Joe Bauer

Members
  • Content count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joe Bauer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

639 profile views
  1. She was a stalwart that I respected, appreciated and even liked as a person, just by reading her years worth of postings and feeling her energy from them. What a sad loss.
  2. Thank you for the time taken to respond. Liebeler asked Michael Paine this one sentence, easy to understand question: "Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" No dates mentioned. Paine responds " ... no, I did not." Liebeler "You are positive in your recollection that you did not?" Again no call date mentioned. Paine " Yes." Paine obviously used Liebeler's previous specific time date reference of 11,23,1963 ( versus 11,22,1963 ) as a convenient escape from having to answer a broader and more inclusive truth seeking question of "Did you AT ANY TIME AND DURING ANY OF YOUR CALLS TO YOUR WIFE RUTH during this entire weekend time period say you knew who was responsible?" One must wonder what Michael Paine's answer would have been to this broader and more thorough time frame question, which any competent and seriously seeking the truth attorney would have asked. Paul, if you totally believe Ruth Paine's comment to you that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in at least one of the calls between her and Michael Paine that weekend, then you have to accept that Michael Paine did not answer Liebeler's question with the "whole truth" , the broader time frame truth. Of course one can clearly understand the motivation behind Michael Paine's stating his "who's responsible" denial answer, that he felt he could say without committing perjury because the question from Liebeler was framed only in the 11,23,1963 time period context. And that would logically be self-preservation from the super charged investigative suspicion onslaught he knew would befall him if he ever admitted saying the reported ominous intrigue quote to his wife Ruth during any of their calls between each other that entire weekend. And it makes perfect sense that Ruth's phone would be tapped by the FBI considering their knowledge of and interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian born wife. At that time agent Hosty was active in his monitoring of them both.
  3. Paul I would like to share and debate opinions and views with you on this subject. Whatever different takes you have on this one and so many others, you are decently civil in debating your views in my opinion and I respect that. In regards to your point of Liebeler perhaps just " bungling his notes" when he states to Michael Paine a different day for the "who's responsible call" I disagree. Whatever date Liebeler uses for the reported call, he clearly states to Michael Paine that the report cites a call between the numbers of Ruth Paine's "home phone" and Michael Paine's "office phone." Paine knew this part of the reported call "between his wife's number and his office number" was the important crux of the report because it places the call on the afternoon of the assassination and not on Saturday. I feel this is so, based on the assumption that Michael Paine didn't go into his workplace office on the next day 11,23,1963. I may be wrong about that so if anyone knows differently, please correct me. And Paine then says in regards to his 11,23,1963 time frame activities location "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there." Paine uses Liebeler's stated next day date as a reference point to place himself in a phone call making location other than his office. Which to me is Paine's way of suggesting and promoting the reported call record as wrong and/or not legitimate. So right at this point, Liebeler has to decide whether the reported call record ( stating this was between Ruth's home phone number and Paine's office number ) is correct and legitimate and Michael Paine is lying, or the call record is incorrect and illegitimate and Michael Paine is telling the truth. And so do we. And Paine adds... Instead of Paine just answering a simple and firm "yes" or "no" to Liebeler's first question; "did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" he instead feels a need to answer with a qualifier ... "And I don't know who the assassin is or was: no, so I did not." ? Sounds like Oswald's kind of round-about response to a reporter's question "did you kill the President?" in the Dallas Police building Friday night. "No, I have not been charged with that, the first I had heard this was when a reporter in the hall axed me that question." And then when Liebeler asks " You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? Paine then replies with a simple "Yes." But it's all about the date of this reported call between Michael Paine and Ruth Paine and whether the call numbers were Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's office phone. Not to mention the discrepancy of Ruth Paine admitting ( according to you Paul ) that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in the call versus Michael Paine saying it didn't. Who's telling the truth here..Ruth Paine?...or Michael Paine? I have been scouring Paine's WC testimony. Again I must admit I am not as informed as I should be. Paine did indeed know of and see some of Oswald's received mailings such as the magazine the Worker. He even discussed this with Oswald. Therefore my comments regarding Michael Paine instantly knowing what Buddy Walther's pulled out of one of Oswald's file boxes as a point of suspicion, are not as valid as I suggested they were.
  4. Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before? Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone? Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? Mr. PAINE - Yes. According to Paul Trejo, Ruth Paine stated clearly that the call and it's "we both know who's responsible" conversation did happen. If this is the truth, then Michael Paine is doing a lot of purposeful obfuscating if not lying in his answers here to Liebeler about his knowledge of the call, what was said in it and when it occurred. Liebeler says to Michael Paine that the report cites " a call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office" and recounts the "who's responsible" conversation in it. Paine responds that "I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers." " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ??? That sure sounds like a weak diversion response. If this reported call with it's heavy suspicion arousing conversation didn't happen and Paine clearly knew this ... why not just flat out say this without adding some meaningless meandering " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ? When Leibeler then asks Paine about whether he talked to his wife Ruth on "specifically" the 23rd of November versus the 22nd, he allows Paine to evade and dissipate the "home residence number to his office number " call record question and to claim a different time and location alibi that he was at the police station and not in his office ( Paine wouldn't be in his office on a Saturday, especially that Saturday ) when "I think I called her from there." This Saturday versus Friday call question by Liebeler and answer from Paine seems to me illogically contrived in their different time frame context and therefore highly suspicious in their implications.
  5. Paul, to me Buddy Walthers wasn't sophisticated and clever enough to give out false or made up information and do so capably without serious discrepancies quickly and easily being detected. His highest career position before becoming a Dallas County Sheriff was what... taxi driver? There were some really negative statements about his personal character ( at least from Sheriff Roger Craig who worked with Walthers for years ) that could indicate Walther's may not have been a shining example of police oath integrity and I sense some of those charges could have been true. But, I also believe that enough of Walther's testimony regards what went on at the Paine home when he and other officers arrived and searched the home was more honest and accurate than his detractors make out. I believe he and others did see some FPC pamphlets among the items in the Paine garage. But my suspicion interest in the Paine home and garage search is more drawn toward Michael Paine. He says to Walthers that Oswald is a Communist. But in another interview he says that the first conversation he ever had with Oswald, that Oswald seemed dissatisfied with both political systems here and in Russia, and that he " Oswald" indicated to Paine that he was a "Marxist / socialist " more than a Communist. Michael Paine seemed to be "almost too willing" to share information about Oswald that incriminated Oswald and he didn't even see or talk to Oswald that much. Paine knows exactly what Walthers is looking at when he pulls some "letter head" material from one of the file cabinets? That those are correspondences from Russia to Oswald? How could Paine be so on-the-spot specific knowledgeable about those pulled out Oswald papers? Certainly Oswald didn't bring this folder out and show it to Paine and tell him what was in it. When I read Micheal Paine's WC testimony I see just enough seemingly purposeful vagueness in his recounting of certain areas of his adult and young adult political interest background history and conversations and activities with Oswald to arouse my suspicion. I think Micheal Paine's extra-curricular pro-active interest in going to political group meetings and at least one extreme far right one and instigating political conversations with Lee Oswald indicate an inclination towards something way beyond just a passing and passive interest. And what really rattles my Michael Paine suspicion cage is when Liebeler leads him with a wrong date for the reported "we know who's responsible" call. Liebeler changing that date in his question to Paine gives Paine "an out" in dismissing and downplaying that call, which Paine needed and jumped on. And Paine's response and answer to that question was so dumbly oblique ( and purposely so ) that it literally sounded like jibberish. Please,go back and reread Michael Paine's answer to Liebeler's questions about that call. Paine was very uncomfortable with that question and stumbled noticeably past it. And if that call was indeed on 11,22,1963, and not on 11,23,1963, then both Liebeler and Paine must be considered with more valid suspicion than less. I just believe that Michael Paine knew much more about so many things. And that his role in this whole affair has never been adequately explained.
  6. I would really like to know ( straight from Marina) whether Tunheim's statement that she refused to have Oswald's tax records released is true. If it is, then I would want to know why. If she refutes this statement by Tunheim, and says she was never asked...then I would be very suspicious of Tunheim. Marina is still alive. I sure would like to know how to present this question to her.
  7. 3 comments: Dennis Bartholomew said... I noted the following in Tunheim's remarks: We were prohibited by law from releasing Oswald’s tax records unfortunately, they were in those files, but by law would not allow us to do that, we needed Marina Oswald’s permission that she refused to give, so those records were not released. Marina still withholding permission after all these years? To what extent do researchers believe Marina to be part of the JFK cover-up, and did she play a role for Soviet intelligence? March 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM Marina Oswald repeated so many times in her interviews over the years that she wished the full truth would come out about the JFK assassination. That the American people should know the truth. Then "why" why on Earth would she refuse to let Lee Oswald's tax records to be released? Now THERE'S an intriguing question for her to answer.
  8. If Michael Paine told In regards to Michael Paine's describing to Walthers and whoever was with him in the garage what they were looking at after Walthers ( "we" opened one of them and seen what it was " you have to wonder how MP knew that those letters and stuff were not just Oswald's belongings but he knew the specific detail that these items were "from the people he writes to in Russia." Oswald wasn't there. Michael Paine came to the house after Walthers and other DPD personnel had already been there. So Paine obviously just saw those Oswald papers spur of the moment. Either he had gone through them at some point prior or his wife Ruth had and perhaps told Michael Paine the specifics MP just described. Oswald for sure didn't show the Paines his personal letters. I wonder if MP went through Oswald's "stuff" at some point when Oswald wasn't around as he seldom was. Just some observations that beg questions about MP.
  9. Is the phone record document as shown in the James Di narrated video a fraudulent one? There are such huge implications riding on what day that collect call from Ruth to MIchael Paine was made, that this question is one of the most important ones in determining the credibility of the Paines testimony. What is the true date and time of that "We both know who's responsible" telephone call?
  10. Jeff. Are you posting this file as some valid documentation verifying what you stated in your previous post? If so, I am confused. This document states that the "who's responsible" call between Ruth and Michael Paine did not take place at 1:PM 11,22,1963. It instead states that the call took place "a day later" and the exact time of the call could not be established. ???
  11. How could Ruth Paine ignore Oswald's incredibly public and hotly inciting political activities in New Orleans just a few months before Dallas on 11,22,1963 ( and which were so illogically removed from his last year and a half of work seeking behavior ) as if they meant nothing in her mind regards her reasoned conclusion that Oswald did JFK just for "notoriety?" Was she that oblivious about them and claiming she just didn't know because Marina would not tell her of such things? I mean Oswald was on New Orleans radio and even TV debating political ideologies and his downtown brawl with Carlos Bringuier was filmed and in the newspapers and he was arrested in that Summer ...and she wasn't aware of this? Oswald's well publicized political activities in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 cannot be ignored as meaningless in the larger picture of Oswald's mind set and actions just 3 months later. Ruth Paine also mentions agent Hosty as if she was on familiar and even friendly terms with him. She knew him from his visits to her home to speak to Marina for a month or two before 11,22,1963. I can't believe that Ruth didn't ask for and get some feedback from Hosty about his reasons for keeping tabs on Marina and Lee. One would think that Ruth kept a closer and more suspicious eye on Lee when he was around her home up until 11,22,1963 and maybe even watched for anything he may say or do because she knew he was being monitored by important government agencies. I wonder if she ever reported anything to Hosty about Lee that she thought was suspicious during the time she was housing Marina and the baby and having Lee visit reguarly on a weekly basis.
  12. Here is the real deal regards the ultimate behind the scenes power structure heirarchy. Just reading his general brief surface Wiki you immediately see the massive influence and how things really worked in this country and globally during his reign and still today. Notice how connected everything is through these conglomerates and the small group of selected super wealthy elitists who create and run them? Is this the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONGRESSIONAL ( PLUS BANKING, MEDIA AND SECRET GOVERNMENT) COMPLEX Eisenhower tried to warn us about? Or is it really simply a sincerely benevolent, humanity concerned and helping group of individuals and families who are truly trying to do the best possible things they can to protect and save us from those on the dark side of our global societies. David Rockefeller and his family's connections to JFK detractors were extensive and long term as one can see in the Wiki bio. That's why I posted the suggestion of reading this. Would be interesting to read the different takes. Always wonder how JFK fit or didn't fit into the Rockefeller influence and world view complex.
  13. The Albert Guy Bogard, Lincoln Mercury, wild Daytona 500 racing test drive story was the one that grabbed me somewhat in regards to possible fake Oswald's being seen in and around Dallas before 11,22,1963 . This salesman guy Bogard seemed so sure about personally meeting, talking to and interacting with the same Lee Harvey Oswald he had seen so much in the news. Didn't Bogard's boss somewhat verify Bogard's tale? However, the card that Bogard wrote Oswald's name and number on is tossed away before 11,22,1963? Really? But still, there was just enough simple working class sincerity and mundane specifics in Bogard's tale for amateur Conan Doyle deduction minded sleuths like me to not dismiss the possible Oswald double theory out of hand. Then there were the Ruby girls who supposedly saw Oswald in the Carousel club before 11,22,1963. Beverly Oliver claimed this. And Oliver says co-worker- Dolly Parton look-a-like stripper Janet Conforto ( "Jada" ) was also introduced to Oswald at the club but was too terrified to state this in public. And there's the account of the Carousel comedian punching a Lee Harvey Oswald look-a-like guy over his shouting that he ( the emcee ) was a commie and that Ruby came over to this look-a-like and tossed him down the stairs. There is even a picture on the internet which shows a kind of sloshed smiling Oswald look-a-like in the Carousel. I must admit I see some decent similarities there. Personally I know I'll never come close to knowing anything close to the truth in this area so I leave it to those who have done some decent research. But, I still feel the possibility is there, based simply on the complex planning that must have gone into the plot itself. These planners were serious minded people thinking on so many levels.