Joe Bauer

James Hosty smiled slightly when giving this answer - "they didn't ask" - to the following years later question: During Hosty's initial sworn testimony to the Warren Commission back in 1964 ( "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God " - and Hosty was a Catholic ) why didn't he ( Hosty) tell the Warren Commission about his destruction of at least part of his office's Oswald file the day of or day after Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby upon being ordered to do so by his boss Gordon Shanklin? Hosty's almost flippant answer ... "they didn't ask." "They didn't ask" ??? !!! How could Hosty's Warren Commission questioners ask about something they were totally unaware and never informed of ? Can you imagine what the revealing of this file destruction action would have meant to the Commission if Hosty had told them the full truth regards his doing this after being instructed to do so by his boss Gordon Shanklin? Hosty held this important information back from the WC. That's a James Hosty admitted fact. To Hosty, clearly his loyalty to his employer trumped his loyalty to the "whole truth" oath he took before giving his WC testimony. And if Hosty made contradictory statements in his book versus his WC testimony this just adds to doubts about his truth telling veracity and credibility. And I mention again, my hearing of Hosty saying in a radio interview about his book "Assignment: Oswald" ... We ( the FBI and referring to the Warren Commission and their investigation ) had three of them - Ford, Russell..." and before he could mention a third person, he was cut off by the interviewer with another question totally unrelated to this astounding admission by Hosty. Information vital to the JFK assassination investigation truth was withheld from the WC in Hosty's case, and which logically forces one to assume other incidents of this full truth withholding from him and others taking place as well.

Exactly. Another thing about the infatuation with and proliferation of these brutally violent Mafia films for decades now versus the films made by great Italian directors and writers before this trend is the loss of a truer picture of Italian culture, beauty and decency. Back when I was a kid, I most often pictured hot Italian starlets like Sophia Loren. Gina Lollobrigida and Verna Lisi when I thought of Italian films. Roman Holiday made me, and I am sure millions of others, around the world want to visit Rome and Italy and bath in the warmth of it's sun, red wine, song, sexually suggestive and animated hand waving humanity. Or visit the great art of Florence, riding the Gondolas of Venice or eating olives and cheese on a sunset viewing Tuscany terrace, all in the embrace of a warm, voluptuous Italian woman whispering soft and warm nothings in my ear ... ah - so Bellisima! Since then however, I just picture the violent corruption in their culture as much as any other aspect. Sad.

Keep in mind almost all these La Cosa Nostra / Mafia films primarily recount a "Sicilian Thing" versus a broader "Italian" thing. Yes, this Sicilian thing extended into the mainland of Italy to a degree but it's important to understand how different Sicily and it's history, people and customs are on their own versus the mainland and have been forever. The Cosa Nostra is pretty much all theirs. The Cosa Nostra has traditionally been the most powerful group in Sicily, especially around Palermo.[83] A police investigation in summer 2019 also confirmed strong links between the Palermo area Sicilian Mafia and American organised crime, particularly the Gambino crime family.[84] According to La Repubblica, "Off they go, through the streets of Passo di Rigano, Boccadifalco, Torretta and at the same time, Brooklyn, Staten Island, New Jersey. Because from Sicily to the US, the old mafia has returned".[85]

Yes. Scared. And rightfully so. Like the line the Beverly Oliver character ( Lolita Davidovich ) in Oliver Stone's film JFK said in response to Jim Garrison ( Kevin Costner) after he asked her to appear in his trial of Clay Shaw ( Clay Bertrand.) Something close to...if they can kill the President of the United States, don't you think they could get to little ole' me? If Warren thought it was an inside job, I could well understand and believe he felt the same way about his own security.

Regards Russell, I posted a few years ago something I heard former FBI agent James Hosty state in a radio interview about his newly published book "Assignment: Oswald." I believe this interview was on a radio station near Kansas City. At some point well into the interview I caught and was surprised to hear Hosty say ... "We had three of them. Ford, Russell and ... " (Hosty paused as if trying to remember a third name) and it was absolutely clear that Hosty was stating who on the Warren Commission was friendly and/or cooperating with the FBI. However, before Hosty could remember and state the name of the third FBI helping WC member, the interviewer immediately interjected after a second or two of this pause with a subject changing question which I found frustrating and even illogical because who in their JFK event story interested right mind wouldn't want to know who this third FBI helping WC member was? But to hear Hosty state Russell's name in this area of cooperation begs some interesting questions regards Russell and his true intentions in this historical event imo. Any thoughts on Hosty's radio interview statement regards Russell? I tried over and over to find this interview somewhere on the internet years after I heard it, but it seems never to have existed. I think I even found the radio station and the interviewer's name at some point. But I couldn't find any mention of the interview even with this info.

For those who believe the JFK event was a conspiracy involving power groups and individuals in our own government, the contemplation of what would have happened in our society and nation had this truth been fully revealed soon or even 1, 2 or more years after 11,22,1963 would have indeed been a scary one with real consequences. There would have been massive public demonstrations everywhere ( with violence ) and every aspect of our federal government including the Executive branch, Congress, Judicial, Justice, military and secret agencies would have been called out by millions of citizens with demands of immediate, across the board, hard line investigations, arrests, firings and forced resignations, etc. For sure there would have been Marshall Law declarations and state troopers dispatched in the most volatile areas of public demonstration with many anarchy minded crazies going so far as firing on the responding order enforcing forces. MLK's killing instantly triggered this very scenario without suspects or even the full beginnings of an investigation! I have wondered also how much more angry and suspicious most Americans would have been if Jackie Kennedy had her head blown off as was her husband's in the fuselage on Elm Street that day. Americans by the tens of millions were already truly angry and suspicious ( toward right wing central, JFK hating Dallas specifically and Texas generally ) but having a beautiful young wife and mother being brutally slaughtered alongside her husband might have taken that anger to a more outraged and viscerally acting out level. What is striking to me is how far these JFK killing perpetrators ( again, if it was our own people ) were willing to go with this mind boggling risk a very real possibility in their plan and decision to implement it. An action beyond my sense of risk taking sanity. Yet, perhaps the perpetrators like this surmised that the American people in general would reject such a reality, simply because it would be too scary to accept in their safer law and order world reality paradigm along with the added weight of acknowledging responsibility such a scenario would lay upon them personally? Something similar to the fear so many feel in regards to the UFO/ET story and what it would mean to their perception of life, meaning and purpose reality as humans if it were officially revealed to be true?

Greer slowed down the limo when he turned to look at JFK just before and during the JFK head shot. Look at the Zapruder film video I provided in my earlier post. In this it so clear to see Greer's full backwards head turn and the slowing of the limo while he was doing this. Greer's claim that he slowed only because of what he saw on the over-pass is proven wrong by the actual filming of his actions during the shooting imo. Greer may have slowed the limo involuntarily because that is what you do when you turn your head 180 degrees backwards while driving. In the least, you lessen the push on the accelerator or even remove your foot from it. The slowing of the limo during Greer's head turn backwards is right there in the film. Right in front of your eyes!

Michael, I wish I could say with "absolute confidence and certainty" that the heightened security situation I described here truly did begin a day or two "before" 9-11. I am 68 now and I do know that my memory isn't as sharp as when I was under 50. And I don't have any newspaper clippings from the actual time verifying my story. However, I am guessing that the newspapers would have been kept out of such things ( at least in the first day or two ) by those who didn't want the public to immediately know or ask questions about this instant, unprecedented and ominous appearing heightened security event.

The ultimate failure ... and no reprimands? Where's the accountability?

"We both know who did it" A quote from one of the Paine's almost as ironically and suggestively suspicious as Lee Harvey Oswald's ... "I am just a patsy!"

Per the post above: Greer was the best the SS had to offer in regards to JFK's security as the driver of the limo? And Kellerman didn't even attempt to get over his seat back to cover JFK after the first hit and second one as agent Youngblood did for his charge LBJ. Too bad it wasn't Youngblood in JFK's limo versus Kellerman.

Remembering a curious event just a day or two before 9-11-2001. I was employed as a gardener at a newly completed "Navy Lodge" hotel next to Navy housing here in Monterey, CA. This was/is a 60 unit facility. Quite nice in construction and design. Very clean. Built just a year + before. The Navy needed more places to house personnel who were either transitioning into permanent Navy housing here or those visiting the Naval Post Graduate School just a mile away and even a place where retired military veterans could stay if they wanted to visit the beautiful Monterey Peninsula from other parts of the country. Apparently the Navy has built many "Navy Lodges" all around the U.S. near permanent facilities in the last 20 years or so. It saves them from having to pay for outside private lodging ( such as the expensive Trump resort ones ) for their personnel who are coming to their bases and facilities. I was as low an employee as you can imagine. $8 an hour and less than 40 hours a week so I had no benefits at all. But, with my extensive landscape experience I helped finish the landscaping at the hotel and I can confidently say, I did an outstanding job in this effort. However, it was just a temporary job for me as it was so low paying, and the next job I got paid 3 times more in salary and tips. I was working at this Navy Lodge in this maintenance position before, during and after 9-11. My memory ( flawed as it might be in my after 50 years ) recalls that a day or two "BEFORE" 9-11 we employees at this lodge were informed of a security situation that resulted in protocols I had never seen before and during the 1 year I worked there. There were many more guards posted at every entrance and exit of all the three military facilities ( Naval Post Graduate School, the Monterey Defense Language School - DLI and even our housing area.) and much more strict checking of ID's. All non-military traffic into the DLI was stopped ( before this civilians were allowed to drive through the facility as a short cut from the city of Monterey to the city of Pacific Grove ) and heavy entrance guard presence was established for the first time in my memory. Heavy guard presence that continues to this day! We lodge employees were told to adhere to stricter rules of arriving and leaving at exact times and parking and I had never seen security at the entrance road leading up to the Navy Lodge until then also. It was obvious that security was at the highest level at all these military facilities on the Monterey Peninsula from what I had ever seen living close to them as a lifetime resident of 50 years. I "think" I also remember there were many uniformed officers coming and going ( noticeably higher in number than normal ) into our lodge offices starting one or two days before 9-11 but "for sure" on 9-11 for what I assumed was at least one staging area for security meetings, again unlike anything I had seen previously. I think all non-essential use of the lodge was curtailed as well during those few days. Retired military visiting etc. Again, what struck me as odd later on about all this unusual high security activity and energy was that it began before 9-11. Of course, I didn't think too much about it afterwards when everything returned to normal and I left this position anyway not long after. I can't prove my recollection of the pre-911 activity here is totally accurate. But, I do remember talking amongst my fellow lodge maintenance co-workers ( 3 or 4 ) ... wondering what all the heightened security was about, especially because when it all started, nothing had happened yet on the national scene. Looking back, I am left with the guessing sense that our government knew ahead of time that something "big" was about to happen regards an attack against us or at least the threat of one , even before it happened on 9-11. For what it's worth.

D. Andrews, I too would like to know Hale Bogg's position regards Garrison's investigation.

J. Harwood states in his initial thread post that Mark Lane served in Air Force intelligence in his military service time. I had never heard this about Lane and out of curiosity looked at his Wiki entry and in this discovered that it was "Army intelligence" not Air Force. And that his duty station was Vienna? Did Lane ever write about his service time and particularly this part of it? Every now and then you find out certain historical or celebrity figures served in intelligence in their military duty or even civilian lives and this information wasn't widely reported. For instance, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward served in Naval Intelligence. Same with Coast To Coast AM radio host George Noory ( Naval Intelligence.) So many others. When William F. Buckley was conducting his adversarial interview/debate with Mark Lane on Buckley's "Firing Line" back in 1966, probably 99.9% of Americans didn't know of Buckley's intelligence service background including his close working and personal relationship with Mark Lane antagonist and even JFK undermining super agent E. Howard Hunt. What to make of finding out that so many famous people ( journalists, media heads, etc ) in our recent history society have backgrounds like this? Seems like a ridiculously high number member club. Please tell me Mr. Rogers and other innocuously famous others weren't members of this fraternity. Would like to know more about Lane's own take on his military service time in this role. Also, didn't know Lane's true lineage family name was "Levin" not Lane. Although I don't see anything out of the ordinary with a name change practice back in those days. Everyone wanted to sound more American regards new immigrants. Hence, Jack "Ruby" versus Rubenstein... or "Woody Allen" versus "Alan Konigsberg?" Or Dean Martin? Birth name..."Dino Paul Crosetti?"

Not aware of Bogg's history. Representing Louisiana in the long term time frame he did however, I must ask if he was ever suspected of any corruption linkage since Louisiana was always known as perhaps one of the most corrupt states in the Union during his elective office tenures? In the 1979 novel "The Matarese Circle" author Robert Ludlum portrayed Boggs as having been killed to stop his probe into the assassination."[12] He served as majority whip from 1962 to 1971 and as majority leader from January 1971 to his disappearance. As the whip, he ushered much of President Johnson's Great Society legislation through Congress. In April 1971, he made a speech on the floor of the House in which he strongly attacked Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover and the whole of the FBI. That led to a conversation on April 6, 1971 between President Richard M. Nixon and the Republican minority leader, Gerald R. Ford, Jr.. Nixon said that he could no longer take counsel from Boggs as a senior member of Congress. In the recording of this call, Nixon asked Ford to arrange for the House delegation to include an alternative to Boggs. Ford speculated that Boggs is on pills as well as alcohol.[14] Later that month, Boggs went even further: "Over the postwar years, we have granted to the elite and ...secret police ... within our system vast new powers over the lives and liberties of the people. At the request of the trusted and respected heads of those forces, and their appeal to the necessities of national security, we have exempted those grants of power from due accounting and strict surveillance." Wow, Boggs really went after Hoover and his "secret police" ... and in an openly public way.

Greer's "full" turnaround to look at JFK is so clear in the video below. It's right in front of your eyes! As is Greer's slowing of the limo to almost a stop. Both actions contrary to Greer's Warren Commission testimony. See below. In fact, Greer turns around "twice." His first turn around is a quick right side glance toward Connolly a split second after Connolly is hit and cries out. Greer's second turn around however, is a much fuller and higher degree one backwards where he looks "straight at JFK" just before and during the exploding of JFK's head. It's so obvious in this video I can see no credibility in anyone's argument disputing Greer's 180 % turn around toward JFK and his slowing the limo to an almost stop while doing so. Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many shots, or how many noises have you just described that you heard?Mr. GREER. I know there was three that I heard--three. But I cannot remember any more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard.Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment of having heard three shots at that time?Mr. GREER. I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. ................................................. Mr. SPECTER. You testified that at the second noise you glanced over your shoulder.Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder did you glance over?Mr. GREER. Right shoulder.Mr. SPECTER. And describe or indicate how far you turned your head to the right at that time?Mr. GREER. Just so that my eyes over, caught the Governor, I could see, I couldn't see the President. I just could see the Governor. I made a quick glance and back again.Mr. SPECTER. Was the movement of your head just then approximately the same?Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.Mr. SPECTER. As the time?Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.Mr. SPECTER. You just indicated the turn of your head slightly to the right.Mr. GREER. My eyes slightly more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had vision real quick of it.Mr. SPECTER. Exactly where was Governor Connally when you first caught him out of the corner of your eye?Mr. GREER. He was--he seemed to be falling a little bit toward Mrs. Connally, to the left. He started to go over a little bit to the left.Mr. SPECTER. And how far did you catch his movement during the time you were able to observe him?Mr. GREER. Just a second. He probably hadn't gotten his shoulder, he hadn't fell down or anything. He probably was in a position such as I am now.Mr. SPECTER. Did he fall to the rear or to the side or how?Mr. GREER. In my opinion, he fell toward Mrs. Connally which would be to his left or to his side.Mr. SPECTER. Did he fall then on his left shoulder and arm or in some other way?Mr. GREER. He appeared to me to be falling on his left shoulder when I glanced. He had only started to move that way whenever he--when I saw him. >>>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear?Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President. <<<<<< The Z film video below shows this last statement of Greer's to be blatantly false. 2:48NOW PLAYING JFK Zapruder Footage: Slowed Down & Enhanced Wayne Robson • 391K views7 years ago Done in a hurry for a friend so 3d peeps ignore. Orginal 18.6 fps zapruder

I ask any interested members to take a look at multiple versions of the Zapruder film and share their opinions of Greer's actions during the shooting versus his WC testimony.

I once heard a recording of an interview of William Greer (or read a transcript of one ) in which he described his turning around to look at Governor John Connolly action while driving the limo. Obviously he heard the shots and Connolly crying out. What Greer left out was his "true action" of turning much more fully around ( in fact a 180 degree turn with his head ) to look straight on at JFK just a split second before and right through JFK's head being hit and exploding. You can clearly see this full reverse turn of Greer's head simply by watching the Zapruder film in slow motion with the full screen shot that shows all of the occupants in the limo versus just JFK, Jackie and the Connollys. I believe Greer offered the less conspicuous and reduced turning account because of what the true account could reveal regards his actions and how they played into JFK being made more vulnerable to the head shot. As no driver of a moving vehicle turns his head and upper body 180 degrees around to look directly in back of his vehicle without taking their foot off of the accelerator and placing it on the brake pedal. We all know this truism. A quick glance to the side is one thing, but a full turn backwards is another. And you can see JFK's limo come to almost a complete stop when Greer did this and it was during this extreme slow down when the shooter was able to line up his kill shot and let loose, successfully hitting a bulls-eye on JFK's head. Greer stayed turned around looking at JFK's head explode and "then" turned back around and hit the gas. I believe you can even see Greer and Kellerman jerk their upper bodies downward defensively when JFK's head was hit. They obviously heard the impact into his skull and/or felt the shock wave of the impact. But the fact that Greer would purposely offer up a less than full account of his physical actions to downplay any blame on his part just before and during JFK's head shot says a lot about his character imo. And the dual actions of slowing the limo to a near stop and then lying about the true slower speed and then his full turn backwards during the head shot logically forces you to consider Greer and his actions and testimony with credibility doubt and even nefarious motive suspicion. And reading his Warren Commission testimony, I was really surprised at how uneducated he sounded. Dropped out of high school in Ireland his sophomore year? And up until his WC testimony he still hadn't achieved a high school diploma? You've got to be kidding me. I would hope the S.S. has higher standards for entry now.

Average Joe on the street two cents worth: Not a student of the 9-11 event but like millions of others I have seen video of the building 7 collapse. Sorry, but a rational person with even a little adult life experience common sense is going to ask whether any building could fall almost straight down like that ( completely and almost uniformly into itself in just a few seconds ) when only "certain areas" of this 52 story, 680 feet high and 1.68 million square foot building were and/or had been burning and weakened to the point of collapse? Could the non-weakened structural support parts of this building ( a more squarely spread out and less weight bearing foundation one versus the twin towers ) actually be "pulled down" by other interconnected falling sections and so completely and uniformly within the same few seconds time frame as the final WTC commission report concluded? I just read the part of this official report that explained how this occurred with scientific analysis. I just can't buy this explanation though, again using and trusting my own common sense. And to me, the incredibly uniform collapse of building 7 reminds me of the Jack Ruby killing Oswald event. Millions of average persons in this country watched Ruby shooting Oswald to death on live coverage TV, or viewed national media replays of it soon after, and surely and logically had one common uneasy feeling and question over all others about that shocking event. How could it have happened right inside of the Dallas Police Department building which was packed with over 70 armed police personnel and with Lee Harvey Oswald being the most threatened individual on the planet right then as widely reported in the national press? Most people trust their own eyes and common sense and gut feelings more than what they are "told" to believe. The complete collapse of WTC building 7 into itself in 6 seconds was as improbable as Jack Ruby's access into the Dallas PD basement to do what he did on 11,24,1963 ... in my Average Joe opinion.

What a person to have personally holding, guiding and supposedly guarding RFK at the exact time the shooting starts in that incredibly tight and cramped with bodies location. After reading Cesar's quoted statement above regards his personal feelings towards JFK and RFK you couldn't have picked a worse person for this job. In this statement Cesar freely admits his hatred of the Kennedy's and which is on a level one would expect to hear from someone who fits a profile of assassination potential. Reading Cesar's statement above, I thought it sounded exactly like something violence advocating extreme right wing JFK hating character Joseph Milteer would have said about the Kennedy's. Lee Harvey Oswald himself never expressed "anything close" to Cesar's deep personal hatred of the Kennedy's and which Cesar shared so brazenly in his recorded statement. The reasons to consider RFK hating Cesar a top suspect in the Ambassador Hotel shooting are so strongly logical and reasonable it is clearly nonsensical to pretend they are not. If L. A. Coroner Thomas Noguchi was correct in his conclusions that the wounds in the back of RFK's head indicated infliction from mere inches away and Sirhan's gun was never closer than two, three or more feet away ... why in the world does anyone reject this scientific reality and keep promoting a scientifically proven false one?

Wow! RFK Jr. is putting it all out there. Thane Eugene Cesar shot and killed my father.

The image of Hoover dressed as a flapper girl is just ... well ... not good. What is it with these high level government characters and their attraction to drag? 0:47 Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump

"Dr John Money, professor of medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University, thought Hoover "needed constantly to destroy other people in order to maintain himself. He managed to live with his conflict by making others pay the price." Dr Harold Lief, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, concluded that Hoover suffered from "a personality disorder, a narcissistic disorder with mixed obsessive features… paranoid elements, undue suspiciousness and some sadism. A combination of narcissism and paranoia produces what is known as an authoritarian personality. Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi." Sounds exactly like someone else we all know.

Sean DeGrilla, Good luck with your new book.