Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Joe Bauer

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Joe Bauer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,386 profile views
  1. Education Forum Intellectual Foundation

    I have a true and scary ( actually more strange than scary ) personal experience story I would like to share. Where do I go to post this.
  2. Referring back to the initial thread context of Lee physically hitting Marina, the following statements by Marina herself ( under oath to the Warren Commission ) are very supportive of the claims that he did so and probably more than once or twice. And what a horrible time and reason to slap someone. Just after they tried to hurt themselves? I don't know why, but even Marina often downplayed Lee's treatment of her and how deep her unhappiness was with him. To a very depressed degree. Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has been advised that some time in the spring of 1963, you, yourself, either threatened to or actually tried to commit suicide. Can you tell us about that? Mrs. OSWALD. Do I have the right now not to discuss that? Mr. LIEBELER. If you don't want to discuss that, certainly, but I really would like to have Lee's reaction to the whole thing. But if you don't want to tell us about it--all right. Mrs. OSWALD. At my attempt at suicide, Lee struck me in the face and told me to go to bed and that I should never attempt to do that--only foolish people would do it. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell him that you were going to do it, or did you actually try? Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't tell him, but I tried. Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't want to discuss it any further? *Mrs. OSWALD. No.
  3. Why I am leaving the forum

    Paul, your initial departure considering post has inspired us all to contemplate what is good and worthy and important about the forum ( in this case your input ) and how we should from time to time stop and acknowledge and appreciate such. We have all benefited.
  4. Michael Paine dies at 89

    In several interviews Michael Paine would describe Oswald. And not in understanding and compassionate humanitarian ways. It was a cold and hard criticism of Oswald and everything about him. Now, Michel Paine was supposedly a person with a very liberal/humanitarian social view and conscience. He was raised around a family that valued this perspective. But what always bothered me about Michael Paine's was how often his stated personal feelings and assessments of Oswald were void of this sentiment and insultingly derogatory. I sensed an intellectual snobbery and arrogance with Paine in this regards. Here are just a few of Paine's judgmental put-downs of Oswald. Oswald was not really anything. He was stupid. He read some books and thought he knew what he was talking about. Basically, Oswald was an ignorant and "uneducated" fool. A loser. Paine seemed to personally dislike Oswald this much from the first time he met him. IMO in large part because he ( Oswald ) dared to act as if he was on Michael Paine's intellectual level ... even a little. But let us look at Paine with the same level of criticism he dished on Oswald. Paine was a spoiled person. He never saw a poor day in his life. Paine had a failed marriage himself. He made mistakes. He did poorly in college. He had flaws. He says Oswald "never did anything" about his stated Marxist beliefs. Where as Paine joined groups, sang in choirs, and who knows what other endeavors to spread his humanitarian concern for others. Is this the great "doing something" actions Paine is referring to in knocking down Oswald in this regard? People forget Oswald had just turned 24 when he was killed by Ruby. That is very young. How much could Oswald have given of himself up to that age? Especially when he was consumed with just making enough money for his wife and babies to survive in the poverty side of town after town his entire time ( after Russia ) back here in the states? If Oswald from a very young age had the nurturing, privileges and opportunities that Michael Paine was blessed with, I would not doubt that Oswald would have gone to college and done very well in so many areas of regular life. And that he wouldn't have had the bitter cynicism chip on his shoulder as an adult. And If Micheal Paine had instead been born to the awful Marguerite Oswald with no father and lived Oswald's totally neglected childhood and teen years...I don't think Michael Paine could have made it through emotionally. Oswald should at least be given credit for making it through that rough and neglected childhood life. I stand corrected regards Michael Paine's military service. Should have fact checked this more thoroughly. Also his Unitarian Church doctrines.
  5. Why I am leaving the forum

    Paul, please, reconsider. Your posting contributions are so coherent, grounded, thoughtful and very respectful. You remind me of Simpkin in many ways including your character. I am a newer, neophyte member who has no deep research bonafides personally. I am passably well read on the general topics of the JFK assassination but my probably too often emotion based posting contributions are tolerated I think only because readers sense my sincere passion for the JFK truth and keeping this mission alive. But you must know that there are so many readers and followers of this forum who, like me, have been learning from the forum ( and you personally ) FOR YEARS and who consider it such an important part of keeping the JFK truth flame from flickering out. There is a much larger body of forum members and followers that you and your contributions are important to versus the few posting members who seem to have dispirited you. What a loss if you leave. Respectively, Joe B.
  6. Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    The testimony contradictions in the Oswald sighting story at the Randle house the morning of 11,22,1963 are frustrating to get a handle on. But as far as Beull Frazier's physical and emotional state during his lie detector test at the DPD...some questions. Was this test administered at midnight? How long had Buell Frazier already been detained at the DPD at that point? If it was midnight, anyone would be exhausted and perhaps agitated at that late hour, especially after all those highly stressful hours of questioning and almost getting into fisticuffs with an accusatory red faced homicide captain who is yelling at you to sign something you feel may implicate you in a crime such as JFK's assassination. In all the years of seeing Buell Wesley Frazier in videotaped interviews ( more than a dozen? ) I just don't see or feel that he is lying about anything important in his story. Some of his recollections have changed in certain details over the years...but in ways I think would be normal after sharing these for 50+ years and questioned over and over about them.
  7. Doug's original August, 2017 post seems amazingly prescient in how Mueller's investigation is proceeding 8 months later regarding Paul Manafort and possibly Roger Stone and the investigation taking longer than a year. I just re-read Doug's original thread post. If he had never written and posted this we would not be informed of so much back story that is so important to understand what is going on with these back channel and Wikileaks characters. And the video of Stone "predicting" violence if Trump is impeached is still hair raising in it's threat implications. Especially the mentioning of what would happen to the Senator who first initiated such an action. Lastly, just a few common sense comments regards Trump's reported corrupt business dealings. Isn't it obvious when you buy a run down property in Florida as Trump did for what ...$45 million? And then four years later you get someone else to pay you almost double for this, who then tears it all down to an empty lot? That is so nonsensical in any business sense ( from the higher price paying person's perspective ) it's obviously anything "but" a legitimate business deal. And that Trump named Condo project in Panama where drug cartel and organized crime figures were purchasing units as part of a money laundering scheme and Trump's family pocketed 14 million to have their name on this building until they recently removed it under public scrutiny pressure ...please. There is a You Tube video of a Trump appearance on David Letterman several years ago where Letterman asks Trump directly if he ever had to deal with organized crime figures in his many New York construction projects. At first Trump says no, then he stammers that maybe he had met one or more people of this type in the context of Letterman's question. And then Trump makes this startling comment to Letterman: You know I have met a few of those types..and "they were very nice people." I don't know how others would interpret that last Trump quote...but in my mind it raises many huge red flags regards Trump's true business dealings, practices and ethics. Also reminds me of Trump's nationally broadcast comments about there being nice people "on both sides" of the racially charged violence protests of last year. God help us through this presidential crisis in confidence.
  8. General Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald

    Paul, one thing I agree with you on is your occasional look at the daily lives of Lee and Marina and their baby in real life ways. Since 1962 , more often than not, they were all in desperate states in so many ways. They were stressed, dependent on others and always one argument away from separating and Marina moving in with others. There were many fights, some physical hitting and Marina seemed much more safe and relieved to be away from Lee versus with him. In the later McMillan book on Marina, Marina too often sugar coated how bad things really were between her and Lee. However, in Marina's Warren Commission testimony session it was mentioned to her to comment on a reported suicide attempt on Marina's part in the spring of 1963. Marina not only didn't deny she did this, but stated that Lee hit her in the face upon discovering it and told her how foolish it was and made her go to bed. Now that admitted incident indicates how bad things really were for Marina with Lee versus other person's views that it wasn't quite that bad. Marina asked Liebeler to allow her not to speak any more about this suicide attempt and Liebeler let it go. I think Marina really lost it with Lee after the Walker incident and his talk of hijacking a plane to Cuba and having her join him and helping him in this endeavor. I think she was totally exhausted about it all. His talk of gun violence ( Walker ) and other violent acts must have made her realize that she was living with a person who was extremely unstable and could ruin her and her baby's life on a whim. I agree with Marina when she would also say something to the effect "what could I do?" When you ask yourself why she didn't run to the White Russians and maybe even the police to report her husband for all this crazy talk and perhaps acts of violence... Place yourself in her 22 year old position. No family to run to. Afraid of losing her citizenship. No money. No one to stand up for her if Oswald was arrested. Her English wasn't good enough for so many basic activities and maybe others would shun her when they learned she was from Russia? She had a young child and another baby on the way. Even the help of the White Russians was temporary and caused some tension in their family affairs. Marina knew that. She couldn't live forever with Ruth Paine. If Oswald was on the payroll of some agency...his compensation was so pitifully poor it couldn't even make a dent in the financial struggle stresses he encountered his whole time back in the states. Stresses that were destroying his marriage and taking away the most precious thing he held in his heart...the love for his child June ( and new born Rachel) in a way to protect and nurture and provide for them. If Oswald worked for others during his return to the states, you'd think at some point he would have demanded that his employers help him live and provide a life for his wife and children better than one step away from losing all of this. This is a reality about the lives of Marina and Lee and their children that can't be totally dismissed as having no important bearing on their thoughts and actions throughout. IMO.
  9. Ron, That says it all..or most of it anyway.
  10. Did Aynesworth ever say or infer or even hint that he bedded Marina Oswald before she married Kenneth Porter? I read about this claim a few times over the years...but was never sure if it was simply gossip. If Aynesworth did bed Marina, that would have been extremely unethical. If he bragged about it later to others ... outrageously shameful.

    David, did you check out the Cecil Stoughton photo ( Figure 4 ) in the article I posted? Also, the fragment the Treasury report describes as the one embedded into the front seat must have been one of the bigger ones in the photo of these to have indented the chrome windshield as substantially and deeply as the most well known photo shows. So the part of the front seat where the chrome indentation fragment embedded itself into was between Greer and Kellerman? Lucky for them this didn't hit them in parts of importance. And was the fragment scientifically analyzed to see if it matched the magic bullet in composition?

    David, according to the Treasury report you posted, they felt the chrome windshield frame indentation was caused by a bullet fragment ...after it exited JFK's shattered skull? And that this same fragment, traveling upward from JFK'S skull, slams "into" ( not off of ) this strong metal chrome with enough speed, force and weight to make a substantial indentation, then ricochets back out and downward with enough force still to embed itself into a heavy vinyl or leather front seat cushion? Obviously this so-called bullet fragment must have been substantial in size and still traveling at great velocity to have made the indentation we see in the most well known photo of the chrome dent. It's not a pea size indentation. ( See Robert Groden's indentation observation comments in my first post.) If we are to believe the Treasury explanation, the upward trajectory fragment, after breaking apart going through JFK's skull bones, then slams "into" and indents the chrome frame, and then pops or ricochets back out and downwards out of the dent while still traveling with enough velocity that it then embeds itself into a heavy leather or vinyl seat cushion? Wouldn't solid chrome the fragment reportedly hit and went "into" have stopped it's movement cold or in the least not caused a pinball rebound effect with enough continued velocity to pierce heavy duty vinyl or leather? Some very basic rules of elementary physics seem to be contradicted with this explanation. Click on the photo link ( identified as figure 4 ) in the article I posted in my first post. This was a photo taken by Cecil Stoughton of the inner front area of JFK's limo which clearly shows "no indentation" on the chrome windshield frame that is visible between the two sun visors. The indentation visible in later photos shows it to be in this open area between the two visors. We can also see Nellie Connally in the jump seat of the limo which proves the picture was taken during JFK's visit to Texas on either 11,21,1963 or the 22nd. Seems to me this is pretty valid photo evidence regards the true provenance of the windshield indentation regards when it first appeared.

    But what about the bullet hole looking indentation in the chrome inner and upper side frame of the front windshield? Is that a hoax? It is deep and visible enough ( from the few pics I have seen) that it would take much force to make an indentation like that into chrome plated steel.. That wasn't made by something light like a bottle or even a rock. Some say this indentation was present before Dallas. I would think that whoever was responsible for the SS100X's cosmetic appearance would have seen it and had it repaired before displaying the limo to thousands of adoring spectators. Best Witness: JFK's Limousine Anthony Marsh 2nd Annual COPA Conference Omni Shoreham, Washington, DC October 22, 1995 The best witness to the JFK assassination was the Presidential limousine. As other researchers have pointed out, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Witnesses can be confused, lie, misremember events, or can be susceptible to suggestion. The damage to the limousine tells a story of its own, an accurate and truthful account of the events in Dealey Plaza. One of the most important points of damage to the limousine was the dent of the chrome topping above the windshield. Was it caused by a direct hit of a bullet or a bullet fragment? In Six Seconds in Dallas, footnote 16 of chapter 5 quotes a letter from Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley, who claimed that the dent was caused way back on November 1, 1961 by routine maintenance. The Warren Report was ambiguous about the dent. It appears that the Warren Commission did not attempt to examine any photographs to determine if the chrome topping was undented before the assassination. There may have been several photographs they could have examined which would have resolved the issue. There were many photographs and films taken in Dealey Plaza before the shooting started. There were several photos and films taken at Love Field which showed the limousine in its pristine condition, such as this one by Tom Dillard (Figure 1). Unfortunately, the hand hold bar blocks our view of the chrome topping in this Dillard photo, but there must be other such photos which do show it clearly. There may also be other photographs and films from the motorcade which have not yet been made public. Just this August, LIFE magazine published one photograph taken by Presidential aide Dave Powers, who is believed to have taken several photos and a film of the motorcade at Love Field and before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza ( Figure 2 ). Dave Powers' vantage point was especially privileged, as he rode in the Secret Service follow-up car, where the official White House photographer would normally ride, but didn't that day. Cecil Stoughton, the official White House photgrapher, was stuck that day riding several cars back, in one of the camera cars. In fact, Stoughton was not even scheduled to go on the Texas trip, but had to fill in for Robert Knudsen, who had some slivers in his eye which needed to be removed [1]. Supposedly, Stoughton took only a couple of photos near Dealey Plaza, one just before the motorcade reached the plaza, and one of the grassy knoll about 30 seconds after he shooting. But, he did take photos of the limousine the day before when the President visited Kelly Air Force base in San Antonio. We can see in this photo that he did occupy the normal position in the Secret Service follow-up car (Figure 3). In the next photo we can see that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 4). The HSCA was seemingly unaware of, or ignored, the Stoughton photos, and did not address the issue of the dent of the chrome topping. However, HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden did state at a conference at Emerson College a few years ago that he and a HSCA staff member had examined the chrome topping at the National Archives and that the nose of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet like CE 399 fit perfectly into the indentation in the chrome topping. And here is a photograph taken by Robert Knudsen of an earlier motorcade in 1963 which shows that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 5).
  14. Cold War played out right in front of me

    Steve, using the same website you linked for your Marina Oswald Warren Commission testimony, if you go to near the bottom of the 2nd page you will see the suicide exchange between Liebeler and Marina.