchester rifle had been discovered at the TSBD.
  12. Exhibit 3 "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?'
  13. Whatever your beliefs are on the assassination when you consider that these records should have been released years ago and the laws governing these records have not been followed by the highest elected official in the world you have to ask yourself, "in whose interest is it that these records remain classified after 60 years?" I struggle to see this petition as something that should be divisive.
  14. Under the JFK Act, the President was supposed to certify which records could not be released after 2017 and the reason why each record could not be released. This was to be recorded in a publicly available register. There were a small number of defined reasons for the non-disclosure of records and one of the reasons included potential for harm to foreign relations as you raise above. So Trump and Biden would have been justified by law in those circumstances. However to my knowledge neither one of those two Presidents certified a single record that has been withheld (so they have not followed the law).
  15. It accepted signatures from outside the US so I signed it. Of course, everyone is free to decide for themselves if they wish to sign this petition but I too would have expected good levels of support from this forum.
  • Create New...