Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joe Bauer

Members
  • Posts

    6,472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe Bauer

  1. Gene, I agree with your observation that the Beatles and similar new British wave music helped get many American minds off the shock, grief and uncertain concerns of the JFK assassination. However, I think this applied mainly to younger white Americans. The Beatles didn't mean as much to those older than this in my opinion. And American blacks were never as enthusiastic over the Beatles and the other British wave groups and sounds. I certainly didn't feel any more significant concern relief or diversion from the JFK assassination because of the hugely marketed and publicized new wave of young British pop music. No more than I would feel just listening to the radio and hearing any music that I liked and that got my mind off the problems of the day at that time. The Four Seasons, The Beach Boys, Bobby Vinton, Ray Charles, Peter Paul & Mary, The Supremes, The Four Tops, The Temptations, etc....heck, even Roger Miller. I think that most of our society got through the initial trauma of JFK assassination simply through having to get on with their daily lives and choosing to move on from the exhaustion that worrying about something so heavy and depressing brings on. However, even though the public discussion of the JFK assassination eventually died down and it wasn't on the news any more, I believe that there was never a true relief from the trauma subconsciously with most people old enough to witness the event with questions and concerns. And this included great suspicion, doubt and questioning in the area of trusting our own government in it's handling of the JFK assassination investigation. Like a murder of a beloved relative that goes unsolved. You must move on from the initial trauma, sorrow, grief and unresolved justice anger and questions. You just move on. Even so, I believe you never really lose those powerful emotions and feelings. You just set them aside and live your life trying to find the good and meaningful and productive and loving and fair and justly righteous as best you can. I liked the Beatles a lot by the way. And much of the British wave. But I actually liked the Motown sound better.
  2. I always question the small nobody image of Ruby regards his connections to the mob. Yes, in some ways he seemed like a small time loser with his always being behind in bill payments and stripper's salaries and other expenses and having to share ( or maybe doing this just to have company? ) rather modest apartment accommodations. He did carry some good sized cash on his person fairly often he says, hence his explanation for carrying a gun. But one or two grand even back then wasn't big Mafia kingfish money. But we also hear stories about Ruby being the bag man in other nefarious doings such as gun running and if so it's very likely he did this for other ventures also. And the record of Ruby's long distance calls in the month or two before 11/22/1963 ( Seth Kantor recounts these ) shows he was calling several established mob big shots and muscle men in Chicago, Florida, New Orleans and one or two very close to Jimmy Hoffa. Would a "nobody" in the area of organized crime be able to call and talk to these higher level mob guys one-on-one, especially if these calls were just about Ruby's strippers demanding higher pay than Ruby was paying them? Ridiculous. Ruby was also close to Lewis McWillie. Considered him a mentor. McWillie wasn't a nobody in the mob. Ruby provided mobsters,cops, wealthy social types and probably politicians with women. His strip business brought in young attractive women many of whom knew the real score in that business. In this specific regards alone, I believe that many very high people personally knew Jack Ruby well. Ruby's easily triggered red hot temper, which he took all the way into pummeling others, was one of his greatest emotional issue flaws that probably did keep him from advancing any further in the areas of organized crime. However on occasion he still connected with some very high placed mobsters.
  3. Robert, wouldn't it be an interesting story to tell about the day JFK died to share the experiences of many children and what they came home to and experienced with their families reactions, especially their parents, on that day through evening and perhaps the following weekend? If Gene's sharing and mine were as you say evocative and emotive, I can imagine what a truly interesting take on 11/22/1963 it would be to compile a much broader assemblage of many other similar true life experiences through the innocent and unbiased eyes of other children across America regards what they experienced with their families upon returning home from school that day. It would be fascinating to me to hear more of what children of different income classes, geographical areas, religious backgrounds, genders, ethnicities and colors remember experiencing and feeling and hearing from their families on this day and following weekend like Gene and I shared. The high emotion drama of this experience ( how the parents reacted especially ) was so real and powerful as Gene and I can attest. I think we can all agree that it profoundly effected many of the children who experienced it the rest of their lives like it has us. This particular child/parent JFK day reaction experience as seen through the eyes of children and their untainted and unadulterated innocence reveals a deeper, more touching and more emotionally honest perspective of how the JFK assassination truly effected us all. The reactions to JFK's death by the parents of children as told by these children and what these children felt themselves about what they saw and heard from their parents and their own feelings at the time would make an interesting essay, book, documentary ...maybe even a play? But perhaps the JFK event is too far in the past for most people to have much interest now-a-days.
  4. So, as seen on the first page you posted: "The commission finds that the agents most immediately responsible for the President's safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired..." ??? Really? Let's look at the reality of these agents reaction relative to the shots which were loud and close by the agents and their car. The first shot is heard. No agents out of ten left the Queen Mary after the first shot. Some turned around or just looked around. Wouldn't you expect that at least one or two agents would have instinctively jumped off the SS car and ran to the rear guard steps of JFK's limo immediately after hearing something that loud and gun shot resembling? Then, seconds later another loud boom shot. Still not one agent leaves that car until Hill notices JFK's head moving unnaturally to the left toward Jackie. Hill then leaps into the street and sprints to the rear of the presidents limo...but just Hill...no one else jumps off the SS car to run to the limo even after they see Hill doing this? Then JFK's head explodes from a 3rd shot just before Hill reaches the limo. Still, after 3 loud rifle shots, only Hill has left the Queen Mary? In the face of this outrageous 3 loud rifle shot frozen-in-place follow up car non-response reality, the commission states in their final finding that "The agents (plural) most immediately responsible for the president's safety reacted promptly ..." Including Roy Kellerman in the presidential limo itself? Unlike Kellerman, Rufus Youngblood did his trained and required body shield risking security duty that day. Overall JFK's SS response was in reality the opposite of the Warren Commission's glowing assessment...imo.
  5. Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing out this fact JD. My suggestion of Mack's turnaround being mainly about such a huge salary is less valid I suppose. But still, an offer of $250,000 a year salary must have given Groden more than a few late night thought pauses. Jim D. I watched the interview of you with Roger Stone on You Tube yesterday. You were incredibly restrained in my opinion. I could almost feel your many "oh brother" thoughts via your eyes down expression and finger tapping when Stone would bring up less than good research valid points in his JFK assassination analysis presentation. Stone's mentioning of Oswald's alleged New Orleans girlfriend Judyth Baker especially. Your explaining JFK's true history, thoughts and stances on Viet Nam going back into the early 50's was so important and elucidative. May I ask what you think of Stone's JFK assassination analysis overall?
  6. Gene. I was 12 when JFK was killed. Unlike your father crying at the news of JFK's death, my boozing, wife beating, racist JFK hating stepfather did not. Although even he was somewhat stunned by this event. His loss was not having a main person to rage and curse at ( that ******* commie, queer, n****r lovin Kennedy! ) every night after work while watching the nightly news until he'd get so plastered he couldn't talk/yell straight or keep his red, bulging with anger eyes totally open. But even at 12 years old I was a precocious reader of current events and I was aware of and felt myself the inspiring energy of JFK. JFK's murder ( and Oswald's which I saw live on TV just two days later ) was very traumatizing to me at the time. Like G. Kelly says regarding Robert's post - "Wonderful essay ... expressing so many thoughts that all of us hold..." And echoing Steve Thomas's words..."You have made this a loftier place to come and visit for awhile." That goes for both Robert Harper and Gene Kelley.
  7. Thank you John. And thank you Jim Di for posting this link to this remarkable and moving Bob Groden documentary. John, I don't know what you saw of Groden in 2015 to form your less than high opinion of him. Was it his personality? His message? Maybe his aggressive hawking of his books? I will never meet the man myself. If Groden's late-in-life personal demeanor is in any way gruff, grumpy, short and easily irritated, overly pushy in book selling or even aggressively overly opinionated, I too would be turned off by this. However, after seeing this documentary of Groden I am more likely to grant him such negative personal interaction traits without significantly diminishing my appreciation for what he has contributed to and sacrificed for the JFK truth. Especially considering what surely must be decades long battle weariness and what he has sacrificed and given up in this endeavor. I could never have done anything close to what Groden and others like him have contributed and sacrificed for this truth seeking cause.
  8. I do not have the time to watch the entire documentary this morning. I did however watch it up until the time of Groden describing the offer to him of the directorship of the Sixth Floor Museum. Like Rick McTague, I was stunned to learn of this. And even more stunned when the yearly salary involved was disclosed to Groden. Does the President of the United States make very much more per year? $250,000 a year? WOW! That figure is mind blowing considering how much ( or little? ) I would imagine this directorship would require in job effort. I assumed this salary might be in the $75,000 to $100,000 range. However, I can now believe and understand how and why someone would be willing to compromise their integrity in the JFK conspiracy community, as Gary Mack did, for an instant lift into such a seductively high 6 figure income. Over just a ten year period that directorship would have compensated Groden with a total income of $2,500,000! I think about how much that huge and tempting $250,000 yearly income could have been spent providing better than well for Bob Groden's wife and children in so many ways while he was apart from them. It is heroically inspiring that Groden chose his integrity over that huge dollar amount offer. I will see the rest of the Groden documentary later. But just viewing the first 30 minutes is so powerful. It does bring to mind similar JFK truth seeking sacrifices by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, etc.
  9. Doug, the secret train travel story of the Bush's is intriguingly interesting. The Bush's seemed to have many more secret aspects to their lives than most would suspect.
  10. Doug, it is so reasonable to believe that secret flights were implemented all the time ( and still are ) for covert activities by who-knows-who in our highest levels of political, military, corporate and organized crime power, to give cover for one's presence somewhere else besides their official record stated presence elsewhere. Hoover could have easily had an unrecorded flight from DC to Dallas that evening and one back to DC...all within the time frame it would take to do so. I am sure that hit men employed by nefarious groups and individuals use this tactic all the time. Do the deed...and then fly far away within minutes. William Robert "Tosh" Plumlee did this duty many times as a pilot. David Ferry as well.
  11. JFK's slaughter was so extremely beneficial and necessary to so many JFK threatened power groups and individuals, his removal was inevitable. JFK haters and enemies knew that enough Americans had become so enamored with him ( and Jackie ) during his time in office that there was no way he would lose the election of 1964. That reality check obviously spurred on the most desperate JFK removal counter plan imaginable. Joseph Milteer's recorded conversation to a Miami police informant where he describes the exact JFK shooting scenario and a patsy being caught soon after 13 days before it happened just as he predicted rings too coincidental imo. Who was Joseph Milteer? He was an organizer for the racist National States Rights Party and the Constitution Party. The latter organization's membership included retired Marine General Pedro del Valle, about whom Drew Pearson wrote in 1961 that del Valle came close to "urging armed insurrection." If Milteer's predictions were indeed based on foreknowledge, then the path to Kennedy's real killers would lead to right-wing segregationists and military extremists, categories which included some very powerful people.
  12. Have any researchers/writers besides Martin Shackleford, Penn Jones and Dave Perry ever decently investigated the Murchison party/get-together to determine whether it happened, the date of it happening and who may have attended...beyond these persons and the well known claims of Madeline Brown and May Newman? Both Brown and Newman recount the event with many specific personal details. Brown's account was found to contain several provable errors but it's reasonably debatable whether these errors specifically or in total mean the meeting never took place. May Newman's account rings true to me as I find her credible for many reasons. Her very loyal long term employment with Virginia Murchison. Her obvious non-corrupt background. The lack of any credibility and bad character claims against her by anyone who knew or worked with her at any point in her life and that someone would expect to come forward ( or be sought out ) if she were this way following her explosive story via the international exposure documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." And in my common sense - life time experience mind May Newman would have to have been a fairly well trained actress to so convincingly evoke the choked up emotions she exhibited when she told of how the "champagne and caviar flowed...for a week after " in the Murchison household after JFK's slaughter. And at the same time it seemed to her that she was the only one grieving for JFK and his family in this sick week long death celebration scene during that time. Dave Perry's critical analysis of Martin Shackleford's and Penn Jones's and Brown's and Newman's accounts of the Murchison get-together is so weak it's barely worth reading. Using the wife of Murchison driver Warren Tilley as a counter to Newman's account of Virginia Murchison chauffeur Jule Fifer ( correct spelling unknown) and his driving duties the night of 11,21,1963 was ridiculous. Citing Dallas newspaper society writer Val Imm as a discrediting source is also laughably weak. Read what Ms. Imm actually says in Perry's piece. She doesn't deny the meeting took place. She just doesn't remember it. And what idiot would invited a social scene/gossip columnist to a meeting like this? And perhaps an earlier social gathering provided a cover for what happened after this? Where the real cigar smoke filled back room good-ole-boy meeting took place? So the house in question was owned by Murchison's son John at that time and not the old man himself? Who could keep track of property transfers within family ( it was still a "Murchison" home ) especially a little person like Madeline Brown? It would make perfect sense that LBJ's powerful and egomaniacal oil baron backers ( the richest men on Earth at that time ) would personally want to see or hear from their biggest political asset at some time while he ( LBJ ) was so close in proximity to their home base location, if even for a few minutes only. These megalomania guys and their extreme right organizations must have been in an uptight angst frenzy ( RFK had General Walker thrown into a mental ward!) knowing their hated enemy JFK was actually parading right through the heart of their personal sacred ground fiefdom and to the cheers of tens of thousands sized adoring crowds. Trying to discredit Madeline Brown and May Newman and others versus those who defend and promote the other side of these 11,21,1963 Murchison household get-together claims ( super wealthy extreme right wing death celebrating JFK haters ) is really an invalid endeavor. Especially if one uses the Dave Perry report as their main justification for such.
  13. On November 17, 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon said to the American people in a televised nationally broadcast news conference from the land of make believe - Disney World in Orlando, Florida - "I am not a crook." And "I have earned everything I have."
  14. So much more to know versus just Robert Caro's LBJ tomes. Someday the American people should know the full reality truth about LBJ. His true main legacy was one of monumental corruption.
  15. Yes Jim, the Nixon and Kissinger lies were of monumental importance and consequence. Trump's lies have not resulted in huge death toll war crimes. However, Trump's lies about Russian influence and effect in our most major election process is also extremely important on so many levels. And should be addressed as seriously as Nixon's and Kissinger's.
  16. Trump compared to JFK? Regards lying? The following editorial comment article from today's Yahoo political page is one of the most coherently perceptive and enlightening of Trump and worthy of sharing in my opinion. Not just in the comparison of Trump to JFK but for other important reasons as well. If others here feel this posting is too current day political versus JFK related, let me know and provide me the link to our political forum. However, I do feel the article and it's view of Trump's moral character and mental and emotional make up ( including his constant brazen lying and dismissing of the consequences ) are some reasons why we will never see Trump do anything substantial regards helping to open up any truly important JFK assassination files. When Trump shouted what we see on the news "is crap" yesterday in his nationally shown Vet speech, I couldn't help but compare Trump's raw street/bar/locker room talk presidential governing and public speaking style to JFK's vastly more eloquent, mature and office respecting one. GW Bush was no JFK at the public podium, but even he gave some consideration in his public speaking to the office of the presidency. He didn't devolve into beer bragging, fart joke telling good-ole-boys Texas barbeque talk which I think most of us knew he felt more comfortable with in his private life. Trump however, doesn't seem to know or care that his public speaking style and content as president is of the lowest brow and that as president he should set a higher example of responsible discourse leadership versus the opposite. I do wonder though, would JFK have lied if publicly confronted with charges of infidelity and affairs, several while in office? The following article was written by Matt Bai. Plenty of presidents lie. Only Trump doesn't care if you catch him. Matt Bai National Political Columnist , Yahoo News•July 26, 2018 Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: AP, Getty More Some former White House aides write memoirs so they can set the record straight for historians. Others do it to rehabilitate their reputations, or just to make some money while they figure out what’s next. In the case of Sean Spicer, the once respectable Republican aide who became President Trump’s first press secretary, the main purpose for writing a book seems to have been to re-ingratiate himself to a boss who probably forgot about him 10 minutes after he left, mainly by repeating a bunch of things that were demonstrably untrue when he said them and haven’t gotten any truer since. If you really need to know more, here’s a pretty brilliant review of “The Briefing,” which just arrived in stores, by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. (It appeared in the Wall Street Journal, so I’m afraid you’ll need a password to read it, and I’m not giving you mine.) Personally, I don’t intend to read Spicer’s memoir, for the same reason I don’t call 1-800 numbers for personal injury lawyers who advertise on billboards along the interstate. Life is full of deceit — there’s no reason to go seeking it out. Also, the world is full of other books, some of which I haven’t gotten around to yet, that don’t contain lines like this description of the president: “He is a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.” I swear I’m not making that up. As it happens, one such book offers a very different window into the contentious relationship between presidents and the press corps. It’s a recent memoir, simply titled “Reporter,” by Seymour Hersh, one of the most important investigative reporters of the last half century. Most of what’s in it is verifiably true. “Reporter” does suffer from an inexplicable omission of unicorn tandems. What it has, though, is a fascinating chapter, among others, in which Hersh recounts his work from the early 1970s, when, as a young reporter at the New York Times, he did a series of stories exposing the mendacity of the Nixon administration. Suffice it to say that Nixon and his secretary of state, the beguiling Henry Kissinger, lied a lot, and they lied about stuff that really mattered. They lied about bombing Cambodia. They lied about the existence of a secret White House team known as the Plumbers. They lied about covert efforts to topple the Chilean president, Salvador Allende. Hersh’s account is made more chilling by some of the notes and transcripts that were later released. At one point, hours after Kissinger flatly told Hersh he didn’t know anything about a secret scheme to cover up the location of bombing runs in Southeast Asia, Kissinger spoke on the phone with his deputy, Gen. Al Haig, who suggested they shouldn’t be talking to Hersh at all. “Well, you can take that attitude but I can’t,” Kissinger said. “I knew about the operation.” What I found fascinating about Hersh’s revisiting of all this wasn’t that Nixon and Kissinger knowingly misled the press and the public (this has been long established, after all), but rather why. They lied because they were afraid. They lied because they strongly suspected that if reporters like Hersh found out the facts and wrote about them, the public would recoil in disgust, and the administration’s policies, exposed to scrutiny, would have to change. They feared the consequences of truth. And, as it turned out, they had good reason, since Nixon ultimately had to flee office to avoid impeachment, the lies having eaten away the foundations of his crumbling presidency. (Kissinger, on the other hand, was allowed to graduate to the role of American statesman, in no small part because of relationships he had cultivated in the media.) If you think about it, this has been more or less the norm in American politics, to the extent that it’s normal for the government to lie at all. When presidents aren’t truthful, it’s because the repercussions of telling the truth are thought to be unbearable. Which brings me back to Spicer’s memoir and the Trump administration, which from day one has pursued an entirely different kind of systematic deception than Nixon or anyone else who came before. Trump and his minions don’t fear the consequences of truth, because they don’t believe those consequences really apply to them. The president doesn’t habitually lie — about Russian election meddling, or about his paying off a concubine, or about what he said on camera or into a tape recorder just yesterday or the day before that — because he thinks the truth will be politically calamitous. No, he lies because he’s pretty sure he can make you believe whatever he wants you to believe (it worked for a self-promoting developer in the New York tabloid world), and there doesn’t seem to be a penalty for trying. To put it starkly, Trump is the first president in my lifetime to essentially say to the press that covers him: “Go ahead, jump up and down, prove all the lies you want with your fact checks and your transcripts and your phony outrage. Nobody believes you anyway.” In fact, if there was any doubt that this was Trump’s basic philosophy, he put it to rest just a few days ago, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “Don’t believe the crap you hear from these people — the fake news,” Trump said. “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Now, as I’ve written before, my industry bears a lot of the blame for making this possible. My colleagues in the media often seem to blame Trump for creating and stoking the public’s abject distrust, when in fact it was our own vanity and triviality — the glib cable punditry, the obsession with rumors and ratings — that created him. When you look through a telescope and see the light from a supernova, you’re not actually seeing a star erupt in real time — you’re seeing something that happened eons ago, whose effects are only now reaching us. And, similarly, when you watch Trump undermine the idea of provable truth, what you’re really watching is the reverberation of something that began 30-plus years ago, a slow burning out of public faith that the president merely exists to exploit. But if there’s a burden on journalists to rebuild that trust (and there is), then there’s a burden on you, too, to be a shrewder consumer. Because make no mistake: Trump and his acolytes disdain you, in a way Nixon on his worst day did not. They don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize truth or care about it. They don’t fear your judgment, because they don’t think you have any. So by all means, be skeptical of the media — we’ve earned it. But don’t be blind. Don’t be taken in by a demagogue, or the sycophants around him, who would have you believe that everything you read that doesn’t conform to your worldview must be nothing but garbage, because he says it is. That’s just a unicorn riding a unicorn, spearing you in the back.
  17. Rick, notice the horrifically shell shocked and grief stricken look on Jackie's face in that photo at the same time Albert Thomas is grinning and winking at LBJ? Jackie's eyes are fixed in absolute horror. To this day these pictures of Jackie Kennedy in that scene and in indescribable shock and grief just haunt me. I don't know how she got through that cramped, body heat cabin ceremony without breaking into wails or even fainting. Again, does anyone here know whether Jackie's presence in the LBJ swearing in ceremony was legally required? If not, leave this horrifically shell shocked, grief stricken woman in a safe and comforting space and provide her with immediate empathetic care, support and assistance until she gets back to Washington, DC where she can get some real help and support. Did anyone ever ask Albert Thomas why he decided to present to LBJ that celebratory grin and wink that was as out of place as laughing at a hanging?
  18. Just listened to the conference call tape again. LBJ mentions Kay Graham and others as wicked and mean and wanting to bring LBJ and his people down. LBJ then speculates that perhaps this is because of Bobby ( Baker? ) getting a girl for "Phil." One must assume LBJ is talking about Phil Graham. The other hooker statement by one of LBJ's fixer team is they would have to get a hooker for "these people" in the end.
  19. Robert, yes. I too am surprised this tape survived. It's so starkly revealing of the truth of LBJ's deeper corruption. Your connecting these conference call participants to many other intriguing high level LBJ shenanigans is also very revealing and appreciated. And the Thornberry/Nagel connection is ominous, isn't it? Valenti. What can one say about this LBJ sychophantic weasel besides Valenti providing cover for LBJ's child with his wife? And I would love to have Bill Moyers pinned down in a public forum to listen to this tape and answer questions and explain what it and his role in this was all about. It is powerful to me to hear LBJ himself actually state that he believed he could be "going to jail" about this issue. This tape and LBJ's statements on it reveal how big of a deal this issue was with LBJ. Much bigger than has been generally suggested and written about. And I agree the hushed tone concern here cannot just be about the payment of a stereo. I have also listened to the tape more than once. 3 times in fact. Many times, the conversation is so hushed, I can't clearly make out what is being said. Regards the "hooker" comment, I think now that the person suggesting this is talking about just one of the journalists, not all three. And I thought I heard LBJ talking about an issue with Bobby Baker where he says something ( again, too hushed to be quoted ) about Bobby ( Baker? ) doing something with a girl? Perhaps providing someone with a call girl? And I am not sure who...may have been Valenti?...saying that the American people won't be concerned about something a day later after it comes out? That they just won't care? And how you can placate the coloreds simply by giving them something on Civil Rights...and placating the American businessmen by passing some new tax bill benefiting them. Sounds just like Trump's new tax break for the wealthy bill. There is much to contemplate about LBJ and his cronies in this call. An aside: I was just again looking at the famous photo of LBJ being sworn in on Air Force 1 on 11,22,1963. This photo always disturbs me. Even angers me. In this you see that LBJ weasel Jack Valenti squatting in the left hand corner of the picture. You also see Albert Thomas ( who is pictured in another photo of this event ) giving LBJ that perversely incongruous, sick grinning congratulatory wink after LBJ's swearing in. Like you would give a hometown football player hero who just scored a game winning touchdown. This upbeat, celebratory Thomas action is so out of place in this incredibly somber and sad scene it chills you. And in this photo you also see an absolutely horrifically traumatized Jackie. That is the most outrageously sickening and disgusting element of this Air Force 1 swearing in picture. To drag someone in Jackie's unbelievably traumatized state just an hour or two after she witnessed her husband's head explode inches from her face into that crowded cabin...for what...a politically expedient for LBJ photo-op? Was it truly "legally" required to have Jackie next to LBJ for this ceremony? Dear God! What a monstrous act! Who actually thought up this sick torturous Jackie Kennedy next to LBJ scene and made it happen? And why? Jackie should have been sequestered and incredibly protected and comforted in a quiet room far apart from this political swearing in ceremony with some comforting and empathetic companionship, probably female and maybe a priest and even a doctor or nurse at her calling if needed. Jackie was so traumatized by her husband's barbaric close up murder that in the days and weeks and maybe even months after her nightmare on Elm Street, she even contemplated suicide and had to have much counseling and be prescribed sedatives to just get through that time! But right there on Air Force 1, within just two hours of one of the most brutal public executions in our political history, there is blood covered and shell shocked Jackie being forced to participate in one last photo op for you know who's benefit...certainly not hers. I'm sorry, but I can't look at a picture of LBJ ( the Air Force One swearing in photo most particularly ) and his cronies as well...and not feel ill in my stomach. The guy and his mentors and sychophants just exude ruthless ambition, corruption and callousness.
  20. What a great and impartial 3 man team we were coincidentally blessed with to immediately take over after JFK was murdered and to create and control the assassination investigative effort. LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and Allen Welsh Dulles. All 3 extreme JFK/RFK haters and all 3 on the career and power ending ropes if JFK remained in office.
  21. Doug, I just edited my post to use the "exact" words LBJ stated in his "going to jail" comment on the tape. Even one word lazily misquoted can weaken the credibility of one's point of view of these comments, so I felt it was necessary to get it exactly right. Sorry for the delayed change, especially since you say you posted my original post on another site. Ron, I do not suggest that Malcolm Wallace was directly involved in the JFK assassination. I only mentioned him and his tossed out guilty of murder jury finding and conviction sentence that LBJ influenced as another incredible example of LBJ's outrageous corruption. I absolutely do believe however, that Wallace murdered Henry Marshall. On orders from LBJ and his fellow power cronies. LBJ didn't have to be directly involved with the actual JFK assassination to be complicit in the crime. All he would have to do is know of and okay it and help with the cover-up by creating a so-called truth finding commission stacked with JFK adversaries and completely dependent on the JFK/RFK hating Hoover FBI for it's investigative information. The tape of LBJ telling Hoover they ( LBJ and Hoover ) were "like brothers" also tells you how close these two JFK/RFK adversaries were in so many ways. My main take and point after listening to this LBJ/fixer boys audio tape is how clearly it reveals that LBJ's "going to jail" concerns about his Bobby Baker/Don Reynolds dealings and probably Billy Sol Estes and who knows what other corrupt schemes, were as real and strong as many "LBJ knew" proponents have suggested. And with JFK and RFK remaining in control and LBJ probably knowing that JFK and RFK might not have stopped federal investigations into LBJ's corrupt doings, it's deductively reasonable to look at LBJ's career ruination and jail time fears as being serious enough to qualify as a legitimately considered motive in his possible involvement more so than has been generally acknowledged. IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...