Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joe Bauer

Members
  • Posts

    6,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joe Bauer

  1.  

    Lansdale was photographed many times through the decades.

    Surely there are pictures of him from behind.

    Again, I am no expert, but from what little comparative analysis I have done looking at as many Lansdale pictures as I could find in a general search of such, he does have a quite distinct block head like the one we see in the most well known Dealey Plaza/tramp walk photo.

    His head also is thinner rather than wide and his head rest on a longer neck and his head leans up and forward in an unusual kind of stiff way.

    The hair style, thickness, color and even cut of the tramp photo looks very close to all other Lansdale pics.

    Hair ID is important and often a good way of eliminating or finding similarities imo.

    Even that thin strip of white dress shirt showing above the back of the tramp photo man is an ID clue worth considering.

    It can often be distinctive if seen in many other photos.

    JFK himself was photographed hundreds of thousands of times. I believe one could ID JFK just from the back because of things like coat style and fit, shirt collar type and view, shoulder shape and size and head and shoulder lean and posture.

    And who couldn't ID JFK just from his famous head of hair?

    The left arm of the tramp walk man, it's length to leg, it's turn, the hand type and turn, like Prouty mentioned, if you've been physically close to someone off and on for years, you do notice many more subtleties like this. The ring on the tramp walk man's hand shouldn't be dismissed entirely.

    I would think a high tech enlargement of the tramp walk man's ring would be something to consider in comparing to Lansdale's ring in other photos.

    Lansdale was a man of extreme hands on action from what I have read.

    Kind of a control freak in this way?

    He sounds like the kind of person who would take the bold risk to be on scene of the most important event of his life if he was involved.

    Lansdale was a man of the most boldest action taking. That's no exaggeration.

     

     

     

  2. On 4/30/2020 at 4:16 AM, Joseph McBride said:

    FINTAN O’TOOLE. Donald Trump has destroyed the country he promised to make great again (Irish Times 25.4.2020)

     

    Usually, when this kind of outlandish idiocy is displaying itself, there is the comforting thought that, if things were really serious, it would all stop. People would sober up. Instead, a large part of the US has hit the bottle even harder.

    US President Donald Trump has claimed he was being sarcastic and testing the media when he raised the idea that injecting disinfectant or irradiating the body with ultraviolet light might kill coronavirus.

    Over more than two centuries, the United States has stirred a very wide range of feelings in the rest of the world: love and hatred, fear and hope, envy and contempt, awe and anger. But there is one emotion that has never been directed towards the US until now: pity.

    However bad things are for most other rich democracies, it is hard not to feel sorry for Americans. Most of them did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet they are locked down with a malignant narcissist who, instead of protecting his people from Covid-19, has amplified its lethality. The country Trump promised to make great again has never in its history seemed so pitiful.

    Will American prestige ever recover from this shameful episode? The US went into the coronavirus crisis with immense advantages: precious weeks of warning about what was coming, the world’s best concentration of medical and scientific expertise, effectively limitless financial resources, a military complex with stunning logistical capacity and most of the world’s leading technology corporations. Yet it managed to make itself the global epicentre of the pandemic.

    As the American writer George Packer puts it in the current edition of the Atlantic, “The United States reacted … like Pakistan or Belarus – like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering.”

    It is one thing to be powerless in the face of a natural disaster, quite another to watch vast power being squandered in real time – wilfully, malevolently, vindictively. It is one thing for governments to fail (as, in one degree or another, most governments did), quite another to watch a ruler and his supporters actively spread a deadly virus. Trump, his party and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News became vectors of the pestilence.

    The grotesque spectacle of the president openly inciting people (some of them armed) to take to the streets to oppose the restrictions that save lives is the manifestation of a political death wish. What are supposed to be daily briefings on the crisis, demonstrative of national unity in the face of a shared challenge, have been used by Trump merely to sow confusion and division. They provide a recurring horror show in which all the neuroses that haunt the American subconscious dance naked on live TV.

    If the plague is a test, its ruling political nexus ensured that the US would fail it at a terrible cost in human lives. In the process, the idea of the US as the world’s leading nation – an idea that has shaped the past century – has all but evaporated.

    Other than the Trump impersonator Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, who is now looking to the US as the exemplar of anything other than what not to do? How many people in Düsseldorf or Dublin are wishing they lived in Detroit or Dallas?

    It is hard to remember now but, even in 2017, when Trump took office, the conventional wisdom in the US was that the Republican Party and the broader framework of US political institutions would prevent him from doing too much damage. This was always a delusion, but the pandemic has exposed it in the most savage ways.

    What used to be called mainstream conservatism has not absorbed Trump – he has absorbed it. Almost the entire right-wing half of American politics has surrendered abjectly to him. It has sacrificed on the altar of wanton stupidity the most basic ideas of responsibility, care and even safety.

    Thus, even at the very end of March, 15 Republican governors had failed to order people to stay at home or to close non-essential businesses. In Alabama, for example, it was not until April 3rd that governor Kay Ivey finally issued a stay-at-home order.

    In Florida, the state with the highest concentration of elderly people with underlying conditions, governor Ron DeSantis, a Trump mini-me, kept the beach resorts open to students travelling from all over the US for spring break parties. Even on April 1st, when he issued restrictions, DeSantis exempted religious services and “recreational activities”.

    There is, as the demonstrations in US cities show, plenty of political mileage in denying the reality of the pandemic.

    Georgia governor Brian Kemp, when he finally issued a stay-at-home order on April 1st, explained: “We didn’t know that [the virus can be spread by people without symptoms] until the last 24 hours.”

    This is not mere ignorance – it is deliberate and homicidal stupidity. There is, as the demonstrations this week in US cities have shown, plenty of political mileage in denying the reality of the pandemic. It is fuelled by Fox News and far-right internet sites, and it reaps for these politicians millions of dollars in donations, mostly (in an ugly irony) from older people who are most vulnerable to the coronavirus.

    It draws on a concoction of conspiracy theories, hatred of science, paranoia about the “deep state” and religious providentialism (God will protect the good folks) that is now very deeply infused in the mindset of the American right.

    Trump embodies and enacts this mindset, but he did not invent it. The US response to the coronavirus crisis has been paralysed by a contradiction that the Republicans have inserted into the heart of US democracy. On the one hand, they want to control all the levers of governmental power. On the other they have created a popular base by playing on the notion that government is innately evil and must not be trusted.

    The contradiction was made manifest in two of Trump’s statements on the pandemic: on the one hand that he has “total authority”, and on the other that “I don’t take responsibility at all”. Caught between authoritarian and anarchic impulses, he is incapable of coherence.

    But this is not just Donald Trump. The crisis has shown definitively that Trump’s presidency is not an aberration. It has grown on soil long prepared to receive it. The monstrous blossoming of misrule has structure and purpose and strategy behind it.

    There are very powerful interests who demand “freedom” in order to do as they like with the environment, society and the economy. They have infused a very large part of American culture with the belief that “freedom” is literally more important than life. My freedom to own assault weapons trumps your right not to get shot at school. Now, my freedom to go to the barber (“I Need a Haircut” read one banner this week in St Paul, Minnesota) trumps your need to avoid infection.

    Usually, when this kind of outlandish idiocy is displaying itself, there is the comforting thought that, if things were really serious, it would all stop. People would sober up. Instead, a large part of the US has hit the bottle even harder.

    And the president, his party and their media allies keep supplying the drinks. There has been no moment of truth, no shock of realisation that the antics have to end. No one of any substance on the US right has stepped in to say: get a grip, people are dying here.

    If he is re-elected, toxicity will have become the lifeblood of American politics

    That is the mark of how deep the trouble is for the US – it is not just that Trump has treated the crisis merely as a way to feed tribal hatreds but that this behaviour has become normalised. When the freak show is live on TV every evening, and the star is boasting about his ratings, it is not really a freak show any more. For a very large and solid bloc of Americans, it is reality.

    And this will get worse before it gets better. Trump has at least eight more months in power. In his inaugural address in 2017, he evoked “American carnage” and promised to make it stop. But now that the real carnage has arrived, he is revelling in it. He is in his element.

    As things get worse, he will pump more hatred and falsehood, more death-wish defiance of reason and decency, into the groundwater. If a new administration succeeds him in 2021, it will have to clean up the toxic dump he leaves behind. If he is re-elected, toxicity will have become the lifeblood of American politics.

    Either way, it will be a long time before the rest of the world can imagine America being great again.

    Fintan O’Toole is an Irish columnist, literary editor, and drama critic for The Irish Times, for which he has written since 1988.

    Going back to McBride's original thread to clear my thoughts about the main message being presented here.

    It's been "6 months" since McBride shared Mr. O'Toole's warning piece.

    O'Toole's assessment on Trump and his enabling others in our government and media and where they have taken us with a massive train wreck warning has been born out in spades even more since this original thread posting 6 months ago.

    As bad as the situation with Trump was 6 months ago as O'Toole describes, we all know things are even worse now.

    No one can deny we as a society have never been under stresses we are currently experiencing since World War II when our very survival against the threat of fascist military powers who had the power to destroy us and our democracy existed and whom were in an all out effort to do just that.

    Yet, this real threat confronting us now is a different kind of frightening reality.

    We don't know whether this pandemic can be stopped. We don't know how much damage it can do to us all and our future generations. Young men and women by the millions are holding off having babies due to this viral monster!

    And along with this world attacking monster, we have been in a battle with a real threat to our balance of power system of federal government.

    I think O'Toole's comments about our often falling back on a belief that our constitutional system will always correct dangerous political control aberrations is not always an infallible and responsible take.

    Especially now more than we know.

  3. I've mentioned before the need to have the lanky man Dealey Plaza photo analyzed by more than one expert in the field of physical anatomy, motion and body recognition.

    There are such experts and this is a well developed science now with high tech means of physical identification.

    You've probably heard of such in surveillance science where a person's gate while walking and hand, arm and head movement can reveal traits specific to certain degrees.

    We all know how far advanced we are in facial recognition science. Used everywhere now.

    These experts could look at extensive numbers of known Lansdale pictures and maybe even film of him walking and compare them to the Dealey Plaza lanky man photo. Their comparative identification conclusions would be the only real way of deciding whether this was Lansdale to a scientific degree of certainty.

    Ahhh, but we all know the reality of monetary cost and effort in making a study like this happen.

    Only a wealthy person could afford such a project. A project many would say is frivolous in the larger picture of JFK assassination research.

    So, such a study will probably never happen.

    My own study of past pictures of Lansdale and comparing them to the lanky walking man one leaves me with a gut feeling it is Lansdale. 

    However, I also believe the Patterson/Gimlin video shows a real Big Foot as well.

    So, take my unscientific guess as you will ... and should?

  4. 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
    1 hour ago, Ty Carpenter said:

    So the rally did or did not happen and Eric Trump took a 1.5 billion dollar bribe from the Ukraine?

    Trump spends 90% of his time tweeting, jetting around for photo ops and rallies, speaking at rallies, golfing, having his hair and make up done, watching Fox News, giving Medal Of Freedom awards to people like Rush Limbaugh and hosting the cheapest cost fast food banquets to college champion sports teams.

    This is not a person who runs the country. That job is done by real power people behind the scenes. 

    Trump is simply a blowhard attention addicted media front man.

    A true Wizard Of Oz ...  exposed.

     

     

     
     
     

    Indian man who fasted for four days ‘to pray for Trump’s coronavirus recovery’ dies of cardiac arrest

    e2957180-bbde-11ea-bffe-1fa90eb055ab
    Stuti Mishra
    ,
    The IndependentOctober 12, 2020
     
     
    Trump has a keen following in India, particularly among supporters of prime minister Narendra Modi (Getty)
    Trump has a keen following in India, particularly among supporters of prime minister Narendra Modi (Getty)

    A 38-year-old man from the Indian state of Telangana has died after fasting for four days to pray for Donald Trump’s recovery from Covid-19.

    According to his family, Bussa Krishna Raju worshipped the US president like a god, and was shocked and disturbed to find out about his coronavirus diagnosis.

    Mr Raju refused food and started praying for Mr Trump’s recovery when he found out about his infection last week. Mr Trump tested positive on Thursday 1 October, and was treated at the Walter Reed Medical Center for several days.

    Mr Raju’s family told the Times of India that he collapsed on Sunday while having tea at his relative’s residence in the village of Toopran in Medak district. He was taken to hospital where doctors declared him dead.

     

    A close family member told the Times of India: "He was upset when he learnt about Trump testing positive for coronavirus. He spent sleepless nights, starved and prayed for the US president's recovery for the past three-four days. He died of cardiac arrest today around noon."

    Mr Raju has previously been in the news earlier this year when he installed a 6-foot statue of the US president at his home and started performing rituals, calling his residence the “Trump Temple”.  

    Mr Raju said at the time that he had been praying for Mr Trump’s re-election, as well as his wellbeing and that of the First Lady Melania Trump. He claimed that even before installing the statue, he was worshipping Trump for over four years. 

    Story continues
  5. 10 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

     

     
     
     

    Indian man who fasted for four days ‘to pray for Trump’s coronavirus recovery’ dies of cardiac arrest

    e2957180-bbde-11ea-bffe-1fa90eb055ab
    Stuti Mishra
    ,
    The IndependentOctober 12, 2020
     
     
    Trump has a keen following in India, particularly among supporters of prime minister Narendra Modi (Getty)
    Trump has a keen following in India, particularly among supporters of prime minister Narendra Modi (Getty)

    A 38-year-old man from the Indian state of Telangana has died after fasting for four days to pray for Donald Trump’s recovery from Covid-19.

    According to his family, Bussa Krishna Raju worshipped the US president like a god, and was shocked and disturbed to find out about his coronavirus diagnosis.

    Mr Raju refused food and started praying for Mr Trump’s recovery when he found out about his infection last week. Mr Trump tested positive on Thursday 1 October, and was treated at the Walter Reed Medical Center for several days.

    Mr Raju’s family told the Times of India that he collapsed on Sunday while having tea at his relative’s residence in the village of Toopran in Medak district. He was taken to hospital where doctors declared him dead.

     

    A close family member told the Times of India: "He was upset when he learnt about Trump testing positive for coronavirus. He spent sleepless nights, starved and prayed for the US president's recovery for the past three-four days. He died of cardiac arrest today around noon."

    Mr Raju has previously been in the news earlier this year when he installed a 6-foot statue of the US president at his home and started performing rituals, calling his residence the “Trump Temple”.  

    Mr Raju said at the time that he had been praying for Mr Trump’s re-election, as well as his wellbeing and that of the First Lady Melania Trump. He claimed that even before installing the statue, he was worshipping Trump for over four years. 

    Story continues
  6. 13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

    7/7/62. " Zuroma club guests, mayor Earle Cabbell, District Attorney Henry Wade and sheriff Bill Decker".  From a copy of Texas Tribune, Italian - American news letter.  Found in the back of Betrayal In Dallas, sourced to the LBJ library in Austin.

    Please Ron, can you explain the "Zuroma Club?"

  7. It's the women voters of America who will decide this presidential election.

    If they weren't favoring the Democrats over the Republicans by a 20+ margin, Trump would win the election.

    No other single block of voters can compare to their impact.

    Our women voters are deeply repulsed by Trump by a huge majority margin.

    Even though Trump's known long term misogynist and sexual predator behavior is not given priority coverage in our mass media as much as other issues like the Corona virus, Trump's hidden taxes and debt, encouraging right wing extremists and dividing our society, his general corruptness and lying, American women keep this predator reality in mind when it comes to Donald "grab em by the pu$$y" Trump.

    They will never forget that one specific nationally broadcast crude and demeaning brag by Trump.

    They also are turning against him over his pushing an anti-abortion SCOTUS nominee. To replace a female justice who had and fought for the opposite view!

    They know about the sexual predator expose Trump book "All The President's Women. The Making Of A Sexual Predator" and the predator charges against Trump by almost 2 dozen women. They know about E.Jean Carroll and her charge of rape against Trump.

    They know about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and Trump's calling them XXXXX yet paying them off with over $100,000 each at the same time.

    They have too often heard Trump refer to women in the most demeaning terms such as "ugly", "fat", "horse face", "nasty", "dog" "XXXXX", "crazy", etc. etc.

    Trump's most vote damaging character trait is his lifetime of demeaning, disrespecting and unwanted sexually aggressive behavior toward women.

    And American women have seen and had enough.

    This November 3rd, our American women voters will send this awful guy packing.

     

  8. Other "reported" celebrity Trump supporters:

     

     

  9. What was the quote James Jesus Angleton reportedly said before he died?

    “What he confessed was this. He had not been serving God, after all, when he followed Allen Dulles. He had been on a satanic quest.
    These were some of James Jesus Angleton’s dying words. He delivered them between fits of calamitous coughing—lung-scraping seizures that still failed to break him of his cigarette habit—and soothing sips of tea. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were XXXXX,” Angleton told Trento in an emotionless voice. “The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it.”
    He invoked the names of the high eminences who had run the CIA in his day—Dulles, Helms, Wisner. These men were “the grand masters,” he said. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.”
    Angleton took another slow sip from his steaming cup. “I guess I will see them there soon.”
     David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
  10. 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Jim,

         After reading your latest article, I'm puzzled.  Why would a WCR critic like Sylvia Meagher have been so hostile to Garrison, and so, apparently, sympathetic toward Clay Shaw?   There's something very odd about this, IMO.

         Meagher, obviously, realized by 1967 that the WCR was fraudulent.  Under the circumstances, it seems like she would have welcomed alternative evidence and theories about JFK's assassination, including many details that Garrison's investigation had unearthed.

    Same question here.

     

  11. 2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

    Called Everyone in Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book

    What I learned about rich people, conspiracy, “genius,” Ghislaine, stand-up comedy, and evil from 2,000 phone calls.

    Leland NallyOctober 9, 2020

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/?fbclid=IwAR2z0xxq1Vt8iVisciOLoUObLfk4FpdRkErxyaN5Azgp87QDvE-kCpmL5Yo

    Just read the article. Fascinating.

  12. Trump's campaign is crumbling just like his Casino businesses in Atlantic City back in the 1990s.

    Through massive mismanagement and over borrowing at too high of interest rates.

    Trump "borrowed" support for his presidency from a high risk base with overhyped promises and overhyped political assets. He couldn't deliver on his end, just like he couldn't deliver on his loans for the Casino's.

    And just like his Casino debacle failures, there will be huge losses to those who invested big time in his failed presidency venture.

    All those who have served Trump with blind sychophantic loyalty or enabled him throughout his one term disaster will be forever tainted by his colossal failure just like Nixon's entire team of 25 closest staff, aides and appointees were after Watergate.  

    • "People underestimated Donald Trump’s ability to pillage the company," Sebastian Pignatello, an investor who at one time owned $500,000 worth of stock in Trump's casino companies, according to The New York Times. "He drove these companies into bankruptcy by his mismanagement, the debt and his pillaging."

    Trump's neice Mary Trump ( author of her Trump expose book "Too Much And Never Enough ") is being proven 100% accurate in her critical assessment of her uncle.

    Some Dems including Pelosi herself didn't want to go through with the Impeachment proceedings of Trump.

    However, in hindsight, even though the Republican Senate protected Trump and let him off the conviction hook in the end, the impeachment move hurt Trump more than many believe.

    As shut down as the Trump impeachment effort was, it still tainted him. It corroded his image. It greatly exposed his recklessly aggressive and totally self-interest motivated abuse of power behavior. 

    The impeachment proceedings ( even as far as they went ) were just one part of the erosion of Trump's weakly built false facade image of leadership competency. 

    Combined with 100 other presidential leadership failures that false facade has finally been completely crumbled just as Trump's Casino businesses were back in the 1990's ... imo.

    We all know now what Trump truly is;

    The ultimate "Flim-Flam Man." 

     

     

     

  13. This is an interesting thought provoking question imo.

    We all want to be as honest with our answer as can be.

    Your grandchildren and/or great grandchildren deserve nothing less, yes?

    It would be a challenge to offer them a brief one or two sentence answer instead of a long spiel which would probably bore them to tears.

    So what would your answer be?

    I think our highest love motivated truth answers to our children and their children would reveal much about where we are all "truly at" with this historical event in our own minds and hearts.

    I think my answer would be something like  "very powerful and corrupt men who felt JFK threatened their wealth, power and control."

    Who were they specfically? We just don't know. Hopefully someday we will know.

  14. 10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

     

         He also flip-flopped 180 degrees on the stimulus deal, and ordered Barr to investigate his political adversaries.

      

    In just "one" 24 hour period Trump went from publicly announcing he was stopping completely all negotiations on any stimulus package until after he was elected, to then saying they were on again and then, in a rambling two hour long spiel with Rush Limbaugh, he went in an even different direction and said he wanted to reverse the Republican "skinny" package deal to one even larger than the Dems have offered!

    All within just 24 hours? 

    If THAT isn't a sign of steroid instability, what is?

    Imagine being one of 40 to 60 million rent, bills and life stressed, job loss Americans who have barely been getting by, especially with the stoppage of the extra supplemental funds at the end of July, and who have been waiting months for needed relief promised by both parties and then seeing and hearing this extreme back and forth position shifting by our drugged up president and in such a brief period of time?

    One hour your stomach drops when Trump says no negotiations until after he gets elected, hours later he reverses himself 180 degrees and says they're back on, and just hours after that he says ... let's make this an even bigger give-away!  

    What the heck?

    Like talking to a manic meth addict before and then after their getting high!

    And in between this crazy stimulus seesaw ride he's yelling...listen Billy Boy, go after Obama and Clinton and arrest their asses right now! And if you don't do it ... I'm a gonna be one really mad dude!

    Melania ... where's my Prednisone?

  15. 18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     

        Meanwhile, the NYT's lead story this afternoon is about a Trump hotel in Vegas deducting a $21 million dollar "expense" that was paid to ...uh... Donald Trump, himself, through a series of shell companies.

    Youv'e got to be kidding!

    Another head shaking outrageous sleaze deal benefitting DT?

    On top of dozens? It never ends!

    How...how in the world can this big time crook get re-elected?

  16. On 10/9/2020 at 12:25 PM, Jeff Carter said:

     

    The MSM ( .....................)  is an important participant in the charade utilizing known propaganda techniques to hoodwink the populace. It's important to at least acknowledge this.

     

    I agree, but from a different perspective.

    Like so many others I have said and I repeat, the huge meaningful impacting majority MSM has downplayed Trump's abuses to the degree that they have enabled his ability to do this with impunity his entire term.

    More than any other single society influencing power group, they are responsible for these abuses going unaddressed imo.

    The example of substituting Obama in place of Trump as the perpetrator of these abuses is still the best logical way to see the stark hypocrisy of the false reality MSM manipulation of Trump and his abuses.

    Just imagine these Trump digressions being Obama ones:

    Trump's "grab em by the pu$$y" comments caught on tape.

    Trump proven lying regards sexual trysts with and hush money pay-offs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

    Trump's hiding school grade records, sleazy business dealings with sleazy characters, hiding tax records, not paying income taxes 10 out of 15 years or only paying $750 on income in the hundreds of millions.

    Filing personal business banruptcies that left thousands of investors losing millions.

    Pressuring Ukraine to help him politically.

    Firing highly respected long time and highly respected political service members for not going along with his political interest back channel schemes.

    Having so many of his personally chosen highest staff members in jail or under indictment.

    Stating publically his feeling sorry for Epstein child sex abuse procurer Ghislaine Maxwell instead of the sex trafficked children.

    Trump's pushing his own properties for governement use and his own profit.

    Trump's placing his own family in $160,000 a year tax payer funded government jobs when they have no experience.

    Trump taking the side of a head of state that murdered an American legal journalist and coddling dictators like Kim Jung, Putin, etc. and on and on.

    America's main media ( newspapers, radio, internet, etc ) would have had 100 front page headline editorial pronouncements screaming outraged calls for Obama's removal throughout this endless abuse of power and displays of totally self-interested and amoral character actions.

    Rush Limbaugh and the other 10 right wing radio propagandists like Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Laura Ingraham, Clyde Lewis, Alex Jones, Mark Levin, Mike Gallagher, etc.  ( democrats and liberals have NONE ) would be screaming for Obama's removal to their 50 million listeners 24/7 this entire last 4 years!

    Over 100 major newspapers published "frontpage" outrage editorials calling for the resignation of Bill Clinton during his Monica Lewinsky scandal.

    Maybe two or three calling for Trumps?

    Clinton's front page newspaper outrage creating behavior looks like a child's candy stealing event compared to Trump's abuses and we all know it.

    Why the Trump bias and protection?

    My guess is that the majority ownership of our largest corporate media giants are actually Trump supporters in the same way the rest of our 1% most wealthy are.

    Their financial wealth, power and influence is their and Trump's number 1 personal and political priority. Hence, keeping his outrageous abuses buried in intentional reporting downplaying.

     

     

  17. On 10/9/2020 at 11:34 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

    Who had more good character 

    honesty, integrity and better case presentation skills and maybe even mental health between these two big city District Attorneys - Jim Garrison or Henry Wade?

    Jim Garrison - broadly well read, well dressed, extremely well spoken, well liked and respected even with colored citizens. Author of several books of decent critical reception.

    Henry Wade - frumpy, poorly spoken, non-intellectual good ole boy racist.

    If Garrison was the dishonest, low integrity, unstable bad guy here...what would you call Henry Wade?

    I don't mean to turn this thread into a Henry Wade one, but if one is going to pound Garrison and his integrity, I ask them to compare these two big city DA's, especially in regards to their take on Oswald and Jack Ruby, and tell us which of the two sounds more honest and correctly informed?

    Feigning unsureness or ignorance Wade described to the world press the Oswald killer's name "a Jacob Rubenstein I believe") the night of the killing. 

    Wade also told the press the evening of 11,24, 1963 he did not personally know Jack Ruby.

    Please!

    Henry Wade knew Jack Ruby well. He had even been in his strip club and imbibbed according to Ruby employee Nancy Hamilton in her Mark Lane interview.

     

     
    hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEZCNACELwBSFXyq4
     
     
    Dallas DA Henry Wade is asked point blank if he knew Jack Ruby. He denies it. But Nancy Hamilton, a former bartender for Ruby, ...

     

    If Jim Garrison was a misguided attention seeking loon, Henry Wade was a downright lying ... whatever.

    Again, to put Jim Garrison and his integrity, intellect and skills into a proper perspective besides a totally negative one, take a look and listen to this 11,24, 1963 press conference video of Dallas DA Wade with it's clear depiction of his embarrassingly poor and stammering elocution and articulation and presentation of so many proven wrong facts about Oswald and evidence such as prints, gun powder parrafin tests, etc.

    And watch Wade's facial expressions when he was asked whether he knew Jack Ruby, and how one press member who witnessed Wade talking one-on-one with Ruby the evening of 11,22,1963 actually said to Wade " it looked like you were good friends!"

    To which Wade just smiled nervously.

    Press conference that took place at Dallas City Hall 11,24,1963:
     

    Henry Wade's Legacy[edit]

    Wade once again gained national attention in 1988 with the release of Errol Morris's documentary film The Thin Blue Line. The documentary tells the story of Randall Dale Adams' 1977 conviction for the murder of Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer. Adams was sentenced to death for the crime. The execution was scheduled for May 8, 1979, but US Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., ordered a stay only three days before the scheduled date. Instead of conducting a new trial, Governor Bill Clements commuted Adams's sentence to life in prison. Adams was exonerated in 1988, after serving 12 years in prison. Similar cases of exonerated men have recently arisen, putting the legality of Wade's practices in question.

    As of July 2008, fifteen persons convicted during Wade's term as Dallas County District Attorney have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were accused in light of new DNA evidence. Because of the culture of the department to "convict at all costs," it is suspected that more innocent people have been falsely imprisoned.[7] Project Innocence Texas currently has more than 250 cases under examination.

     

  18. 2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

    I made no claim or attempt to represent your case against Clay Shaw; I only quoted your slide presentation to establish an answer to a question I asked concerning whether you personally continue, now and today, to believe in Clay Shaw's guilt, which you did not answer me (not that you had any obligation to do so). (Maybe it came across as a stupid question.)

    But to address this which you bring up, on the six lies (listed above), as you are aware all of the ones except for the CIA one are disputed. The HSCA investigators judged that Ferrie and Oswald were in Clinton but that Clay Shaw was not. At least in HSCA investigators' judgment it is not obvious that Clay Shaw perjured himself there, and Clay Shaw seems to have a fairly good alibi putting him elsewhere during the time in Clinton at issue. So that is one of the six.

    I have only myself intensively studied one of these, the claim that Clay Shaw called Dean Andrews to request legal assistance for Oswald, and it is plainly clear that, though someone surely did call Dean Andrews with that request, it was not Clay Shaw. One strong piece of evidence of this is that Dean Andrews said it was not Clay Shaw. Dean Andrews perjured himself but the perjury was not in the denial that it was Clay Shaw, but in the claim that he could not remember or had imagined the phone call. Perjury from Dean Andrews, yes, but not on the matter you say. The true identity of the caller to Dean Andrews for the call which DID HAPPEN, was almost certainly Clem Sehrt, a senior Mob-connected lawyer but that is not why he made the call to Dean Andrews, it was because he was a childhood friend of Marguerite Oswald and had helped her out, because of that, over the years. There is independently derived corroborating testimony both that Marguerite told of calling Clem Sehrt after her son's arrest appealing for help in getting Lee a lawyer, and from Clem Sehrt's end of it a partner of Sehrt said Clem Sehrt told of being called by someone asking for legal representation for Oswald. Clem Sehrt had helped Marguerite with Lee's enlistment in the Marines (though he falsely denied it under oath), and is the most likely identity of the LAWYER (which Clay Shaw was not) who Dean Andrews claimed had referred Oswald to him for legal help in the summer of 1963 concerning Oswald's Marine discharge appeal issue. Clem Sehrt gets a pleading phone call from longtime friend Marguerite for help for son Lee; Sehrt does what he can--phones Dean Andrews and asks him to go to Dallas to assist Lee, asking Dean Andrews (very firmly) for absolute confidentiality in this request (just as Clem Sehrt wanted nothing to do with talking about his earlier assistance in an underage Lee enlisting in the Marines, that Marguerite told of). Dean Andrews, as he privately told one or more people, knew the identity of the caller but would not say because he feared for his life if he did so. The fear was not from Clay Shaw but from the Mob with whom Clem Sehrt was associated, from the people around Marcello. Dean Andrews considered a risk or and even a conviction for perjury to be preferable to outing the identity of the caller--Clem Sehrt--because these were dangerous people. The reason why neither Sehrt nor the Mob would want Sehrt's identity disclosed as Dean Andrew's caller is because that would put all sorts of focus on Marcello as possibly involved in the JFK assassination. In fact whether or not Marcello actually was is beside the issue, that was not the reason for Clem Sehrt's call which was instead the childhood family friend and relationship with Marguerite. In any case, Dean Andrews would not under any circumstances reveal Sehrt's identity, under a realistic fear of dire consequences if he did so, and at the same time Dean Andrews was not willing to see an innocent man (innocent of having called Dean Andrews I mean here) falsely accused and implicated on the basis of false testimony. Dean Andrews said at one point, no matter the consequences, no matter what other sins I have committed, I am doing a good and right thing, I am not going to falsely name Clay Shaw. 

    How did the name "Clay Bertrand" come from Dean Andrews? I don't know for sure, but it is curious that the first name of the true caller, Clem Sehrt, sounds so similar. There was also a very early attempt by Dean Andrews to cover up or deny the reality of the phone call altogether but his secretary knew of the call so that could not be done successfully, and it is possible the secretary is the actual original source of the name "Clay Bertrand" in some misunderstanding of what Andrews had told her, and Andrews stuck with that as a fictitious name (because, under no circumstances, is Andrews going to disclose to the world the true name). There are also stories--all unconfirmed but here and there in the documents--that supposedly a nurse at the hospital where Dean Andrews was at the time had a last name "Bertrand" and some speculated that was what was handy in an invention of a fictitious name. 

    Finally, not to be underestimated is the mention made by Micah that there WAS A REAL CLAY BERTRAND, by that name, in Louisiana, who may have been in New Orleans at the time. According to a 1967 FBI document (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/217/217855/images/img_217855_167_300.png😞

    Aaron Kohn, managing director, Metropolitan Crime Commission, advised February 24, he had received information that Clay Bertrand and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Kohn advised he picked this information up from one of 89 news sources that contacted him on February 24, 1967.

    Kohn advised that he also received information that there is a man named Clay Bertrand living in Lafayette, Louisiana, a real estate broker that lived in New Orleans about the time of the assassination of President Kennedy.

    Was the real Clay Bertrand ever questioned or asked or any inquiry made by Garrison investigators, FBI, or anyone else, concerning the Dean Andrews phone call, or any of the other alleged "Clay Bertrand" name mentions? No. Perhaps Garrison did not know of the existence of this Clay Bertrand, but that does not change the relevance that in all the debates over "who was Clay Bertrand", NOBODY EVER THOUGHT TO CONSIDER OR QUESTION CLAY BERTRAND!

    And so on one of the alleged six major lies of which Clay Shaw is accused in your list, the phone call to Dean Andrews, I am certain that at least that one is just wrong. Clay Shaw did not lie, Dean Andrews did, but Dean Andrews' lie was covering up a Clem Sehrt identity of the caller, and Dean Andrews told the truth that it was not Clay Shaw.

    On the others, these again are all, except for the CIA connection, disputed and contested, so it matters very much how reasonable researchers or informed citizens on a criminal jury would assess each of these, case by case, in deciding whether, in fact, Clay Shaw was lying in major ways suggesting he had "something to hide" material to the charge against him. Though I have not studied in detail the others, I will outline a working hypothesis of interpretation of all of these six claims, in the order you give:

    (1) knew Ferrie, said he did not--uncertain; ambiguous but possible perjury. Both Clay Shaw and Ferrie, from most reports, were promiscuous and active in New Orleans' gay underworld subculture, and Clay Shaw was not publicly outed. Clay Shaw could have known Ferrie, if he did, most likely in this context (nothing to do with the assassination). If so, Clay Shaw would have strong motive to deny, if he could get away with it, knowing Ferrie at all. Admission that he knew Ferrie would raise the question, "why?", and to establish it was not related to the assassination Clay Shaw would have had to claim some form of gay sex as the (actually truthful) alibi. If there was perjury here, there is a motive for it that has nothing to do with implicating Clay Shaw in the assassination. 

    (2) knew Oswald, said he did not--reject this one, unproven (reject testimony of dicey witnesses here; hearsay attributed to Clay Shaw has issues of interpretation of that hearsay). Oswald was neither gay nor bi, and there is no obvious reason why Clay Shaw would have met or known Oswald personally, other than casual knowledge of the arrest incident outside his building in the news.

    (3) used alias of Bertrand, said he did not--reject this one (reject testimony of dicey witnesses). 

    (4) worked for CIA, and lied about it--on this one, documents subsequently have established unequivocally that Clay Shaw did have a relationship with CIA, minimally in the 1950s involving lengthy debriefings from his travels overseas, uncertain degree above that level or further chronological timeframe. Whether with the help of a good lawyer Clay Shaw could have beaten a perjury charge on this one based on technical definition of the wording of the question and words ("employee", "working for", etc.) I would not know. This one therefore, though not disputing a CIA relationship itself for Clay Shaw, my first assumption would be "uncertain" concerning legal perjury. Whether or not it was legally perjury it is clear Clay Shaw did not wish to voluntarily disclose it. However, there are motives for nondisclosure of that that have nothing to do with involvement in the assassination of JFK, or a framing of Oswald, etc. Therefore the certain secrecy, and the more ambiguous but possible legal perjury, if so, in this case does not in any obvious sense give weight toward implicating Clay Shaw in an assassination conspiracy.  

    (5) drove to Jackson, and lied about it--unlikely, reject, in keeping with HSCA investigators. Whether or not Oswald and Ferrie were there irrelevant here.

    (6) called Dean Andrews, and lied about it--no, reject (for reasons given earlier).

    This analysis would add up to four non-perjuries, two possible perjuries, and zero certain (legal) perjuries. Of the two possible perjuries, each have obvious possible alternative motivations that have nothing to do with covering up involvement or complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy.

    GD 

    You never mentioned the story of a New Orleans policeman who reportedly heard Clay Shaw affirm 

    to the booking officer upon his arrest that he did use the alias "Clay ( or Clem ) Bertrand?"

    I am not sure if it was the officer who was asking the booking questions or another officer within earshot who reported this admission on the part of Clay Shaw during booking.

    I think something like this story did happen based on Garrison's attempt to have this report or the officer who stated it included into the court hearings which was denied.

    Why even submit such a request if the reported incident never happened?

    Assessments like yours and others regards Shaw's guilt or innocence

    eventually boil down to a subjective take on witnesseses, their testimonies, court decisions, evidence especially circumstantial evidence, etc.

    I am not in an informed study position to weigh in with a worthy take on Shaw's guilt or innocence.

    All I can throw into the debate is a common sense, life experience questioning of the case in general.

    One thing that is now clear however is Shaw's connections to the agency and how he lied about this under oath. So, he is a proven xxxx at least in this context.

    And ( again from life experience ) it is my belief that people who have long term ( years) of secret and what most would consider deviant or at least unacceptable sex lives as Shaw did, have to, for self, career and reputation protection reasons, become practiced XXXXX.

    They lead secret lives. And to keep them secret often use aliases or code names, have secret bank accounts, secret lairs, secret phone numbers, secret friends, etc. 

    If Shaw did admit to the New Orlean's Police Department booking officer he used the "Bertrand" alias, most of your argument regards Shaw's innocence is invalid imo.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...