John, the line you added ( in red ) definitely shows a "much lower" bullet trajectory angle than the black one inserted by Ray.

Again, depending on what distance from the Texas School Book building the limo is at the time of the photo, one should be able to make a clear trajectory line to the 6th floor perch.

If the photo was taken just before the back shot ( second or seconds before ) Your red line angle would never line up high and steep enough to the 6th floor window.

It sure looks like a clearly lower elevation angle shot.   Perhaps one from the Dal-Tex building?

Certain windows and floors in the Dal-Tex building did have a straight ahead shot view of JFK at the time of the JFK and John Connally back shots.

Sturgis and Lorenz are easy to identify.

To me the skinnier fellow on the far left side of the photo with the kind of geeky looking high waisted and high cuffed pants looks more like Ferrie.

Ferrie often looked poorly mismatched, rumpled and eccentrically dressed in most of the photos I have seen of him.

That man's ears, hair line,  hair style and hair color match early pictures of Ferrie ( when he had some real hair ) as well as his thin jaw face.

And this man is wearing just a white T-shirt - different than everybody else except Sturgis himself in that photo.. And Ferries clothing of choice in the Gerald Posner refuting Civil Air Patrol picture of Ferry with Oswald.

Check Ferrie images to see these similarities.

The Oswald ID is iffy imo.

Too bad that Louisiana training camp photo has disappeared.

If that were still available and passed numerous expert analysis for it's authenticity, it could blow the case wide open.

Kind of surprised Tannenbaum didn't react appropriately to it's massive importance enough to make copies and to preserve it in a most secure way.

Ray, if that black, bullet trajectory angle line in the picture you posted is scientifically proven to be the correct angle line from the TXSBD's  most south-western 6th floor window shooting perch and was taken no more than one, two or even three seconds before the actual back hit shot ( so as to eliminate an explanation of a less steep angle due to a farther distance "flattening out" of the angle )  then it is completely logical to conclude that the "magic bullet" scenario as described and promoted by Arlen Specter and the WC is impossibly wrong.

A simple look at that 6th floor bullet trajectory line in your photo shows it would be impossible for a bullet to have entered JFK  in the upper/slightly right of mid-spine location as shown in the autopsy photos and then gone almost straight horizontally through the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat and then angling farther downward and slightly right into Connally's mid-upper right back.

Guess a major factor of angle determination from this photo is exactly how soon it was taken before that shot.

Radioactive is right. 

The issue of segregationists hate toward JFK/RFK was a true time bomb.

Wouldn't be a surprise at all to find out Joseph Milteer and Guy Bannister knew and occasionally interacted with each other.

Just to let those who think talk of MSM's decades long efforts at tainting JFK's image is paranoid conspiracy poppycock ... another JFK " dark secret " sex scandal article is on AOL's national news site today.

Second one in a week.  Seriously, that's dozens of JFK image bashing pieces over the last few years.

Can't we ever read about LBJ's numerous Lady Bird disrespecting sex affair/mistresses scandals for decades and which even produced offspring including one Steven Johnson ? A son who was treated horrifically bad ( maybe even murderously? ) by LBJ's first family survivors and/or their protectors when he dared to ask for recognition and maybe a little share of his deceased father's estate?

Or how about LBJ's long time and deeply corrupt dealings with Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes and probably an encyclopedia sized list of others?

Or his radio and television advertising pay off scheme or his election fraud or his incredible manipulation of his younger protege Malcolm Wallace's murder conviction sentence to instant freedom, and on and on and on?

How about LBJ'S long term, closer-than-close, politically incestuous relationship with J.Edgar Hoover ( LBJ's recorded words to J.Edgar ..."we can talk like brothers") which one can imagine included covering each other's backsides or undermining their mutual enemies through their years of brotherly love.

LBJ's deep life long corruptness and moral depravities make JFK look like a boy scout, yet ever since the 1960's, the difference in numbers of extremely negative image articles, books and commentaries given national exposure about these two former presidents is so wide ( hundreds tainting JFK to hardly any reporting the true dark side of LBJ )  that one would have to be mentally challenged to not see and acknowledge this imbalance reality and consider it's illogical implementation with at least some suspicion.

A truly informative  must read thread.

Wasn't Dr. Crenshaw's claim and story of LBJ personally calling and talking to him while he was working on wounded Lee Harvey Oswald at Parkland backed up by one of the hospital telephone operators?

Andrej, yes, nice entry.

Humes astoundingly clueless answers as to the missing brain weight documentation would rattle any murder trial jury and give them huge and logical concern and suspicion.

Mistakes under highly stressful conditions such as what Humes was under would be expected, but this one involved one of the most important evidential aspects of the autopsy and investigation into how JFK died and by what means.

Didn't Humes go over the autopsy form before signing off on it?

I could understand Humes possibly forgetting to weigh the brain to an iffy degree, but not him missing seeing  this glaring empty blank space on the form for brain weight.

Humes went over his autopsy notes at home before deciding to physically burn them so we know he did review them after the autopsy.

A general question - how often do pathologists forget to weigh removed brains during autopsies, even routine mundane ones?

And since there were other doctors and assistants involved with JFK's autopsy who knew the brain removal procedure themselves, their missing the unperformed brain weighing procedure as well, especially in such a momentous autopsy like JFK's, makes it even harder to accept this huge mistake as a result of just simple and innocent forgetfulness.

How long was it before this brain weight blank entry was noticed? Even if this was weeks, couldn't Humes have ordered what they had saved of JFK's brain to be weighed then?

How many people looked at the autopsy form during that time, including the FBI which was investigating JFK's murder and would need this vital information right away?

Litwin in this interview states that the million pages of released file documents don't bolster the conspiracy theorist's case.

I would love to stop Litwin right there and ask him if he believed the agencies didn't routinely or ever destroy documents for many reasons ( or claim they are missing or never existed ) especially when these documents would incriminated them in any way? Of course documents bolstering a conspiracy explanation in any substantial way would never be released.

He knows the true answer to this question. 

And how can Litwin and his fakely enthused infomercial product promoting partner interviewer keep a straight face while saying what a great book " Case Closed" is?

Everyone knows Posner's credibility was embarrassingly shot with the discovery of the Ferry/Oswald photo in the hugely important matter of whether Dave Ferry personally knew Lee Harvey Oswald and whether Ferry was provably lying about his claim of never meeting or knowing Oswald.

Adam, correct. 

It's obvious beyond doubt the final official autopsy brain weight measurement was falsified.

A hugely important fact.

For those who claim conspiracy believers in the JFK assassination have no solid evidential proof to back their belief...WHAT IN THE  WORLD...THE REAL WORLD...would you call this?

Sandy, I was referring to Paul O'Conner's testimony in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald where he was asked by attorney Gerry Spence to describe not only the procedure for removing a brain in an autopsy but what he ( O'Conner) personally remembered about seeing JFK's brain.

If you find this video on You Tube and view O'Conner's testimony I would think you will see that I am not mis-remembering the quotes I attribute to O'Conner in my earlier post.

I just reviewed the LHO trial video again and O'Conner also states in response to Gerry Spence's question  about whether JFK'S  brain was removed using the procedure O'Conner just described and O'Conner responded..."we didn't have to...there was no brain to remove."

I can see the points you bring up about O'Conner and Jenkins perhaps not always being next to or away from JFK's body at the same time. This could explain their different recollections.

However, my take on O'Conner's testimony about not seeing a solid brain in JFK's skull was that he made this observation when he first saw JFK's head after he and Jenkins first unwrapped it. I could be wrong on this point, of course.

I will now search for the answer to one of my other questions, but if you know where I can find the final JFK autopsy report that lists the measured weight of JFK's brain upon it's removal I would appreciate it.  I want to see if it corresponds correctly to Jenkin's interview statement of seeing 1/3rd of JFK's whole brain missing when he held this while placing the brain in some other location.

I think any weight listed that doesn't subtract this 1/3rd missing brain mass weight would indicate a false entry in the final autopsy report.

THE JFK BRAIN MYSTERY

by Jacob G. HornbergerMarch 29, 2017

Ever since the Kennedy assassination, a popular parlor game has been: What happened to JFK’s brain? The game has served as a useful distraction from the much more critically important issue, one that is still unexplained to this day by the Pentagon, which, strangely, was the entity that conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. This unexplained issue is: Why did U.S. military officials substitute another person’s brain for President Kennedy’s brain during their autopsy of the president’s body?

Notwithstanding all the controversy that continues to swirl around the assassination of President Kennedy more than 50 years ago, everyone agrees on at least one fact: There was a gunshot that hit President Kennedy in the head, one that blew out a large portion of his brain. There is no controversy or dispute about that fact.

Yet, take a look at this rendition of an autopsy photograph of what is represented to be Kennedy’s brain that is part of the official JFK autopsy records. The rendition was done by Ida Dox, a professional medical illustrator who was hired by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reinvestigated the JFK assassination during the 1970s.

You will see that while the brain is split in two halves, it is fully intact. That is, it is not missing a quarter to one-third of its mass, which was the amount of the brain that was estimated to have been blown away by the shot that hit Kennedy in the head.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, when a brain has 1/4- 1/3 of its mass blown away, it is incapable of regenerating itself into a full-sized brain.

This brain mystery is reinforced by the official autopsy report, which reflects that the president’s brain weighed 1500 grams.

That poses a big problem because the brain of a normal, undamaged person weighs about 1350 grams. JFK’s brain supposedly weighed 150 grams more than the average-sized brain. Ordinarily, that might not be too surprising. But it becomes quite impossible when one considers that 1/4-1/3 of the JFK’s brain had been blown away before it was weighed.

Take a look again at the artist’s rendition of the brain photograph in the official autopsy records. Notice the middle, bottom section of the brain — the part that has horizontal lines across it. That’s the cerebellum. Notice that according to the rendition, it is fully intact.

Now, consider these statements by physicians who treated President Kennedy in Dallas:

Dr. Robert McClelland: “some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”
Dr. Kent Clark: “Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were protruding from the wound.”
Dr. M.T. Jenkins: “the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.”
Dr. Paul Peters: “You could … see cerebral injury to the cerebral cortex and I thought at the time to the cerebellum”

... 

A couple of quick questions after viewing the video.

Jenkins said he held JFK's brain in his hands and placed it in a sling.

Jenkins also said 1/3rd of the whole brain he held was missing.

Does Jenkins know what the official autopsy report states as the weight of JFK's entire brain upon removal?

Is this official autopsy listed brain weight number reflective of a brain that is missing 1/3rd of it's original undamaged mass, even relative to an average male brain weight?

Fellow Bethesda navy corpsman Paul O'Conner, who was right there with Jenkins the entire time they were dealing with JFK's body, said he saw no brain in JFK'S damaged skull.

Just small lacerated pieces.

How could Jenkins have held a 2/3rd intact brain in his hands and O'Conner state something hugely contrary to Jenkin's observation ?

Jenkins said he saw a surgical incision line ( or several ) in the top of JFK's brain which apparently he didn't see Humes or Boswell perform.

Jenkins is clearly inferring this had to have been done before he and Paul O'Conner unwrapped JFK's head.

In frame #313 of the Zapruder film we all see JFK's skull explode with a large pink spray of material ejecting outward and mostly upward.

This spray came from the side flap blow out area. Not the hole as described on the back of the skull. We know that spray contained blood, brain fluid and liquified and even solid  brain matter as several people in JFK's limo and the two motorcycle police just behind the limo described being hit with this material and it not being just liquid spray.

Pictures of the back seat of the limo just minutes after JFK and Jackie were removed, actually show solid brain matter chunks on the seat along with blood stains.

I may be wrong but I think I have read accounts ( from one or more of the attending Parkland ER doctors ) of brain matter and fluid falling out of the large hole in back of JFK's head while JFK was laying face up on the exam and treatment table.

My point is that from the huge brain fluid and matter spray we saw ejected when JFK was hit in his limo, the continued brain matter falling out while Jackie held her husband's head  ( Jackie held some of this in her hand until she arrived at Parkland hospital ) and more brain matter oozing out in the ER, that it is remarkable that Jenkins didn't describe a much more obliterated brain when he says he carried it and put it in a sling.

Did Jenkins ever say which doctor removed JFKs brain?

O'Conner described the procedure which sounded quite involved with cutting the skull to peel back this back, cutting the dura mater, cutting  the eye nerves and cutting the brain stem.

How did Paul O'Conner not see this when he was with Jenkins all during the critical time frame and instead said under oath ..." there was no brain to remove."?

If not for the efforts of Jim D. we would not know the truth of Litwin's full background, his ideology and political activity and association history and the selectively weak and corrupted content of his book that Litwin has presented and promoted on this forum.

Jim's linked essay above  is, as always, an invaluable must read for those of us who need and value deeper facts before we waste our truth seeking time, effort and even money on a dishonest literary lemon.

Thank you Jim D.

And once again we see the names Rockefeller and DeRothschild pop up in this never ending secret power group story.

Yes W.

Is the release of the Kennedy scandal film just days before the JFK assassination anniversary just another coincidence?

My observation of past president historical analysis and commentary essay articles that are given national exposure in the MSM ( for decades ) is that ones on JFK far outnumber all others by a noticeable factor.

And that they definitely dwell on negative aspects of JFK's personal and political life to an illogically high and unbalanced degree.

I can't think of another past president who has received such a high number of negative image hit pieces as JFK  or anything close.

Focusing on so many JFK issues in a negative light such as his Vietnam policy sincerity, his Bay Of Pigs actions, his wife disrespecting marriage infidelities and out-of-control sexual promiscuity, his efforts to cool the arms race and finding some common ground with the Soviets and Khrushchev ( commie leanings? ) his mistrust of and even defiance toward his own joint Chiefs of Staff, his same with the CIA and Dulles and Hoover too, his stance on race ( hated for this ) or how he wasn't really that sincere or substantially invested toward blacks, and on and on.

The American public ( through general population popular media venues versus specialized smaller audience ones ) has been exposed to this negative focus JFK commentary much more than any other president.   IMO that is a fact and you don't have to be an obsessed conspiracy person to see this reality.

If the American public had been honestly exposed to the corrupt doings of LBJ and the true depths of these versus what they have been so regularly fed regarding JFK's flaws and debatable mistakes all these past decades, they would be horrified about LBJ...as they should be.

Jim D is right on this issue.

Here is the only article on AOL's daily news site about JFK posted the day before the 55th anniversary of Dallas, 11,22,1963.

Hidden Love Affairs and Dark Secrets JFK Tried to Keep From Americans During His Presidency

Every anniversary we see more negative pieces on JFK than positive or even neutral ones. During any given year there are more negative articles on JFK than positive or neutral ones.

And most keep centering their essays on JFK's promiscuous actions while married to Jackie. 

How many articles about JFK's extra-marital sexual affairs can we keep seeing year after year before the subject is beaten to death and we get sick of reading them?

What's the point of giving national exposure year after year to these JFK hit pieces?

This latest article list 10  "dark secrets" about JFK.  Besides the sexual ones they even came up with his use of medications by "3" separate doctors so he could get his fixes quickly and easily. 

You see JFK reported as a "steroid" user! The article lumps JFK in with "Mark McGwire" and "Lance Armstrong!" in an exaggerated, amoral, cheating boogie man way.

What MSM editorial board or lead editors keep allowing these totally negative JFK hit piece articles to be published in national media venues so often, almost regularly?

And while at the same time, we hardly ever see articles like these on  other truly corrupt past presidents like LBJ?

LBJ's corrupt, amoral and even immoral activities and actions through out his entire adult life make JFK seem like a Boy Scout in comparison.

9 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

A statement attributed to Sam Kinney (SS driver of followup car): 'People have been wondering about it [The bullet on the cart] for years.' "I put that there." He did not mention how he acquired this bullet, nor why he put it on the stretcher rather than report it. Hall states that she's never seen this bullet as evidence in the assassination. So this wasn't the "magic bullet" and the description by the guy who actually found the bullet on the stretcher doesn't mention the 1 1/2" length, but does say that it was pointed.

 

Tom, if this quote is proven to indeed be from Kinney and accurate, ( " I put that there" ) what are we to make of this astounding statement?

Does Vince Palamara have anything to say about this?

9 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

 

 

Just watched the Dick Cavett interview of Marina ( with PJM chiming in ) again and am curious about many things stated that seem very contrary in this.

In random order:

The diary. Lee's diary.

When Cavett brought this up, PJM immediately jumped in with saying the diary somehow got from the Police to the Dallas Morning News. Marina says she didn't even know how the diary was taken. And she had never read it's contents up to that point.  Questions burst forth everywhere here.

Marina was mad and deeply hurt after learning Lee had supposedly married her to spite another Russian girl who Lee liked.  PJM made a big deal out of Marina's hurt feelings.

I'm sorry, I don't think Marina was truly hurt by this revelation. After the JFK event, she seemed to resent Lee and what she and her children were enduring so deeply , that she could care less about this silly diary entry.

What that entry and other so-called "lurid" entries in Lee's diary did show imo, was that Lee liked the ladies, played the field when he could and felt enough sentimental memories of this experience to note them in his private diary. And he kept these entries secret even from Marina.

Combined with Oswald's secrecy ( even to Marina ) about this and so many other activities he engaged in through out their time in N.O. and Dallas, even in their struggling poverty, a thought occurred to me that Oswald was capable in his lady loving character to have had an affair ( perhaps briefly ) at some point in his frequent separations from Marina. Judyth Vary Baker's story ( don't bash me too hard for this ) becomes just a tad more believable through this lens.

Cavett hits Marina pretty hard concerning her non-action regards turning her husband in after she knew Lee had shot at General Walker.

Her answer to this question made sense to me in my life experience knowledge of very poor young women/mothers who are very dependent on another person. Her speculations about what might happen to her and her children if she did report her husband would of course include her fear of perhaps being deported. She was hugely torn I think and said she felt much long term guilt for not doing so.

Walker escaping injury made her decision a little more acceptable.

I was around nutty violent people as a child and adolescent. I wanted to report their abuse to the police many times. But I sensed that if I did, it would create an even more explosive situation where my mother would lose her financial security which was provided solely by her abusive husband. I would be fostered out as well. People let awful things go on that are close to them often because they fear worse things happening if they go to the authorities. Marina gets a pass here imo.

When the Nixon episode occurs where Lee packs a pistol and says he's going to some Nixon appearing event, Marina's tale of what happened between her and Lee just as he was leaving becomes almost preposterous though.

So many other questions here.

On 11/20/2018 at 1:07 PM, Lance Payette said:

For those who haven't seen this, here is an excellent Dick Cavett interview from 1977 of Marina and PJM together.  The dynamics between the two are interesting and scarcely consistent with Marina's later claim that she had been used by PJM.  As I'm sure everyone knows, PJM essentially lived with Marina for around six months.  In the interests of fair and accurate reporting, here Jim D.'s dark assessment of PJM:  https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/priscilla-johnson-mcmillan-she-can-be-encouraged-to-write-what-the-cia-wants.  It strikes me as the typical swirl of conspiracy-oriented innuendo and speculation that is supposed to cast doubt on PJM but to me really tells us nothing about the substance or accuracy of her book.  You can judge for yourself.  I believe that the Marina of 1993 and perhaps of today is the classic example of someone who immerses herself in conspiracy books, conferences and discussions and, like most Americans, comes away thinking "Well, there simply HAD to be some sort of conspiracy."  I believe this is why she hasn't distanced herself more from her previous testimony or PJM's book - she really knows no more about a conspiracy than the average man or woman on the street, merely that "there simply HAD to be some sort of conspiracy."  If she's actually latched onto the Alien Presence theme - oh, dear, let's hope she keeps that to herself.  But whatever her current position, I find her about-face completely understandable in light of the obvious psychological appeal of believing that Oswald might have been innocent (as she acknowledges in this interview) and her immersion in the conspiracy community.  One of the minor subplots of Walt Brown's chronology is how much Marina relied on him, even to the point of asking him at conferences to set her straight on the timeline of her own actions.

 

Geeminy, where does one begin?

Marina seemed totally dependent on PJM emotionally.

Often physically turning to look at PJM for support, reassurance and smiling nodding approval when she was unsure of her answers to Cavett.

And PJM ( looking and sounding like a cross between Leave It To Beaver's Barbara Billingsley and a kind of manic, wild eyed Carol Channing ) was almost too eager to be Marina's ever watchful and correcting mentor during the interview. To the point of seeming more personal attorney/ therapist than author friend.

Cavett put PJM on the spot regards reported speculation that she was connected to secret agencies, enhanced by what seemed to be her almost too coincidental close associations with both Lee Oswald and Marina at pivotal times in their lives.

PJM seemed quite uncomfortable when Cavett kept this subject going, shifting around more and seemingly trying to giggle and laugh her way out of directly saying a clear "no" to the question.  She even came up with a silly diversion story of how she and Marina just laugh at these agency connection stories.

PJM wasn't connected when she contacted Lee Oswald when he first came to Russia? Please.

In this interview Marina seems to me to be too emotionally connected to and dependent on PJM. 

And my gut instincts found PJM and her over-the-top, girlish giggling Carol Channing impersonation a contrived mask hiding a much more calculating and darker agenda character.

Marina has certainly changed her views of her husbands involvement in the JFK event since this interview.

6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Joe: My friend who has known Marina for years and who arranged the initial call between her and me earlier this year telephoned me today. He called on a totally unrelated matter that we are working on and I took the opportunity to call his attention to the current National Enquirer story.

I am bound by my promise to Marina not discuss the substance of our two conversations.  However, there may come a time when, while I cannot discuss the substance of our conversations, I may be able to disclose an action she took in recent years that astounded me and would cause the same reaction in you if it became known. Such disclosure may come about through the natural course of events. It could happen in the near future or maybe years away. I have no control over this.

 

 

Wow!

On 11/19/2018 at 11:55 AM, Douglas Caddy said:

I had two telephone conversations with Marina this year. The first call was arranged by a mutual friend who has known her for many years. The second time was when she called me after seeing me being interviewed on the History Channel's Ancient Aliens. Our agreement is that I will never disclose the substance of our conversations. So the only thing that I can disclose at this time is that mentally she still possesses a keen mind and is quite interested in past and current public events.

Doug, 

Isn't it a rare occurrence that Marina Porter allows herself to interact with outsiders like this, especially in her older age days?

Lucky you.

Oh the questions I would like to ask her.

Wish you could disclose the substance of your conversations with her.

We all understand confidence loyalty pledges however.

Your stated appreciation for Marina's still "keen mind" suggests to me she had some very interesting views, feelings and other things to share and that were rational in their content.

So curious to know if she said anything to you that would startle the members here or any other serious researchers.

Where I was raised is just a mile from the "Defense Language Institute" in Monterey Ca.  I grew up with "many" children of foreign language instructors employed there in my school classes from the 1950's and elementary school, all the way to 1969 and our small town high school which was "less" than a mile from the DLI. Often a third of our class were children of these instructors.

My best friend to this day is the son of one of these foreign language instructors. Almost all of the instructors were native born and raised in the countries of their language origin. I knew several kids whose parents were Russian born. I met ( very casually ) some of their parents.

My Aunt here in Monterey had more than one Russian instructor families as next door neighbors since the 1950's. I had a few brief encounters with them as well.

Even my wife and I had a Russian native born family ( married mother our age and her mother ) living next to us in the 1980's and the younger mother's son played with our two similar age children often right in their home. I got to know the grandmother well enough that to this day if we bump on the street we know each other and she always asks about my children and I her grandchild.

San Francisco has a large and long time established Russian community.  I remember once having to see a UCSF medical school connected specialist doctor in the City 11 years ago and it struck me as lightly humorous that every medical staff employee in that office ( a busy one with many and all female ) was Russian accented!

Guess that doctor liked to hire Russians. 

My point is that there are a significant number of native born Russians here in this part of Northern California. I have personally met, known and interacted with a few which is more than the average American.

For what my non-academic, limited exposure opinions are worth, I found these adult native born Russians to be so similar in ways to the White Russians in Dallas in the early sixties we have all read about.

They mostly stayed close to their own cultural / language kind socially.

They were very proud of their Russian heritage and culture to a point that it seemed to me they actually quite often looked down on our own.

They seemed mistrustful of outsiders more than other first generation foreign country immigrant families as did the families from China I knew. Looking back it actually seemed like it was a subtle but noticeable paranoia.

They were "very" money and status conscious. 

Education of their children was paramount. They seemed very controlling of who their children associated with. Again, they wanted to know what the parents of their children's friends did for a living. Being my wife was a college grad editor allowed my children the privilege of playing with our Russian neighbor's child.

All of these Russians were very intelligent, very sharp and keenly aware about the real world around them. To me, again, sometimes in a way that seemed born out of an instinctual and protective mistrust more than other cultures.

I share these memories and thoughts about the real Russian people I have interacted with just to reflect on them relative to Marina Porter and what she may or may not be like in her real soul, character and life.

Marina in this whole historic story has always been a fascinating character to me personally including all her suspected faults and misdeeds.

Her first nationally broadcast interview on TV, where she sat on a couch and stammered through her limited English answers and self-consciously kept herself from smiling due to a missing tooth, was very impressionable to me as a 12 year old.

I was instantly hugely smitten with her natural and still innocent looking physical beauty, her thoughtful and intelligent with glowing iris eyes ( you could even notice them on black and white TV! ) and at the same time caringly empathetic to her traumatized vulnerability.

So easy to understand why Oswald fell instantly head over heels for her.

56 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

As for the couple's abject poverty - well, yes, that is a bit of a problem for virtually every conspiracy theory.  Our International Man of Mystery keeps his baby in an open suitcase (I recalled it being an open dresser drawer, but whatever).

That is my point Lance.

Their poverty and dependency on others for the mere basics makes them less likely to be agents in my mind. Marina anyway.

Lee did seem to be working for someone nefarious in his activities in N.O. besides his job at Reilly's Coffee.

Portly shrimp gumbo lovin' N.O. attorney Dean Andrews stated he left his office and went down to confront Oswald when he heard Oswald was distributing leaflets on the street as Oswald still owed Andrews for legal work.

When Andrews reached Oswald he asked him what he was doing and Oswald supposedly responded to Andrews..."it's a job."

Guy Banister, FBI, Clay "Bertrand" Shaw? Take your pick.

As far as the UFO/ET presence subject, I have learned to keep an open mind regards at least half of all the strange subjects and events I read or hear about no matter how unusual they seem to so-called average persons.

21 hours ago, David Andrews said:

If accurate and in accurate context, an interesting Marina quotation in the NE article: "Maybe Lee was in the same kind of predicament [as I was] - a double or triple agent - and he did not know who he was really serving [.]"

D.A. That's an incredibly intriguing quote from Marina. Any original source I can be directed to regarding this?

In my hundreds of speculative ponderances regarding all the JFK event characters, I have wondered about the possibility of Soviet intelligence using Lee and Marina ( perhaps even unwittingly on Lee and Marina's part ) as information gathering lures.

Cast into the Texas White Russian community just to see the reaction of this group ( and specific members in it ) to this recently arriving odd couple from their nemesis regime enemy country.

My guess is that the Soviets had a spy or two already long term imbedded in the Texas White Russian community as well as other similar groups in the USA.

That seemed to be their MO from what I have read. Would be fascinating to know which members of that community were really long term imbedded Soviet spies.

One other real life thing always troubled me though about most of Lee and Marina's time together here in the states before 11,22,1963.

And that is how poor and struggling they were.

And the constant and significant emotional stress this poverty permeated their existence and relationship, especially with a baby to provide for. This lowest economic status reality ( barely above homeless at times ) was incredibly depressing for Marina and humiliating at times for her and Lee when others had to step in and help them with the bare necessities including food, clothing, housing, transportation, low wage employment help, medical/dental and even pre-natal care, etc.etc.

At one point Lee and Marina had baby June sleeping in an open suitcase because they couldn't afford a crib !?

If Lee and Marina were willing double or triple agents as part of a spy mission, would they subject themselves and especially their baby to this incredibly stressed and humiliating economic situation as long as it was without finally asking their handlers for some increase in their barely surviving stipends?

Perhaps any planners of such a covert operation could purposely present the Oswald's in this extreme low income light to give Lee and Marina innocent image credibility, but when one of them ( Marina ) goes as far as a suicide attempt ( no matter how feeble) one might reasonably assume the mission was going too far in this respect.

Marina and her two babies poverty struggle eventually turned to a fairly comfortable income existence after Lee's death and this must have been a huge relief for her after what she had gone through with Lee and the turmoil that followed. 

Strange - Marina's life might have continued to be a truly hard and sad one economically and emotionally forever if Lee had never been thrust into this historic nightmare maelstrom and they had stayed together.

Thanks Bart.

I know the NE is a shamelessTrump promoting propaganda rag.

However, I would still like to know if Marina was seriously interviewed recently and said anything close to the comments attributed to her.

If she was interviewed recently...by whom?

And if she did agree to an interview, wonder how much she may have been paid for this?

I know. 

It's that truth distorting and manipulating Trump buddy owned rag the National Enquirer.

But are Marina's comments in their article shown as quotes?

If they are and she stands by them...she is now embracing and promoting the "two Oswalds" theory.

In the article she says the conspiracy to kill JFK was extremely elaborate and well thought out and planned and involved the use of a Lee Harvey Oswald double.

She says again that her husband Lee loved JFK.

Are these Marina Porter comments from a recent interview?

Thoughts?

It really is an army-like battle type situation as your sister described Doug.

These command centers must plan, create and coordinate an entire huge response structure within hours!

This one involved the immediate life and death movement and welfare of 50,000 people!

The responsibility and achievement of creating and implementing such a massive effort and in such a short period of time is incredible.  Those involved have saved thousands of lives.

And dealing with the recovery and housing needs of so many will be just as challenging.

We live 272 miles from Paradise South.

Monterey, CA.

My wife's sister and her daughter really had no option than to make the drive all the way down here.

The smoke situation is incredible.

Even here in Monterey ( again 272 miles South!) you can smell it in the air and see it. There is a light brown/yellow haze everywhere including over the Bay.

You can imagine how much thicker the smoke is in the S.F. Bay Area which is 100 miles North of us. From there North and into Sacramento the smoke is so heavy people are wearing masks and even flights are effected.

My brother was flying from Portland to Sacramento the second day of the fire. He said the view of the smoke below was hard to believe.  And he said the smell of brush fire smoke ( slight but noticeable ) was actually in the cabin during flight! 

The movement of massive fire smoke as it lifts into the atmosphere is very interesting.

Air currents change at higher altitudes. Smoke actually gets carried out over the ocean and South at these higher altitudes here in California.

That is how San Francisco and we here in Monterey ( 272 miles South of Paradise) get smoke from the fire.

Seems like there is a peaking of bad and exhausting kharma in the country right now. 

So many crises, conflicts, killings, fear threats, political and economic divisions.

Thank you Josh.

We're sleeping on air mattresses and changing everything around as well as our schedules and routines.

Privacy is a challenge in our small rental house.

Thank goodness we love dogs though and these are sweet and gentle.

It's a little harder for us in our late sixties now though...but no complaints. Our fire victim relatives are going through something we can't even imagine.

This forum will be a nice escape distraction for me during this time.

Will be on the lookout for this new book.