Joe Bauer

Raphael Cruz Sr. ( father of Senator "Ted" Cruz ) lived in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. He moved there from Texas. Cruz Sr. was very politically active in the Cuban community in Texas, giving talks to many groups about his time in Cuba fighting Batista and then Castro. Cruz Sr, apparently never has allowed anyone to question him about his time in New Orleans. No confirmed dates or activity recollection. If politically active Cruz Sr. was in N.O. that summer, it is hard to believe he did not know of the Cuban groups in N.O. and their leaders during the time he lived there and which was a hot bed of anti-Castro activity. Wonder if De Brueys knew of Cruz Sr.

Steve, so you are saying De Brueys didn't go to Dallas any earlier than 11,23,1963? Steve, I am sure you have read all of De Brueys Church Committee and HSCA testimony. Curious what you think of him in the whole affair?

Just read De Brueys entire testimony to the HSCA accessed by the lower link below. De Brueys' Church Committee testimony: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1421&relPageId=2 His HSCA testimony: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/de%20Brueys%20Warren%20C%20HSCA%205-3-78%20Executive%20Session%20Transcripts/Item%2002.pdf. Amazingly intriguing and eye opening. A must read. That special assignment of De Brueys to Dallas in October, 1963 was never once mentioned in this interview. If true, this would be a mind blowing revelation. When the HSCA questioned De Brueys regards whether he personally threatened Orest Pena, De Brueys all but admitted this. He admitted he was hot to confront Pena and saw him 5 or more times in this heated effort and how Pena would refuse to answer De Brueys questions in the way De Brueys wanted him to or at all. De Brueys said that he was aggressive like this because this was about the assassination of our president. De Brueys also stated that if he ever talked to Oswald, it could have happened if Oswald called him under an assumed name or identity other than his real one. Not a flat out denial that he ever did. De Brueys explanation as to why he was not called to testify to the WC as well as Oswald's main case handler in New Orleans " Milton Kaack" was also weak. Even De Brueys says he was "surprised" he wasn't called to the WC. De Brueys clearly downplayed the extent of his knowledge of and interactions with Guy Bannister. A fellow long time FBI career man who did his stealthy things out of his office...right across the street from De Brueys...for years! ? I believe DeBrueys knew that Oswald worked for Guy Banister in some covert activity way. The agent Quigley jail interview of Oswald after Oswald's leaflet confrontation with Carlos Bringuier and arrest of Oswald was as unexplained as ever via De Brueys answers to questions of his knowledge and memories of this.

What a sadly profound last sentence or two quoted to Marchetti regards his efforts to expose what he felt were wrongs by his employer. He ( Marchetti ) often looked back on his days in the CIA. “I lost everything I had,” he told The Post in 1980. “If I had it to do all over again, I’d have kept my mouth shut. I’d have played the game.” quoted to Marchetti in this article.

I have been reading De Bruey's Church Committee testimony. What an obfuscating farce. He says he isn't sure, not quite sure, can't recall, I think, it's possible, might have, could be, not my area or primary job, etc. etc. so many times it's half his testimony. When Senator Richard Schweiker asked De Brueys to swear to the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth" oath in giving his testimony De Bruey's response is ... " I do...to the best of my knowledge." "To the best of my knowledge" ??? How can anyone hear a sworn witness add on an oddly superfluous caveat like that in their swearing to tell the truth before God ( it's always " I do " ) without immediately sensing some suspicion and doubt regards their true intent to honor this oath? De Brueys clearly evades, holds back and downplays so much in his answers. His answers about Carlos Marcello and how little he knew about or investigated him are simply ridiculous. Did Oswald ask to speak to the FBI upon being arrested by the N.O. police after his leaflet passing scuffle with Carlos Bringuier or did he not? So far I haven't read any questions to De Brueys about his relationship with Guy Banister. I have to guess he and Banister were close simply because of their shared career affiliations. Note: De Brueys does answer these questions in his later HSCA testimony, although sparingly. Did the Warren Commission speak to De Brueys? If not, why not? His time in Dallas was directly connected to the JFK assassination and his personal knowledge of Oswald's N.O. activities would seem to beg for more inquiry. And the W.C. witness Orest Pena's testimony is so full of intriguing mention of De Brueys including Pena's belief that Oswald actually worked in some way with De Brueys it's mind blowing the WC wouldn't want to know more.

Could someone link me to past threads regarding Warren De Brueys. Was De Brueys ever called to testify to the WC or any other JFK assassination investigative body? If not, this is very surprising. How close to Guy Bannister was De Brueys?

Some points in the above post I would like to counter. Regarding what L. Payette stated that: ( for ) "MUCH of the J.F.K. community ... the issue for them really isn't who killed J.F.K. This very large segment of JFK assassination research is essentially a religion driven by liberal ideology." I really had to stop and think about this assessment. I went back and recounted where my personal interest in the JFK assassination first began and how. And whether I may have unconsciously become part of this JFK assassination research religious cult Payette describes. And if I have...what insecure emotional personal need motivated me to become part of this cult? I went back to the beginning - 11,22,1963. At 12 years old and never having any conspiracy thoughts about anything, in one day and hour I was instantly shocked into reality questioning confusion by the first big society changing historical event of my life. I had never seen a dozen teachers all crying at once during school hours before. I had never seen an entire school shut down and all the kids in it quickly sent home because of a tragic national event. I had never seen such quietness on the streets of our little town as I walked the mile and 1/2 home. Upon arriving, I had never seen my mother sitting down and so speechless as she watched TV and putting off household work she normally seemed to always be doing. Filled with shocked curiosity like everyone else, I went upstairs to watch the super old and grainy black and white TV my brother and I inherited when our stepfather finally broke down and bought himself a color TV. I was glued to the TV myself for the next three days. Who wasn't? Even my JFK hating step-father was a little subdued by this event. He didn't rant about JFK for those first few days except to say "Man, they blew that SOB away." The first time in my life that I ever thought about reality not being what I assumed ( a conspiracy ) was watching Lee Harvey Oswald being brought around that corner and into the DPD basement area on the morning of 11,24,1963 (almost IN FRONT of his two side security handlers) and seeing Jack Ruby lunge forward and shooting him. The second that happened, without any forethought, I leaped off my bed and shouted to no one..."No Way! "No Way!" ... over and over again. Even as a 12 year old, I had read and heard dozens of times through newspaper and TV news reports that Oswald was "the most threatened individual in the world" that weekend. 10's of thousands of threats a day! I also knew how important he was in regards to what he had to say about his role in the JFK assassination. Even a half-way intelligent 12 year old in this country at that time knew how important it was to protect Oswald. And to see Oswald shot in the gut at close range and live on National TV ( while he was in police custody and in their own building ) instantly sparked suspicion in my mind, as it would logically do in anyone's mind. Such as Mark Lane salt of the Earth rail road worker assassination witness interview subject Richard C. Dodd said soon after the Oswald killing ... "a man walk up and shoot a man handcuffed to a couple of policemans and get away with it...why, I figure there's somethin a goin on besides what should be." My thoughts exactly Mr. Dodd! And coherently to the common sense point as any Walter Cronkite commentary. Still, like most people however, you have to get on with your life and my overwhelming priority in this endeavor from my teens through twenties was to simply get on my feet without hardly any JFK conspiracy thinking, speculating, talking or even reading that I can recall. It wasn't until I happened to catch some of our hometown researcher Mae Brussel's radio broadcasts that I thought about the JFK assassination again. And even then I had to work full time doing heavy manual labor and I was always just dogged tired after work. Still not obsessed with this event at all. When Oliver Stone's film "JFK" came out, my interest in the JFK killing took on more curiosity and reading effort. And in this reading and learning many proven background facts about the main JFK story characters and those who they had interacted with, and seeing clear discrepancies in the Warren Report and seeing hundreds of interviews of people connected in some way to this event and the characters involved, all common sense eventually compelled me to believe there was no way that L.H. Harvey Oswald took on and performed this shooting task without someone assisting him ( he may not have been the shooter at all ) or in the least knowing about it in advance. It isn't a religious experience for me to engage with others in this regards. It is a stimulating discussion one mixed with a life long belief that I shared with Dealey Plaza eye witness Dallas railroad man Richard C. Todd... Whys "a man walk up and shoot a man handcuffed to a couple of policemans and get away with it...why, I figure there's somethin a goin on besides what should be." Mr. Dodd and I didn't reach this belief through some super natural religious experience...we saw it on the news! And it doesn't take a religious need or conversion to continue being interested in an historical event and subject that changed every person's life in this country on some levels as much as Lincoln's assassination, Pearl Harbor, VJ Day and 9-11. A thought about Castro perhaps being behind the JFK assassination. In a span of 5 years, we had the killings of 3 of the most influential leaders in this country that were a threat to the real wealth, power and control status quo in this country. These three were beginning to effect mass public opinion and even action that was contrary to the interests of these competing interests. I believe that it was these groups who felt more threatened by the Kennedy's and King than Castro. Some one for sure other than Castro would have taken out RFK and MLK. What interest would RFK and MLK's assassination serve Castro? So, to some Castro did JFK. But who did RFK and MLK? The answer to that question is as important as who did JFK. The elimination of RFK and MLK was just as bloody and barbaric as JFK's. Whoever made these killings happen were that ruthless and because they got away with this...that powerful. And yes, I do believe that those who were responsible for RFK's and MLK's murders, were still in charge for decades after and in some ways, that control never really gave it up.

Yes, it does look like a wave. An open hand one. You'd think that some extended family or friends of the DC man ( some one somewhere ) would have been made aware of their relative's presence in this famous video after 50 years. I am sure that at this man's age he must have been known or connected to someone. His general build, posture and a hat type not that common and that he probably wore on a regular basis would make him instantly recognizable.

A tip of the hat to our very own Joseph McBride. I was listening to KCBS radio in San Francisco, CA around 6:20 pm this evening when Joseph was introduced and interviewed about the "new release" of the Orson Well's unfinished film "The Other Side Of The Wind." JM gives a brief but fascinating historical summary of the film and how it has finally been finished and will be screened at the Roxie theater in San Francisco. It will also appear on Netflix on November 2nd and be shown at many film festivals as well. What's really interesting is that McBride is actually ... in the film! The following is the cast list. Notice J M's name and role six names down. Cast[edit] John Huston as Jake Hannaford, modeled on Ernest Hemingway. Welles denied speculation that the character was also based on himself or Huston, although he noted that there were elements of early Hollywood directors with macho reputations, such as Rex Ingram[4], John Ford, Raoul Walsh and William A. Wellman. Bob Random as Oscar "John" Dale, the pretty, androgynous leading man of Hannaford's new film, who walked out mid-filming, leaving the picture unfinished. Peter Bogdanovich as Brooks Otterlake, a protégé of Hannaford's who is now a commercially successful director in his own right, and who has a talent for mimicking celebrities. The character has many parallels with Bogdanovich himself, who took over the role after the departure of comedian Rich Little. Little remained credited as a party extra. Susan Strasberg as Juliette Riche, a savage film critic. The character was a thinly veiled spoof of Pauline Kael, with whom Welles was in a public feud over her allegation (later discredited) that he did not write Citizen Kane. The role had originally been written with Jeanne Moreau in mind, and was initially played by Bogdanovich's then-wife Polly Platt, who also served as the film's production designer, before eventually being taken over by Strasberg, who reshot the scenes previously filmed with Platt.[5]:165 Oja Kodar as The Actress aka The Red, Red Indian. The unnamed, enigmatic actress features prominently in the film-within-a-film, and is also at Hannaford's party. Much of her role is silent. Joseph McBride as Marvin Pister, an amalgamation of various cinephiles and socially awkward film critics whom Welles had met over the years.[5]:164, 177, 200 Lilli Palmer as Zarah Valeska, who owns the ranch which hosts Hannaford's party, was based on Welles's old friend Marlene Dietrich, whom he very much wanted to play the role, but Dietrich was unavailable for filming.[5]:165[6]:195 Edmond O'Brien as Pat, an aging actor with fascist political leanings who is one of Hannaford's cronies. Mercedes McCambridge as Maggie Fassbender, a cineaste married to Marvin P. Fassbender, working as Hannaford's secretary. Paul Stewart as Matt Costello, a leading member of "the Hannaford Mafia" of the director's old Hollywood cronies. He is reputed to have a long-standing association with the House Un-American Activities Committee. Cameron Mitchell as "Zimmie" Zimmer, a Texas-born makeup artist of Jewish heritage and one of Hannaford's closest artistic collaborators. He is fired by Costello (who stipulates his attendance at the party) en route to the ranch. Peter Jason as Marvin P. Fassbender, a bumptious film journalist. Tonio Selwart as The Baron, a parody of Welles's former business partner John Houseman, whom he had acrimoniously separated from in the 1940s, and who published several memoirs throughout the 1970s which were scathing of Welles.[5]:165 Howard Grossman as Charles Higgam, Hannaford's biographer, a parody of Charles Higham, who had written an influential and unflattering 1970 biography of Welles which had wounded him with its Freudian accusation that he had a "fear of completion" on films. A 1970 Higham article publicising the biography had directly led to one major investor pulling out from The Other Side of the Wind, who was put off by the "fear of completion" charge. The role was originally played by Bogdanovich, but then re-shot with Grossman when Bogdanovich switched to playing Otterlake[5]:165 Geoffrey Land as Max David, a young studio boss and former child actor, spoofing Robert Evans.[5]:165 Norman Foster as Billy Boyle, an aging former child actor from Hannaford's early films, and a member of his entourage, portrayed as a stooge. He is a recovering alcoholic, and a compulsive eater of candy. Dennis Hopper as Lucas Renard, a young avant-garde director with parallels to Hopper. Gregory Sierra as Jack Simon, a screenwriter with parallels to John Milius who questions Hannaford's sexual orientation in front of Otterlake. Benny Rubin as Abe Vogel, based on veteran Hollywood agent Abe Lastfogel.[5]:165 Cathy Lucas as Mavis Henscher, a spoof of Bogdanovich's then-girlfriend, actress Cybill Shepherd (who was present for at least some of the filming, and whose brother, Bill Shepherd, was part of the production crew filming in Arizona). A young actress, Henscher has difficulty balancing her acting career with the correspondence course her home state makes her take while working.[5]:165 Dan Tobin as Dr. Bradley Pease Burroughs, Professor of English Literature at Clivedale Academy, a boys' boarding school in Franahan which had been implicated in a pederastyscandal involving another teacher. His former star pupil is John Dale. When Pease Burroughs is brought out to Hannaford's party to discuss Dale he is noticeably ill-at-ease in the unfamiliar atmosphere of Hollywood. George Jessel as himself Richard Wilson as himself Claude Chabrol as himself Curtis Harrington as himself Henry Jaglom as himself Paul Mazursky as himself Cameron Crowe as a party extra Les Moonves as a party extra

Khashoggi got into a fight with 15 Saudis. It was a real battle but the 15 finally subdued him and then cut off his fingers and then his head and then dismembered the rest of his body. I heard where the Saudi's beheaded 80 people either last year or in a years time until now. Trump is looking for any thing his team can find to downplay the murder or absolve any high Saudis of blame. He sure likes to defend ruthless, murdering dictatorships...Putin, Kim Jong-un, Duterte, the Saud's. His son-in-law is freaking because he owes the Saudis big time. JFK would never do what Trump is doing.

Lance, thanks for the engagement in response to my earlier post. I would like to ask you about Lee Harvey Oswald and your consideration of the possibility that he was trying to establish ( as Marina said of his last year of extreme political and even gun using activity - the New Orleans leaflet doings and radio political debate, back yard photos, shooting at Walker ) his bona fides as a Marxist revolutionary with the ultimate goal of being welcomed as a hero in Cuba. Do you think that Oswald actually believed that his shooting and killing of JFK would be the final guaranteeing key to this goal? And that he ( Oswald) actually believed he could pull this off and successfully escape to Cuba for this grand honoring welcome? Oswald seemed quite intelligent enough to formulate an escape plan better than the one where he leaves his shells and gun just feet from his perch, then runs down to a 2nd floor lunch room to buy and sip a soda pop, then casually walks out of the TXSBD building to a bus stop, boards and jumps off when the bus is stalled in traffic, hails a cab, gets to his room, rushes past his landlady with a gun on his person, starts walking...to where no one is sure...and then everything falls apart after Tippit and the movie theater tussle and arrest. My common sense tells me that the scenario of Oswald doing such extremely idiotic , poorly planned, risky and self incriminating things from the Walker shooting, to the BYPs to firing hugely loud rounds right above hundreds of bystanders at JFK in Dealey Plaza to his poorest person budget escape attempt and desperation run from his room doesn't fit the Cuba hero plan at all. It sounds much more like the unplanned actions of a mentally deranged or drug addled nutcase or someone bent on suicide. Oswald was not of these mind sets and he had to have known in his political history reading savvy that Cuba and Castro would want him eliminated ASAP if he survived and somehow showed up in Cuba. Oswald also did show true love, affection and concern for his daughters. In this mind set, it is a challenge to believe he would completely risk ruining their future lives welfare with a possibility of his being discovered as the assassin of a beloved President of the United States and who was a father of two young children himself. For Oswald to cross that human and father love bond line, and become a cold blooded killer of someone he didn't even know simply for political reasons seems very implausible to me, again falling back on my "common sense" instincts versus the circumstantial evidence to the contrary including Marina Oswald's theory of Lee's motivations testimony.

My interpretation is that L. Payette suggests looking at the assassination more with a real life, odd things happen all the time common sense versus conspiracy driven hyperventilating over these odd yet explainable details and anomalies and microscopic searching for even more. And that perhaps many conspiracy believers can't let go of their mind set because they are much more emotionally motivated and locked into this view because of this emotional connection versus those that aren't? Maybe this take on Payette is too general and even wrong, however it is one that allows me to frame and explain my own alternate interpretation of such a view. How many times have I stepped back from my lifetime interest and study of the JFK assassination ( though always off and on ) and asked myself why I keep this interest and whether it might be more emotion based than I was aware of. Was I purposely blocking myself from considering the event with a more objective common sense view versus a conspiracy one that may be based on my admitted personal view of the world we live in as much more corrupt than the average person believes it is? To a point, I can't say I wasn't. But over the years I keep coming back to a realization that when one studies all the facts about the JFK event and the main and close to main characters involved that "the real common sense view" is that there are simply too many contradictory facts, too many contradictory testimonies, too many contradictory and suspicious backgrounds, too many illogical actions by so many involved ( thousands in number ) that even a totally emotionally detached person with just a half-way curious mind and interest in the world's most impacting historical events would be FORCED to consider this event and the official record finding of it with more suspicion than not. Conspiracy believers regards this particular event never needed to obsessively hunker over a microscope to find proof and justification for their concluding view. There is and always has been a mountain of conspiracy suggesting evidence, credible person testimony and background information so huge no one ever needed any visual enhancements to see it. In fact, you have to make a ridiculously illogical effort to drive around it and/or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

Witt makes reference to his feeling of concerned self-consciousness as soon as he realizes the dire seriousness of what has just happened within just 20 to 25 feet of his strange protest demonstration toward JFK. He clearly infers that he knew he might be noticed for his weird stand out action considering how close he was to the president being shot while he performed this. He says he was stunned into frozen standing, yet he was cognitive enough to contemplate this apprehension scenario immediately, thus dropping his umbrella and getting down to a sitting position which I feel was his way of trying not to stand out any more than he already may have with his umbrella waving or pumping. Witt also says he noticed Bill and Gayle Newman dropping down and protecting their children in an action that one would expect from people who thought they were in the line of gunshot fire. It was right after this that he says he dropped to the curb to just sit there ... and gather his thoughts ? He says he doesn't recall looking directly at the negro man who just happened to sit down next to Witt so closely they could have grabbed each other's hands. Witt says he looked directly at and watched the Newman's drop to the ground. However, he doesn't give even a glance to someone plopping right down next to him just inches away? Yet he was able to describe the DCM as negro. And he quotes the DCM as saying "They done shot them folks." If true, that kind of American slang does not sound like something a native Cuban would have said. At the same time Witt says he couldn't remember ever looking directly at the DCM, he then says that if the DCM had had a walkie-talkie, he believes he would have noticed this. ??? How can you say you never looked directly at someone and then say you still think you would have noticed what he may have been carrying or doing at the same time? What more does a person need to hear ( loud and powerful gunshots and a sitting partner saying "They done shot them folks" 3 times! ) before he is aware that someone in the JFK limo was wounded? Also, I am not sure exactly how close Witt was to the limo when JFK was shot in the head relative to the Newmans. But, Bill Newman says Mrs. Kennedy screamed "Oh My God, they've shot Jack) so loudly and clearly, he will never ever forget hearing this. Witt saw so much and so closely and probably heard what the Newman's heard. And for him to claim he never read anything about the assassination and wasn't inclined to do so...when he was within feet of one of the most powerful and traumatic and important events in our history ... is beyond belief in my opinion. Imagine being just a few rows of seats away from Abraham Lincoln when he was shot in Ford's theater. You would be sharing what you witnessed up close like that with your family and friends the rest of your life. Witt was interested in reading about the Kennedy's appeasement history yet JFK's assassination right in front of him in broad daylight doesn't garner his reading interest later? He waits 15 years to tell his story? And no one close to him ( family, friends and co-workers ) was ever curious enough to ask him what he saw knowing he was just feet from the assassination? One thing sounds possible...Witt was running from scrutiny. He knew his actions right at the spot of the shooting were so weird and negative and anti-JFK that this would attract more suspicion than any other Daley Plaza spectator that day. And it's clear he disliked JFK for many other reasons than appeasement. Of all those 100's of other Dealey Plaza sidewalk spectators, only one went so far as to perform a physical action type protest let alone a very strange and ominous one. For a guy who says he never joined political groups, and had never protested before it is very suspect that he would do something as bold, aggressive and stand-outish as he did, and in front of hundreds of people including dozens of security personnel.

I would also like to know if Galbraith ever shared any thoughts on JFK's assassination. Privately or publicly.

Smith was taken out also. No wonder Kilgallen's husband was terrified and refused to talk about this whole affair ever again.

Sam "Momo" Giancana dies by murder in June of 1975. Jimmy Hoffa dies by murder in July, 1975. Roselli's long time loyal friend William King Harvey dies by heart attack in June, 1976. Johnny Roselli dies by murder in August of 1976. Looks like a purge of major JFK event suspects, all in approximately one year's time. The extremely brutal, even sadistic manners of killing these three figures smacks of organized crime methods. Multiple shots into the head and mouth, who knows what with Hoffa, Roselli cut up into pieces and stuffed into a drum? Dear God! Just think who ordered the hits of Giancana, Hoffa and Roselli? Someone much higher in power status than them. Whether it was fellow Mafia members or ....well...take your pick. Ordering hits on some of the most highly placed organized crime figures in the country ( Giancana was a Godfather himself! ) could only come from someone of a lot higher rank than them. And that narrows the suspect field to just a few groups and individuals ...or agencies? They got to Dorothy Killgallen very early...1965 versus these three guys 10 years later.

Mathias, your post message above is so coherently logical and true to me. "Today, the term "conspiracy theorist" is often used to discredit critical minds. That's why I think it should be used with caution." More than caution - active vigilance. Yes, I am stimulated by engaging others on this forum ( many highly regarded and published book writers and researchers ) in the study, debate and even speculations regarding the assassination of not just JFK but RFK and MLK as well. Like many are stimulated by the same type of engagement regarding the Civil War, WWII and other major historical events that hugely changed the world we live in. This is definitely part of my participation motivation here for sure. However, I don't like wasting my time on just any possible conspiracy stories. The JFK assassination event is separated from 95% of all the other possible conspiracy stories in our nation's history by it's impact. The impact from JFK's brutal slaying was almost as important if not as important as the allies defeating the Axis powers in WWII. What responsible citizens of the United States on 11,22,1963 wouldn't want to know as much as they could regards the who, what and why's of their president's slaughter? 95% of Americans since 1963 would not keep focused on this story question study as long as we here on the forum have been, but I think most would understand the long term interest as a rational thing more than an irrational thing for those that still consider the truth about the JFK event important enough to keep searching for it. I don't care if the moon landing was faked. I am not interested enough in the 911 event to give it more of my time, study and engagement than I do. The subject of UFOs and ET presence does interest me...but I don't have the ability, connections and energy to study it more thoroughly than a passing interest. I don't "search" for more conspiracies to delve into. The JFK one is all I can handle. I do think that if we ever find out the full truth regards who killed JFK and why, that this knowledge will explain almost all of the most secret doings our country has been involved in since JFK and even before. We will finally know more about who we really are as a society and who has been controlling it than we could imagine. President Eisenhower "asked us" ( all Americans ) to be more interested in and concerned about a reality he called the Military Industrial ( and Congressional? ) Complex. This new configuration of accumulated vast power was a "conspiracy." Read or listen to his farewell address again. What a stark warning! He was asking us to acknowledge, accept and confront the reality of a power shift in this country so threatening to our democracy that he felt compelled to make it an important part of his final speech as President. He was asking us to accept and face this new and powerful and usually secret...conspiracy.

DCM was never identified? Not one person ever contacted the authorities to suggest even a guess as to who he was? That could mean he was not a local person. And if he wasn't, his time and effort to come to Dallas from farther away for a super close up, few feet away view of JFK and Jackie and to give them such an enthusiastic arm and hand thrusting approval greeting, suggests he must have been a great admirer. Or, was this seemingly friendly warm arm and hand thrusting actually a more cynical act? Was there a middle finger extended from that lifted hand? If Umbrella Man's uniquely weird antics and closeness to the kill zone weren't suspiciously bizarre enough, just add to this his and DCM's immediate similar reaction to sitting down on the grass abutment curb at the same time and close enough together as couples sitting in a movie theater and holding hands. Heck, actual friends Mary Moorman and Jean Hill didn't grab each other in fear...Hill took off running on her own! I have wondered, has anyone ever done a studied analysis regarding identifying each person seen in photos of the crowd on Elm street that day? And if so, did they come up with a guesstimate of how many could "not" be identified? In percentages? You would think that DCM, if totally innocent of any nefarious intent or actions, might have come forward to identify himself for reasons such as posterity or maybe even some financial gain. That he would have told "someone" of his super unique time and location place in one of the most important events in American history. And, if he had children or other relatives or a wife, girl friend and workmates, you would think that one of them might have come forward by now to ID him for similar reasons. His staying secret only helped add to the suspicions people naturally would have in considering his presence and actions at that time and scene as something more than innocent. I will throw this out there for the sake of more dramatic speculation. DCM looks like Morgan Freeman to me.

Of all the suspicious covert political intrigue characters on Earth to be sharing living quarters with "the day JFK was murdered", Martens rooms with David Ferrie? David Ferrie, who is at that time very actively involved with extreme JFK/RFK hating individuals and groups like anti-Castro paramilitary forces, Guy Banister, Carlos Marcello and organized crime and who knows what other nefarious entities, many who felt JFK had betrayed them in the Bay Of Pigs or in Marcello's case his humiliating deportation at the hands of RFK, and throw in Bannister's connection to violent white segregationist groups, etc. Unless Martens just popped into Ferrie's personal living space irregularly off and on and only late at night and leaving early the next morning, it would seem very unlikely that he ( Martens) would not have overheard the highly opinionated, animated and loquacious David Ferrie say "something" to him, others or even himself, about the assassination and JFK personally in the immediate days and weeks following the assassination and Ferrie's Houston, Texas ice skating adventure the day of this. Martens never heard Ferrie say anything about this subject at that time and while he is living in the same apartment? Please.

Layton Martens : " Garrison had nothing, was full of shxt and crazy." Yet not one word about his weird, weird friend David Ferrie? One of the most psychologically disturbed characters in the entire JFK story? This fellow Martens may have been a remarkably engaged and achieving person in the New Orleans world of music, but that alone does not automatically give him credibility in other areas. Especially the Garrison investigation.

Does anyone interested in Layton Martens wonder about his "live in" situation with David Ferrie when he was just 20 years old? Martens tells Daniel Meyer that he felt Jim Garrison was "full of xxxx" and "crazy." Yet, Martens has nothing to say about David Ferrie? Ferrie was "normal?" What would a 20 year old young man find appealing about someone like hairless 45 year old David Ferrie and be willing to live with him in his apartment with rat cages? You'd think Martens would be rather embarrassed to admit he lived in eccentric David Ferries apartment as a young single man ...no matter how long this situation lasted. I am sure Ferrie offered free rent accommodations to many young men he may have befriended, but those that took him up on this surely have more to say about the man than...nothing? Sounds like Marten's personal relationship with David Ferrie was something he didn't want to talk about. What did they have at all in common anyway that would foster a live-in situation no matter how brief? Ferrie wasn't into music was he? Wonder if Ferrie tried out his hypnotism skills on Martens. Rick Bauer, a reader in Florida, writes to tell of his personal experience in 1965-66 with David Ferrie, the New Orleans pilot who has been the target of JFK conspiracy speculation for decades. Bauer writes. “I am a graduate of Tulane University in 1966. In the fall of 1965 I commenced flight training paid for by the Department of Defense for students enrolled in various ROTC programs. I was a USN scholarship student at Tulane. My instructor was David Ferrie …. I knew Dave from Sept. 1965 until May of 1966. I passed my Private Pilot’s check ride on March 27, 1966.” Bauer says he admired Ferrie. “Dave was a terrific flight instructor. Quite honestly I was able to get over the initial hurdles in US Navy primary flight training because of his training and his spin/unusual attitude training followed me for my US Navy career and my 30 years with Delta Air Lines. I finished as an International captain flying to — believe it or not — Moscow, Russia.” “Dave was both smarter than portrayed in the movie ‘JFK,'” Bauer went on. “And yes perhaps a little crazier. My classmates would agree with this.” Joe Pesci as David Ferrie Bauer says mainstream news organizations have never shown an interest what he and his fellow pilots knew of Ferrie. “Six months ago I approached them about their willingness to speak with media about our experience regarding Dave,” he wrote. “I received no response from CNN or FOX.” “Same thing happened in 1967 when Jim Garrison came out with his theory, and we called the FBI office. No one wanted to speak with us. “Sounds something like, Do not confuse us with facts!” Ferrie’s skin condition Bauer added a bit of movie criticism to his email. “By the way,” he wrote, “the wig that Joe Pesci wore in ‘JFK’ the movie was nowhere near accurate.” “Dave had a skin condition that meant he had no hair,” Bauer went on. “That includes eye brows. He would paint his head and over his eyes with ‘spirit gum’ and then stick what looked like pubic hair shaved off and simply stuck this in place.” “He always wore a ball cap. We knew he had a previous position as a commercial pilot and was fired on a morals charge but again we assumed underage females. The movie indicated younger boys I believe? I do not recall as much swearing despite his excitable nature.” Ferrie’s trophy board “First we saw absolutely no indication that Dave was homosexual,” Bauer wrote in his email. “Actually, this was not a surprise given his position at the time. That would have first been foolish and second, if bisexual, this was not uncommon in New Orleans. ” David Ferrie “What we observed in his apartment was a ‘trophy’ board with a pubic hair from his various sexual partners which we assumed were female. Why? He also had Polaroids of him and a black maid or so he said. She probably never did any cleaning since his apartment, which was uptown not in the Quarter, was portrayed accurately in the movie.” “Dave was always polite and respectful around women. He knew my future wife, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law well during my training since they drove me to the airport. He definitely had a temper and my classmates have clear memories of that trait. He made many negative statements about ‘professional’ military officers. Strange since we were all tracking for that. [He] said the reserves always won the wars” Flights with Cubans “He was actively engaged with Cubans. My USMC classmate recalls flights on the weekend to Picayune, Mississippi, in a DC-3 for their training.” “The company that had the government contract was called ComAir and was operated by a retired USAF Lt.Col whom I never met. This sounds like CIA to those of us with a military background….,” Bauer wrote. Involved in JFK’s assassination? In early 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison investigated Ferrie as a suspect in an alleged conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Literary scholar Joan Mellen argues Garrison was right about Ferrie. She says Ferrie had known Oswald since they were in the same Civil Air Patrol group. In the summer of 1963, she says Ferrie accompanied Oswald to Clinton, Mississippi, along with Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman later indicted and acquitted for conspiring to kill JFK. Ferrie and Shaw, she concludes, help set up Oswald as a “patsy” for the assassination. JFK researcher David Reitzes disagrees. He says Ferrie had no connection to JFK’s assassination. Reitzes impeaches the credibility of the Clinton witnesses, though he does not have a persuasive explanation for why so many people would have independently and erroneously placed Oswald there at that time. When Ferrie died suddenly in February 1967, speculation about his role in Kennedy’s assassination, ran riot. Final thoughts Bauer sums up his recollections of Ferrie with these words: “I had close contact with Dave for three quarters of a year. He was employed indirectly by the Department of Defense, had clear connections with Cubans of some stripe … so I feel something is missing” from the way he has been portrayed. Bauer thinks Ferrie’s service for the U.S. military after JFK’s assassination is significant.

Regarding the 3rd link above provided by David Boylan. If the picture shown in that link is the true Felipe Vidal Santiago then the DCM in the UMB man photos is not this person. The hand thrusting man in front of UBM is negroid.

So, the hand waving DCM in the UBM photos is this "Felipe Vidal Santiago?" And he ( Santiago ) was connected to the Umbrella Man ( claimed to be Louis Witt ) as his friend? Was this a close or casual friendship? Odd pairing on it's face without some background info explaining this friendship or acquaintanceship. A connection "of any nature or degree " between the UBM and DCM would explain the close standing location proximity of the two men and especially their sitting next to each other proximity ( as close as movie theater seat mates ) on the grass abutting curb right after the shooting when most others in the crowd were frantically running to and fro. But then why would these two men who reportedly knew each other and sat so close to each other they could have held hands, then totally separate and go in different directions seconds or minutes later? Who was Santiago? Was Santiago a Castro hating Cuban? Was Santiago involved in the Bay Of Pigs? The whole scene of the opened black umbrella waving around with it's stiffly erect standing owner's anti-JFK - Joe Kennedy Nazi appeasement protest motive was so uniquely weird and odd and out-of-place, relative to "every other person" in that crowd of hundreds, any half-way curious person studying the pictures of the scene that day would be stopped by this ominous looking anomaly. This weird and brazen protest behavior happening right during the 6 second time frame shooting and within feet of the kill zone ( whether coincidence or not ) quite logically takes it to a level beyond curious...to suspicious. And if the photos of the DCM leaving the scene do indeed show a walkie-talkie type device on his person, then how can anyone "not" seriously consider he was involved as a ground control participant in the shooting? Reading the linked article in an earlier post graphically describing the killing of trapped anti-Castro forces in the Bay Of Pigs, you are reminded again of the deep hatred of JFK by so many invested in that failed invasion. A hatred so visceral it just seethed with revengeful rage. JFK was hated to a murderous degree by so many - anti-Castro zealots, their American mentors, violent segregationist, world's wealthiest oil men and their power structure, extreme right wing anti-communists, Mafia, old established power men such as Dulles, Hoover, insanely jealous LBJ, spurned former husbands such as Cord Meyer and throw in another hundred others and groups who hated or at least greatly disliked JFK to varying degrees such as Curtis LeMay, Richard Nixon, Edward Lansdale, etc... and his murder seemed almost expected.

Monsieur Carlier, How is it heroic to irresponsibly stay out drinking in a nightclub well into the predawn just hours before you are to perform some of the most important physical and mental sharpness duties of your job and career and in a city "you know" is one of the most hostile towards your President in the entire nation? How is it heroic when a seasoned SS agent in the same vehicle you are being shot up in, doesn't make any physical attempt to even try to jump over his seat to throw his body in harm's way to protect his President and others also in the line of fire the second he was aware of this happening? Did Kellerman feel he was not in good enough physical shape to perform that duty? If one believes Abraham Bolden, how is it heroic to state you might not protect the President with all your capacity if a threatening situation called for this? We now know that at least some SS personnel hated JFK for his liberalness towards black Americans. We now know that at least some SS personnel felt disgust toward JFK regards his blatant infidelities. This reality forces you to consider the possibility that not all of JFK's SS security was, without question, blindly and heroically committed to his utmost protection. And we also now know that the standards of education, work experience, training and psychological and judgement screening ( drinking problems, depression?) required of SS agents back in JFK's time were not as stringent as they are today. If you check agent William Greer's pre-SS career work experience and personal education bio, and read his WC testimony, you are left to wonder how he ever got into the extremely important SS position he attained. I'd say all those people who risked their careers and their personal safety searching for the truth regards the JFK event were true heroes. Writers, researchers, Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, Clint Peoples, Francis Fruge', Dorothy Kilgallen, Mort Sahl and so many others. And let us not forget the heroic courage of Jackie Kennedy both during her husband's horrific slaughter just inches from her face and the minutes, hours, days and weeks after when she had to keep herself together for her children and the nation and her late husband's final ceremony