Joe Bauer

We have a police tape recording of Joseph Milteer talking about specifics in plans to assassinate Kennedy just 13 days before Dallas on 11,22,1963.

Milteer described to police informant plant Willie Somersett these incredibly accurate predictive specifics:

That Kennedy's killing plan was currently operational "it is in the working" and included getting him ( JFK ) "with a high powered rifle from an office building" ... and this last remarkably accurate prediction statement... that after such a shooting of JFK ... "they will pick someone up within hours afterwards ( one individual ) to throw the public off."

Milteer wasn't some poor, little and on his own nobody .  He was very well off and highly connected and involved with other JFK  hating segregationist individuals and groups through out the South.

The fact that a very large city police department would take the time and effort to plan and carry out such an involved covert, secret meeting taping of this one man tells you they took this man to be a serious threat in trying to kill the president.

Just mentioning this documented reality to highlight the fact that many JFK haters ( groups and individuals ) did hate him to this ultimate degree.

The following could be the Rosetta Stone evidence that finally convinces L Payette there truly was a conspiracy.

Listen carefully starting at the 6 minute and 40 second mark.

Lance, enjoy:

"One of the dismaying realities of this forum is that literally every conceivable issue "was hashed" (and re-hashed and re-re-hashed) a long time ago.  Indeed, often the same issue is being re-re-re-hashed on five active threads at the same time."

So many posters here are newer to the forum, perhaps in just the last couple of years.

Of course we know that many of thread subjects addressed now by newer members have been discussed in the past with incredible thoroughness. 

I love it when longer term members re-post these older threads because they are often so informing and answer many questions we newer members have. This is a welcome practice that I wish was more often done. 

We newer members don't intentionally mean to rehash old debates. We're just not very savvy with the archives.

I'll have to take responsibility for seeming a little disingenuous in stating that I won't be posting here again, at least for awhile.

Maybe I should have said, I will be significantly cutting back.

I recently self-evaluated my time and efforts in posting here ( and the worthiness of such) as much as I was. Too much time I realized as I was neglecting other matters in my personal and family life. 

The forum is addicting for me and I am sure many others who have always carried a deep and sincere life long feeling of loss about JFK's murder combined with an equally troubling concern that the "official government" investigation finding ( in classifying this murder as the work of  just "one" frustrated, angry, attention seeking lone nut who got lucky ) was a preposterously illogical, untrue  and U.S. democracy damaging and undermining one.

This forum provides a platform of engagement with very intelligent and highly informed others who share this JFK truth and justice questioning and searching mind-set as well as those who embrace the official government finding and are willing to debate ( or argue ) the validity of their opposite view, which is all very stimulating.

Mr. Payette is of this opposite ( lone nut) mind set and in posting his postulations and arguments for this conclusion seemingly gets some added stimulation by occasionally throwing in little insulting digs about the mental health and other character flaws of those he is debating.

No problem, debates about serious subjects often slip into the personal . Simple human nature.

However, it's still a tricky line to cross that sometimes undermines the credibility of the person most taking of this tact.

I want to end my latest " no more posting" posting here with a contemplation regards the rationality of carrying a life long concern about the JFK assassination to the point of still studying and talking about the event, even 55 years after it's occurrence. 

If JFK's murder was the result of a conspiracy, then it is "completely rational" to never stop searching for the true reality truth, because such a scenario and it's successful cover up means our nation has been controlled by groups and individuals for the last 55 years who have known this truth but have kept it from our citizenry, completely undermining every democratic principal and foundation that we have assumed our nation and government was and still is all about.

That we are much more a corrupted shell of this cherished institutional ideal versus a still thriving example of it than we ever imagined. And that we are all living in a false reality bubble regards this perversely sad and sick dichotomy.

On the other hand, if Oswald truly was the guilty lone nut solely responsible for the killing of JFK, then we can all finally relax and realize that as much as JFK and RFK were hated and reviled and looked upon as a great threat to segregationists, organized crime, right wing commie obsessed groups, hot headed Cubans who felt JFK had betrayed their cause, military and covert action hardliners, big oil and other military industrial complex corporate interests, colonial interest protectors, UFO/ET secret holders, jilted husbands, JFK and RFK hating LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover, Allan Dulles, foreign government adversaries, Castro himself and even Marilyn Monroe honor defending Joe Dimaggio ... and who knows who else ... they ALL got instant and complete relief from their deep and heavy weight JFK and RFK hate and feeling of threat by the incredible lucky opportunity taking actions one little ole nobody ... Lee Harvey Oswald.

There you have it. We could finally lay this exhausting conspiracy obsession to rest and get on with our lives.

You know, I think I'll swallow this Oswald Lone Nut happy pill for once today just to see what it feels like.

And I think I'll play one of my favorite old songs to enhance and celebrate this possible new found relief.

Here goes nothing ...

 

 

 

The Rascals - It's A Beautiful Morning - YouTube

 

Here I am posting again...but I must.

What a dynamic presentation by Mark Shaw.

I hope every member on this forum clicks on the link to this provided by Doug Caddy.

Yes, most here already know the story and it's details. But Shaw is one of the best presenters I have seen.

Just too inspired here to stay off the forum and not comment.

On 12/19/2018 at 8:55 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Joe, I hope your not leaving for health reasons, or I or others have offended you.  I've found your comments interesting and thoughtful.   I imagine most others here would agree your always welcome back.

Ron, thank you for the kind words.

Oh Gosh no regards leaving because someone here offended me.

I wouldn't be offended that easily.

Same with health problems although I do have several including heart irregularities like Afib.

Can't tell you how many electric shock cardioversion procedures I have had in the last 10 years. Also two ablasion surgeries that didn't work. Fractured my L 4 vertebrae last January. Etc, etc. Way over weight now...230 lbs on a 6 ft frame. Compared to 175 lbs in my member photo of 32 years ago. Totally white hair now.

I decided to stop posting for awhile and perhaps coming in only when I feel my posting content is worthy in more ways than just my less-than-well-informed guesses or speculations.

Ron, I have actually read so little compared to 85% to 90% of the forum members here and who do post.

I have picked up tons of general information only through light reading and general reading, as I will explain, since the 1970's.

I have read Mark Lane, Garrison's "On The Trail Of The Assassins", David Talbot's "Brothers", and parts of many other books including Norman Mailer and Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History." But my adult ADD makes it hard to stay with and finish many of the other books I should have read by now.

I have read many, many excerpts and articles and lots of the WC testimonies over the years. I have checked out many interviews and even JFK conference speaking engagements on YOU TUBE.

I listen to every JFK related interview on whatever radio station I can find.

I listened to Mae Brussell for years when she broadcast here in Carmel, CA.

And I have really read a lot that has been posted here for many years. Easy to read 10 to 50 line postings versus entire books.

I have what I would call a decent "general" background grasp ( broad but not deep at all ) regards the most well known aspects of the JFK assassination, including most of the characters involved.

I know enough that when I read anything here I can "usually" understand the general gist of the context.

But much of the time I am lost regarding debates and arguments involving deep research material.

My postings usually do contain fairly valid background facts in a general context, but as I am sure you and others here have noticed, I most often resort to framing my posting messages from a personal, emotional gut feeling perspective and just hoping that they nonetheless come across with enough common sense and logic to not sound too ridiculous.  

There you have it. My reason for stepping back. 

Since I am here though, even after I said I was leaving, let me say this about Earline Robert's and her story of the pulling up police car and it honking twice while the world's most wanted fugitive was just 40 feet away.

Mrs. Roberts the reported embellisher, didn't embellish the most dramatic aspect of her day on 11,22,1963 which was her personal and up close encounter with a bustling in and out Lee Harvey Oswald.

And to try to frame her additional story of the stopping and honking police car while Oswald was in his room story as another embellished attention seeking made up hoax is simply preposterous.

Honestly, how would making up a story like this ( with uniquely odd details ) benefit Mrs. Roberts in any way?

Make her more of a "somebody" versus an old domestic worker nobody? 

Please.

In reality, the story only caused her to be stressed even more than she already was from the onslaught of a press and police crush and even personally ridiculed and impugned.

She knew because of the pointed questioning she was subjected to regards this additional Oswald encounter story that it was probably something she regretted ever sharing at all.

Yet, she stuck to her credibility guns in sharing the same story again to the Warren Commission 5 months later.  Again without this benefiting her in any real way.

It would have been so easy for her to have given the story up with a simple excuse that she was so discombobulated in all the frantic chaos she wasn't sure about any of it. 

I'm still here. Checking in through out the day.

Keep the JFK truth and justice seeking flame burning my courageously committed friends.

JB

This is my last posting here on the forum.

Lance, I couldn't help contemplating your proposed possible alternate Dallas Taxi cab versus DPD police car scenario regards Earline Robert's story of a police car pulling up in front of her rooming house and honking twice and then slowly pulling away around 1:PM on 11,22,1963 ... all while Lee Harvey Oswald was just 40 feet away.

After seeing the photo of a Dallas cab in 1963, I had to admit there are some real similarities that from a distance or quick glance versus a longer look, could lead to someone mixing up the two vehicles.

After giving this misidentification theory some serious thought however, I believe it is not valid.

When Mrs. Robert's story of the police car pulIing up and honking while Oswald was in his room was shared with the authorities, it's implications would have been immediately clear and of the utmost concern.  Our own cops did that?

I have to believe that someone in the DPD or local FBI took this claim seriously enough to investigate it more than just a loony made up story.  And this taxi versus police car scenario would probably have been thought of by them as it was with you.

Yet all the DPD and FBI had to do to verify such a misidentification mix up would be to call the Dallas Taxi companies and ask to see their call records. And they could also have interviewed every cab driver on duty that day to see which one got a call to Earlene Robert's rooming house.

Also, they could have interviewed every resident of the rooming house to see which one called for a cab at that time.

Both agencies would have LOVED to have discovered that a Dallas cab was indeed the car that Earlene Robert's claims she saw pull up to her residence that day and at that time versus a DPD car.

Take care...I'll be checking in to "read" the forum postings...just not posting myself.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:26 PM, Cory Santos said:

Are you crazy?

Am I crazy?

Cory, I am curious to know how my forum defending post directed at Lance Payette and his forum criticism inspired you to ask this specific three word question of me?

Lance responded to my post by saying I bend over backwards to an extra-ordinary degree to be fair and kindly but my overly optimistic take is jaw dropping to him. He wonders what "happy pills" I am taking.

Is it my overly optimistic and praising take of the forum that bothered you too? Too syrupy maybe?

Cory, Lance's criticism of the forum is often blunt, very sharp and even insulting and seems to me to be his main topic of discussion as much as his specific point arguments against the conspiracy take.

In another posting just hours ago Lance says this new criticism about the forum:

"Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly.  Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance.  Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone.  I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess.  From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are.  If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile."

Cory, Lance above is talking about ... YOU AND I ... in his group of 15 people that are reading his postings and responding to them that if it's just us alone,  make him question whether his participation here is even worthwhile.

You must also assume Lance is stating we 15 ( you included ) make up a large part of the forum posting participants that he feels lack any real substance value and that constitute the significant deterioration of the level of discourse here now versus a few years ago.

In contemplating Lance's deterioration of discourse comments on this forum now versus the Simkin era and trying to honestly evaluate whether his criticism has any validity, I of course considered my own participation on the forum and which has increased to an almost daily affair.

And guess what...I agree!

I have always known that my personal input here is not one of very informed deep research value.

I do feel I deserve the charge of dillution of hard research fact discussion on this "education" forum.

I know and admit I'm here mostly because of my passionate life long concern for the 11,22,1963 truth, which well intended, is too emotion based versus hard research based.

My jumping into actual forum participation like I have the last two years was simply a selfish, even desperate older age bucket list whim to personally engage with some of the most truly erudite, accomplished and credentialed icons of the JFK assassination research community.  Mark Lane himself was posting here when I first joined the forum!

Jim D., Joseph McBride, Larry Hancock, Walt Brown, Vince Palamara, Steve Thomas, Kirk Gallaway, Ron Buhlman, newbie Denny Zartman and so many others ... and of course in his own special category...Doug Caddy.

Yes, Lance's deterioration of discourse point hit me as probably being true ...  in my case anyway. A true wake up call I needed.

I'm sure I was aware of this reality ( again in just my case ) for most of my posting time here. And I think it's high time to quit pretending my emotion based postings add to the solid research based value of the forum versus dilluting it.

Being asked "are you crazy?" in response to one of my postings here is just another wake up call in facing this reality.

I will not be posting here anymore ( with one last response to Lance Payette regards the Earlene Roberts story ) but I am absolutely staying on as a non-posting member because I have never learned so much about not just the JFK event, but many, many other areas of our nation's true history that one cannot easily find in typical historical venues.

Thanks for the ride and your tolerance fellow JFK Debate Forum members.

If Marina looked like Nina Krushchev I don't think any of the white Russians would have befriended her or cared about her beyond a first meeting.

I think all the white Russians in the Dallas area were much more curious about fresh from Russia Marina than Lee.

Once they physically met and interacted with Marina, they were smitten by her youthful beauty and her intelligence. Some were also connecting with her in a protective sympathetic way when they realized her poor financial state and even her sometimes difficult marriage stresses that may have included physical abuse.

Lee was quickly summed up by almost all these white Russians as an uneducated low class loser and wife abusing bum.

But, they had to tolerate and include Lee in some social and Marina helping ways to a degree as long as Marina still lived with him.

George De M was not afraid of personally engaging with hot head Lee.

De M was a tall, athletic, big boned even physically imposing person. He towered over small and slight build Oswald. He once threatened Oswald concerning any more physical abuse regarding Marina.

GD was also a person who needed to have challenges in his life. He was a world traveler and would just get up and go and do daring things when life became too mundane and boring.

Same with his marriages. 

Oswald was an out of the ordinary, quirky curiosity challenge for easily bored De M.

I think De M was also attracted to and identified with Oswald's fiercely independent gumption ( no matter how naively misguided ) in trying crazy world travel politically incorrect things like defecting to Russia and learning Russian.

I do think GD was agency directed however. 

Lance, I must admit, that is a very interesting take on a possible alternative scenario of a car pulling up to the front of ER's rooming house and honking lightly twice.

I didn't know that Dallas taxis in 1963 resembled police cars ( especially in their basic color black ) as much as your photo shows.

My contrary thoughts though, would include ER's statement of seeing two uniformed police in the car she looked at, the short time the car stayed ( a cab driver responding to a call wouldn't leave so quickly imo, ) and ER knew police cars well enough to notice the difference between a typical accident responding patrol squad car and a more nondescript one. 

And the taxi in your photo is way more number, ad icon pictures and words and top of car adorned than Tippit's squad patrol car!

Check out the pics of Tippit's patrol car to see this stark difference.

The taxi in your photo even has that noticeable "checkered" paint job on it's top.

Forums such as this, which weren't available 25 years ago, greatly facilitate and reinforce fundamentalism and conspiracy thinking.  It becomes a simple matter to surround oneself with like-minded folks 24 hours a day.  When someone like myself or a handful of others wanders in, he or she is immediately demonized.  Over the short term, such demonization is fun and invigorating for the community, but what we have to say eventually becomes an unwelcome distraction/challenge and the community wishes we would just go away.  The fact that the fundamentalists so obviously and ardently wish we would go away probably goes a long way toward explaining why we stay.

Good luck here.

Lance, you're not demonized on this forum at all.

Nobody here wishes you "would just go away."

Everyone here can handle what you post without feeling threatened in any way.

Many here even enjoy your input and your intelligence.  You are a very good writer imo.

However, ( again just my opinion ) your assessment of what you characterize as "fundamentalists" here on this forum and others ( their numbers and how insecurely closed minded they are in their locked-in conspiracy mind set to a "mentally ill" degree and how they view you ) is sometimes exaggerated to a debatable point of revealing your own insecurities and conspiracy mind set. A broad fundamentalist conspiracy against "truly mentally healthy" people like yourself who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK.

This particular forum is not a mostly "black and white " or overly "fundamentalist" one. It is just as much an open minded, debate welcoming one  ( hence it's title) that does include strong minded posters on both sides of the "conspiracy-no conspiracy" fence who really go at it from time to time.

And it's not a complete view and voice blocking heavy wooden wall fence. It's much more a chain link one where we can openly see, hear and communicate with each other on both sides clearly and thoughtfully and without insecurely creating exaggerated bad person images of each other in our own minds.

To me and I am sure to most members, this open "debate" forum is an extremely interesting, stimulating and informative one in the JFK assassination historical realm,  especially with it's substantial highly accredited deep research plane participation.

Greatly appreciated by those of us who are deeply invested in this specific event and time of our American history.

Yes, certain posters here go at it pretty good.

However, I think the newer forum moderators have succeeded in not allowing their sometimes heated debates to devolve to the level I remember seeing years ago.

And I think these more animated and worked up exchanges do bring out more interesting research facts that might not come out in less engaged ones. Like watching a well matched toe to toe boxing fight.

It's true that the JFK assassination event and all the 55 years of research findings, CT theories and ominously heavy contemplation spawned from it can be so overwhelming in their vastness at times , you have to take real breaks from it all for your own sanity. 

Lance, at times, I do appreciate your sense of humor.

My bestowing Sainthood on Earlene for example.    Ha!

I have depicted Earlene Roberts in a very sympathetic light perhaps a little too emotionally invested I admit.

But, your depiction of ER seems just as invested in impugning her character in an overly simplified and subjective negative light.

" The fact that she was a one-eyed, salt-of-the-earth, minimum-wage housekeeper doesn't automatically vest her with any special credibility or make her Saint Earlene.  Such folks tell whoppers all the time, often for reasons that are difficult to understand. "

"Such folks tell whoppers all the time."   They do?

What an overly general and flippant statement that I completely disagree with. Kind of elitist sounding.

I've never found that tall tale tellers or BS artists come from any group specifically identified by income or occupation or with one eye more than others.

I have come across them more in specific social settings such as bars, guy barbecues and sporting events with gambling and recently while viewing news clips of presidential rally speeches.

You are obviously a very smart person who writes well.  Do you have your own blog?

That sounds like a better fit for you.

Believe it or not I do enjoy reading your postings here however.

Except when your critiquing gets too cynical and personal and sharp on a forum that clearly promotes more debate and view tolerance and respect.

2 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

 

The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder. His motivation is the biggest mystery, and the only real mystery that remains, and will always remain.

Paul, respectively speaking;

Just contemplating your post above. 

To me, this last paragraph of your post is somewhat confusing in that you make two points ( one in each sentence ) that seem to contradict each other.

"The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder."

Here you state confidently and conclusively that Oswald was the shooter and I am guessing you're suggesting that Oswald's "nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder" psychological burden traits strongly indicate or add to his guilt?

Isn't this first sentence statement substantially already an answer ( your answer ) to your unknown motivation mystery question you state in the second sentence? 

That Oswald's repressed chip on his shoulder anger, frustration and low self esteem had grown so great and heavy ( perhaps his feeling of hopelessness that Marina was never coming back to him was the final last straw? ) that this drove him to unleash all this through an action of monumental blind rage?  Maybe even a suicidal one?

But, with an added ( if I am taking myself out I might as well do it in a way to show everyone in the world that I really am a "somebody." )

Hey! That scenario fits Jack Ruby to a Tee!

However, you then state in the second sentence that you believe there is an even bigger mystery ( the "real mystery" ) that remains unknown about Lee Harvey Oswald's deeper motivation behind shooting JFK and that will remain unknown.

This second sentence point seems to reveal a less than confident belief in why Oswald did what you say he did in your first sentence.

And since motive is everything  ( right? ) which is it?  

A motive beyond Oswald's basic "chip on his shoulder" anger and frustrations one leaves the door wide open to almost any scenario, including conspiracy with others. Again, imo.

Steve, another poster mentioned that Roberts had done some housekeeping work for one or both officers. I don't know for sure if this is a fact but it would make sense considering she did this for a living and perhaps she did some side work to supplement her obviously low income.

Whatever, Roberts certainly knew these two officers well enough to instantly remember their names.

Which to some fair degree logically indicates she didn't make up or embellish her relationship with the two officers in her WC testimony.

And Roberts didn't embellish her WC testimony regarding her brief 1:00 PM encounter with Oswald when he rushed past her into his room and rushed back out a few minutes later, not speaking to her both times. Anybody who knew Oswald personally would expect exactly this kind of reaction by Oswald. So Robert's recounting of this encounter rings totally true with no embellishment.

I have yet to see any video interview clips of Roberts where she embellished anything she said in those interviews.

These characterizations of Roberts as a teller of "tall tales" and attention seeking embellisher are very exaggerated imo and without much real verification except by Roberts landlady boss Mrs. Johnson.

One of Robert's DPD officer friends reportedly described her as dumb. But he didn't say she was a xxxx or teller of tall tales.

Robert's tale of the DPD car stopping and honking right in front of her residence and just 30 to 40 feet from Oswald himself right at that impossible time is too important to dismiss if true.

We've got JFK brain matter on the limo back seat and floor carpet ( as stated by SS agents Clint Hill and I believe Sam Kinney who washed the blood and matter in the back seat?)  JFK brain matter spattered throughout the interior of the limo, sprayed into the air space above JFK and Jackie and onto rear position motorcycle DPD officers.

JFK brain matter was reported as falling out onto the stretcher carrying JFK into the Parkland ER and finally oozing and falling out of JFK's skull wound onto the ER room examining and treatment table according to many on site eye witnesses.

We've got a brain described as having a huge hole with much missing brain matter by up close attending Parkland doctors and nurses with one nurse "Diana Hamilton Bowron" stating " most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside."

We've got two Bethesda navy morgue/autopsy techs as close to JFK's head as Humes and Boswell at times for hours the evening of the autopsy.

One of whom ( Paul O'Conner ) stated ( under oath) there was essentially no brain in JFK's shattered skull and always stood by this claim

The other tech ( James Jenkins ) states he thinks the brain he held in his hands might have been a replaced brain. Either JFK's after being removed before the autopsy, or someone else's.

We've got a brain from JFK that Jenkin's  quotes Dr. Humes as stating..."the damn thing fell into my hands" when Humes started his brain examination and a brain the official autopsy finding reports as weighing the same or even more than an undamaged, normal male sized brain would weigh.

These almost unbelievable conflicting JFK brain observations and statements would seem laughably crazy if they weren't reported by actual up close witnesses, most of whom were in their positions as well trained medical professionals with no political or monetary gain bias.

It doesn't take "half a brain"  to see complete corruption in the area of JFK's brain study and the official autopsy findings.

One would have to be "brain dead" not to see this reality.

I've tried to imagine how stressfully traumatic, entire life upsetting, exhausting and depressing the instant crush of aggressive, quizzing and some times doubting press, police and other high authority agencies must have been on Roberts. 

And include people she knew socially impugning her honesty, integrity and personal character reputation as well!

And a cheap and back stabbing employer knocking her already low pay even lower?

A financially poor and older single woman in bad health and who had to perform a physically demanding and demeaning domestic work job ( not by choice but by necessity ) going through all this at almost sixty years of age? 

And later seeking out other domestic jobs and not having these work out as well after the Oswald affair at her age must have strained her mentally, physically and financially even more.

Honestly I just "can't" imagine how tough all that must have been on Ms. Earlene Roberts.

No wonder she died just two years later.

Looking again at the bottom left photo of the DCM above; how can anyone see this photo and not see some clear anomalies regards the upper back clothing of DCM as he is walking along the grassy knoll area.

DCM's jacket back side is pulled up on mostly his middle to upper right side and protrudes outwardly very noticeably with shadows that clearly depict very sharp and straight angular outline lines.

Any normal bunching up would be depicted with uneven lines imo.

And here again, we have a mysterious line coming up vertically from something farther down to the waist area. About 15 inches long?

This time the line is dark versus white in the upper left photo that some believe is a walkie-talkie antenna. The darker color is obviously because whatever that line is, it is now in the shadows.  But, there are no other black lines like this in that photo. Hard to dismiss this as film or light play anomalies.

There is also a thicker same dark color line at the base of the vertical line that runs horizontally and seems connected to the vertical line and that doesn't look like the base of the jacket.  In fact,  a decent sized patch of the lighter colored jacket is shown and visible below this higher up, horizontal dark line.

When one combines the unusual behind the back arm and hand actions of the DCM with these really obvious and symmetrical protrusion and line anomalies in the photo...

You are almost forced by visual logical to conclude there is something else going with the upper and lower right back backsides of the DCM than just a simple fold showing short cut jacket.

Jim Di, listened to you on KKUP out of Cupertino, Calif. last night with host Dave Emory.

Highly informative as usual.

Regards DCM you would think someone, somewhere that knew him personally  ( family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, room mates, military service members, mail man, doctor, dentist, store employee, etc.) would have come forward with his name in the last 55 years, especially since the pictures of him in Dealey Plaza that day have been so widely published.

DCM appears to have been in his late 40's or mid 50's in those photos.

Someone of that age would probably have had contact with many people over decades.

And his singular enthusiasm in his highly animated, fully extended arm waving at JFK  ( when no one else all the way up into the more crowded part of Elm was doing this at all except the umbrella pumping person next to him) showed someone seemingly politically inspired by JFK and probably not a wall flower and afraid of standing out in a crowd.

The photos above are not totally innocent looking. The upper left photo-white line/radio antenna debate is fair from both sides.

The photo on the upper right shows an odd thing imo and that I have mentioned before.

That is the DCM's immediate decision to place himself mere inches away from the umbrella man sitting on the grass curb seconds after JFK is hit in the head.

The DCM didn't know the umbrella man, correct?

From what I have seen in the photos of the reacting bystanders in that area of the knoll, no one but protective family parents of children and I believe a man/woman couple or two aligned themselves so closely to each other in that chaotic scene like the DCM  did with umbrella man.

They were as close as theater seat mates, could have held hands.  You would think umbrella man might have felt a little eye side glance uncomfortable with DCM saddling up so close to him like he did.

Even friends Mary Moorman and Jean Hill didn't fearfully reach out towards each other at that time.

And the lower left photo of DCM  walking back into the grassy knoll area clearly shows him doing something oddly different than anyone else with his hands at his back right rear area .

Yes, he may have been checking to see if he still had his wallet , although most people carry this in their left rear pocket. He may have had an itch or a little numbness in that area due to sitting on the hard curb just seconds previous. Maybe he was feeling dampness back there from the wet grass next to the curb as it had rained the night before. Maybe he just had this quirk when he walked.  Or, maybe he was re-positioning something out of the ordinary back there.

The fact that DCM has never been identified when almost every other person in those photos has been, just adds logical weight to the nefarious explanation side of his presence and true agenda there that day.

Jenkins recalled that, "We didn't have to do a skull cap (removal) because the wound was large enough for the brain to come out." There has been informed speculation regarding the probability that never-acknowledged surgical examination of the president's body was conducted prior to the official autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Jenkins noted that, "Dr. (James) Humes, who removed the brain, made an exclamatory statement. 'The damn thing fell out in my hand.'" Jenkins said that, "The brain stem had already been severed ...Some of the areas fragmented along the sagital suture (drew) comment (to the effect) that they looked like they had been surgically extended ... some of the fragmented areas looked like they had been cut by a scalpel to expand them. "To me," said Jenkins, "this indicated that the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced." (emphasis added)

Incredible statement.

If you didn't have a skull cap removal ( and dura matter pull back ) can you still get into the front of the brain to cut the temporal muscles and eye nerves from the brain as Paul O'Conner described in his testimony regards what needs to be done before the brain can be removed?

And the same regards cutting the brain from the brain stem?

Both O'Conner's and Jenkin's accounts of what they witnessed just feet and even inches away from JFK's head and body for many hours that night ( especially the brain ) are mind blowing in their radically different takes versus the official record. 

Even with some contradictions in O'Conner's and Jenkin's recollecting accounts, what they shared that totally corroborates each other's stories far outweighs those contradictions.

And if O'Conner and Jenkins shared accounts of not seeing normal skull sawing required to properly remove a brain are true and with Jenkin's even suspecting another brain besides JFK's was given him to weigh  ( or did he mean JFK's brain had been previously removed and put back?)  and recollecting Humes as saying " the damn thing fell out in my hand", what are we to make of such incredible claims?

Both O'Conner and Jenkins were/are complete liars and attention seeking nutcases?  The huge amounts of specific details ( most concurring ) they both shared about what they witnessed the night of 11,22,1963 were all made up?  

Just the public interview statements ( and under oath ones of O'Conner ) of these two witnesses ALONE ( who were as close to JFK's body and head as Humes and Boswell at times) if true,  are enough to credibly prove at least one major area of the official autopsy finding was extremely corrupted.

The many crazy conflicting up close eye witness accounts versus the official autopsy record  regards JFK's brain at Bethesda remind me of the scene in Oliver Stone's film JFK  where Garrison ( Costner ) and his assistant Lou Ivon ( Jay.O. Sanders) are up in the Texas School Book Depository snipers nest trying to simulate Oswald's alleged shooting actions from there.

After comparing the official WC finding facts versus what they have just determined in the snipers nest, Lou Ivan says to Garrison ..."This is the essence of the case."  "The guy couldn't do the shootin."

Perhaps one could just as easily use those same two JFK film dialogue lines  ( with a slight variation ) in describing the import of all the conflicting JFK brain testimony that has been revealed since 11,22,1963.

"This is the essence of the case." " The brain, brain weight and brain removal descriptions don't match up."

'

I just reviewed again Paul O'Conner's witness stand testimony as shown in the 1986 documentary "On Trial - Lee Harvey Oswald."

Not long into O'Conner's testimony he said something quite startling to me relative to what James Jenkins said ( and the three other first hand sources Jenkins cites in this threads posted interview )  regarding the actual time of arrival of JFK's body to the Bethesda Naval hospital morgue.

In response to Gerry Spence's question of when JFK's body arrived, O'Conner says JFK's body arrived at 8:00 pm.

This threw me as Jenkins and the three others Jenkins cites in his interview all gave 6:30 PM as the time of JFK'S body arrival to the morgue

Just thought I would mention this time line anomaly. I would think O'Conner and Jenkins would be on the same page on this specific and super important point.

In this interview Jenkin's says he deferred to Dennis David's time line regards the casket arrival etc.

He says he also referred to Sgt. Roger Boyajian's time line as stated in Boyajian's report as shown in the interview.

He also mentioned Dr. Jay Scott ( officer of the day at Bethesda that day ) also saying that JFK's casket arrived at 6:30 PM in response to William Law's question of such.

That's three separate corroborating first person accounts ( all right there at Bethesda during the arrival of JFK's body ) verifying the 6:30 PM casket arrival time which would seem very difficult to dismiss as not credible considering these were all military men and their presence there at that exact time is proven beyond doubt.

It is mentioned by Jenkin's interviewer that Jackie arrived at Bethesda at approximately 7:15 PM.

Is that the actual "documented" time Jackie arrived at Bethesda?  I admit I am not researched at all in this area to know anything about Jackie's Bethesda documented arrival time line.

And was she still in the Hearst that she entered at Andrews when she arrived at Bethesda and still believing the casket in the back of the Hearst contained her husband?

If this 6:30 PM time line of the plain casket arrival at Bethesda as stated by Dennis David, Sgt. Roger Boyajian, Dr. Jay Scott and Jenkins and probably Paul O'Conner is true...and Jackie in the Andrews loading Hearst with the bronze casket didn't arrive to Bethesda until 7:15 PM ... there is a problem.

Is it possible however, that Jackie and Robert Kennedy were told before Air Force One arrived at Andrews, that the military had a plan for switching JFK's body to another casket for reasons of security and privacy from the press?

That the bronze casket loaded into the Hearst along with Jackie and RFK would be empty? I am sure that if they did, they would have to have had approval from Jackie and RFK before doing so.

Ron, thanks for correcting my misstatement regarding Jenkin's helping O'Conner lift JFK's body out of the plain casket.

If Jenkin's book comments about someone other than Humes doing brain removal procedures before hand, so that JFK's brain fell out in Hume's hands without Humes having to do these procedures are true...how can anyone doubt a cover up?

I thought I  heard Jenkins say in the interview that he held JFK's brain in his hand before putting it into a sling and that he stated " less than a 3rd of the total brain was missing?"

What was the standard big city police policy back in 1963 of jewelry wearing murder suspects regarding allowing them to keep these on their person once they are placed in custody and a jail cell? Any general guesses?