Joe Bauer

Good.

Referring back to the initial thread context of Lee physically hitting Marina, the following statements by Marina herself ( under oath to the Warren Commission ) are very supportive of the claims that he did so and probably more than once or twice. And what a horrible time and reason to slap someone. Just after they tried to hurt themselves? I don't know why, but even Marina often downplayed Lee's treatment of her and how deep her unhappiness was with him. To a very depressed degree. Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has been advised that some time in the spring of 1963, you, yourself, either threatened to or actually tried to commit suicide. Can you tell us about that? Mrs. OSWALD. Do I have the right now not to discuss that? Mr. LIEBELER. If you don't want to discuss that, certainly, but I really would like to have Lee's reaction to the whole thing. But if you don't want to tell us about it--all right. Mrs. OSWALD. At my attempt at suicide, Lee struck me in the face and told me to go to bed and that I should never attempt to do that--only foolish people would do it. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell him that you were going to do it, or did you actually try? Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't tell him, but I tried. Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't want to discuss it any further? *Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Paul, your initial departure considering post has inspired us all to contemplate what is good and worthy and important about the forum ( in this case your input ) and how we should from time to time stop and acknowledge and appreciate such. We have all benefited.

In several interviews Michael Paine would describe Oswald. And not in understanding and compassionate humanitarian ways. It was a cold and hard criticism of Oswald and everything about him. Now, Michel Paine was supposedly a person with a very liberal/humanitarian social view and conscience. He was raised around a family that valued this perspective. But what always bothered me about Michael Paine's was how often his stated personal feelings and assessments of Oswald were void of this sentiment and insultingly derogatory. I sensed an intellectual snobbery and arrogance with Paine in this regards. Here are just a few of Paine's judgmental put-downs of Oswald. Oswald was not really anything. He was stupid. He read some books and thought he knew what he was talking about. Basically, Oswald was an ignorant and "uneducated" fool. A loser. Paine seemed to personally dislike Oswald this much from the first time he met him. IMO in large part because he ( Oswald ) dared to act as if he was on Michael Paine's intellectual level ... even a little. But let us look at Paine with the same level of criticism he dished on Oswald. Paine was a spoiled person. He never saw a poor day in his life. Paine had a failed marriage himself. He made mistakes. He did poorly in college. He had flaws. He says Oswald "never did anything" about his stated Marxist beliefs. Where as Paine joined groups, sang in choirs, and who knows what other endeavors to spread his humanitarian concern for others. Is this the great "doing something" actions Paine is referring to in knocking down Oswald in this regard? People forget Oswald had just turned 24 when he was killed by Ruby. That is very young. How much could Oswald have given of himself up to that age? Especially when he was consumed with just making enough money for his wife and babies to survive in the poverty side of town after town his entire time ( after Russia ) back here in the states? If Oswald from a very young age had the nurturing, privileges and opportunities that Michael Paine was blessed with, I would not doubt that Oswald would have gone to college and done very well in so many areas of regular life. And that he wouldn't have had the bitter cynicism chip on his shoulder as an adult. And If Micheal Paine had instead been born to the awful Marguerite Oswald with no father and lived Oswald's totally neglected childhood and teen years...I don't think Michael Paine could have made it through emotionally. Oswald should at least be given credit for making it through that rough and neglected childhood life. I stand corrected regards Michael Paine's military service. Should have fact checked this more thoroughly. Also his Unitarian Church doctrines.

Paul, please, reconsider. Your posting contributions are so coherent, grounded, thoughtful and very respectful. You remind me of Simpkin in many ways including your character. I am a newer, neophyte member who has no deep research bonafides personally. I am passably well read on the general topics of the JFK assassination but my probably too often emotion based posting contributions are tolerated I think only because readers sense my sincere passion for the JFK truth and keeping this mission alive. But you must know that there are so many readers and followers of this forum who, like me, have been learning from the forum ( and you personally ) FOR YEARS and who consider it such an important part of keeping the JFK truth flame from flickering out. There is a much larger body of forum members and followers that you and your contributions are important to versus the few posting members who seem to have dispirited you. What a loss if you leave. Respectively, Joe B.

The testimony contradictions in the Oswald sighting story at the Randle house the morning of 11,22,1963 are frustrating to get a handle on. But as far as Beull Frazier's physical and emotional state during his lie detector test at the DPD...some questions. Was this test administered at midnight? How long had Buell Frazier already been detained at the DPD at that point? If it was midnight, anyone would be exhausted and perhaps agitated at that late hour, especially after all those highly stressful hours of questioning and almost getting into fisticuffs with an accusatory red faced homicide captain who is yelling at you to sign something you feel may implicate you in a crime such as JFK's assassination. In all the years of seeing Buell Wesley Frazier in videotaped interviews ( more than a dozen? ) I just don't see or feel that he is lying about anything important in his story. Some of his recollections have changed in certain details over the years...but in ways I think would be normal after sharing these for 50+ years and questioned over and over about them.

Doug's original August, 2017 post seems amazingly prescient in how Mueller's investigation is proceeding 8 months later regarding Paul Manafort and possibly Roger Stone and the investigation taking longer than a year. I just re-read Doug's original thread post. If he had never written and posted this we would not be informed of so much back story that is so important to understand what is going on with these back channel and Wikileaks characters. And the video of Stone "predicting" violence if Trump is impeached is still hair raising in it's threat implications. Especially the mentioning of what would happen to the Senator who first initiated such an action. Lastly, just a few common sense comments regards Trump's reported corrupt business dealings. Isn't it obvious when you buy a run down property in Florida as Trump did for what ...$45 million? And then four years later you get someone else to pay you almost double for this, who then tears it all down to an empty lot? That is so nonsensical in any business sense ( from the higher price paying person's perspective ) it's obviously anything "but" a legitimate business deal. And that Trump named Condo project in Panama where drug cartel and organized crime figures were purchasing units as part of a money laundering scheme and Trump's family pocketed 14 million to have their name on this building until they recently removed it under public scrutiny pressure ...please. There is a You Tube video of a Trump appearance on David Letterman several years ago where Letterman asks Trump directly if he ever had to deal with organized crime figures in his many New York construction projects. At first Trump says no, then he stammers that maybe he had met one or more people of this type in the context of Letterman's question. And then Trump makes this startling comment to Letterman: You know I have met a few of those types..and "they were very nice people." I don't know how others would interpret that last Trump quote...but in my mind it raises many huge red flags regards Trump's true business dealings, practices and ethics. Also reminds me of Trump's nationally broadcast comments about there being nice people "on both sides" of the racially charged violence protests of last year. God help us through this presidential crisis in confidence.

Paul, one thing I agree with you on is your occasional look at the daily lives of Lee and Marina and their baby in real life ways. Since 1962 , more often than not, they were all in desperate states in so many ways. They were stressed, dependent on others and always one argument away from separating and Marina moving in with others. There were many fights, some physical hitting and Marina seemed much more safe and relieved to be away from Lee versus with him. In the later McMillan book on Marina, Marina too often sugar coated how bad things really were between her and Lee. However, in Marina's Warren Commission testimony session it was mentioned to her to comment on a reported suicide attempt on Marina's part in the spring of 1963. Marina not only didn't deny she did this, but stated that Lee hit her in the face upon discovering it and told her how foolish it was and made her go to bed. Now that admitted incident indicates how bad things really were for Marina with Lee versus other person's views that it wasn't quite that bad. Marina asked Liebeler to allow her not to speak any more about this suicide attempt and Liebeler let it go. I think Marina really lost it with Lee after the Walker incident and his talk of hijacking a plane to Cuba and having her join him and helping him in this endeavor. I think she was totally exhausted about it all. His talk of gun violence ( Walker ) and other violent acts must have made her realize that she was living with a person who was extremely unstable and could ruin her and her baby's life on a whim. I agree with Marina when she would also say something to the effect "what could I do?" When you ask yourself why she didn't run to the White Russians and maybe even the police to report her husband for all this crazy talk and perhaps acts of violence... Place yourself in her 22 year old position. No family to run to. Afraid of losing her citizenship. No money. No one to stand up for her if Oswald was arrested. Her English wasn't good enough for so many basic activities and maybe others would shun her when they learned she was from Russia? She had a young child and another baby on the way. Even the help of the White Russians was temporary and caused some tension in their family affairs. Marina knew that. She couldn't live forever with Ruth Paine. If Oswald was on the payroll of some agency...his compensation was so pitifully poor it couldn't even make a dent in the financial struggle stresses he encountered his whole time back in the states. Stresses that were destroying his marriage and taking away the most precious thing he held in his heart...the love for his child June ( and new born Rachel) in a way to protect and nurture and provide for them. If Oswald worked for others during his return to the states, you'd think at some point he would have demanded that his employers help him live and provide a life for his wife and children better than one step away from losing all of this. This is a reality about the lives of Marina and Lee and their children that can't be totally dismissed as having no important bearing on their thoughts and actions throughout. IMO.

Ron, That says it all..or most of it anyway.

Did Aynesworth ever say or infer or even hint that he bedded Marina Oswald before she married Kenneth Porter? I read about this claim a few times over the years...but was never sure if it was simply gossip. If Aynesworth did bed Marina, that would have been extremely unethical. If he bragged about it later to others ... outrageously shameful.

David, did you check out the Cecil Stoughton photo ( Figure 4 ) in the article I posted? Also, the fragment the Treasury report describes as the one embedded into the front seat must have been one of the bigger ones in the photo of these to have indented the chrome windshield as substantially and deeply as the most well known photo shows. So the part of the front seat where the chrome indentation fragment embedded itself into was between Greer and Kellerman? Lucky for them this didn't hit them in parts of importance. And was the fragment scientifically analyzed to see if it matched the magic bullet in composition?

David, according to the Treasury report you posted, they felt the chrome windshield frame indentation was caused by a bullet fragment ...after it exited JFK's shattered skull? And that this same fragment, traveling upward from JFK'S skull, slams "into" ( not off of ) this strong metal chrome with enough speed, force and weight to make a substantial indentation, then ricochets back out and downward with enough force still to embed itself into a heavy vinyl or leather front seat cushion? Obviously this so-called bullet fragment must have been substantial in size and still traveling at great velocity to have made the indentation we see in the most well known photo of the chrome dent. It's not a pea size indentation. ( See Robert Groden's indentation observation comments in my first post.) If we are to believe the Treasury explanation, the upward trajectory fragment, after breaking apart going through JFK's skull bones, then slams "into" and indents the chrome frame, and then pops or ricochets back out and downwards out of the dent while still traveling with enough velocity that it then embeds itself into a heavy leather or vinyl seat cushion? Wouldn't solid chrome the fragment reportedly hit and went "into" have stopped it's movement cold or in the least not caused a pinball rebound effect with enough continued velocity to pierce heavy duty vinyl or leather? Some very basic rules of elementary physics seem to be contradicted with this explanation. Click on the photo link ( identified as figure 4 ) in the article I posted in my first post. This was a photo taken by Cecil Stoughton of the inner front area of JFK's limo which clearly shows "no indentation" on the chrome windshield frame that is visible between the two sun visors. The indentation visible in later photos shows it to be in this open area between the two visors. We can also see Nellie Connally in the jump seat of the limo which proves the picture was taken during JFK's visit to Texas on either 11,21,1963 or the 22nd. Seems to me this is pretty valid photo evidence regards the true provenance of the windshield indentation regards when it first appeared.

But what about the bullet hole looking indentation in the chrome inner and upper side frame of the front windshield? Is that a hoax? It is deep and visible enough ( from the few pics I have seen) that it would take much force to make an indentation like that into chrome plated steel.. That wasn't made by something light like a bottle or even a rock. Some say this indentation was present before Dallas. I would think that whoever was responsible for the SS100X's cosmetic appearance would have seen it and had it repaired before displaying the limo to thousands of adoring spectators. Best Witness: JFK's Limousine Anthony Marsh 2nd Annual COPA Conference Omni Shoreham, Washington, DC October 22, 1995 The best witness to the JFK assassination was the Presidential limousine. As other researchers have pointed out, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Witnesses can be confused, lie, misremember events, or can be susceptible to suggestion. The damage to the limousine tells a story of its own, an accurate and truthful account of the events in Dealey Plaza. One of the most important points of damage to the limousine was the dent of the chrome topping above the windshield. Was it caused by a direct hit of a bullet or a bullet fragment? In Six Seconds in Dallas, footnote 16 of chapter 5 quotes a letter from Chief of the Secret Service James Rowley, who claimed that the dent was caused way back on November 1, 1961 by routine maintenance. The Warren Report was ambiguous about the dent. It appears that the Warren Commission did not attempt to examine any photographs to determine if the chrome topping was undented before the assassination. There may have been several photographs they could have examined which would have resolved the issue. There were many photographs and films taken in Dealey Plaza before the shooting started. There were several photos and films taken at Love Field which showed the limousine in its pristine condition, such as this one by Tom Dillard (Figure 1). Unfortunately, the hand hold bar blocks our view of the chrome topping in this Dillard photo, but there must be other such photos which do show it clearly. There may also be other photographs and films from the motorcade which have not yet been made public. Just this August, LIFE magazine published one photograph taken by Presidential aide Dave Powers, who is believed to have taken several photos and a film of the motorcade at Love Field and before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza ( Figure 2 ). Dave Powers' vantage point was especially privileged, as he rode in the Secret Service follow-up car, where the official White House photographer would normally ride, but didn't that day. Cecil Stoughton, the official White House photgrapher, was stuck that day riding several cars back, in one of the camera cars. In fact, Stoughton was not even scheduled to go on the Texas trip, but had to fill in for Robert Knudsen, who had some slivers in his eye which needed to be removed [1]. Supposedly, Stoughton took only a couple of photos near Dealey Plaza, one just before the motorcade reached the plaza, and one of the grassy knoll about 30 seconds after he shooting. But, he did take photos of the limousine the day before when the President visited Kelly Air Force base in San Antonio. We can see in this photo that he did occupy the normal position in the Secret Service follow-up car (Figure 3). In the next photo we can see that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 4). The HSCA was seemingly unaware of, or ignored, the Stoughton photos, and did not address the issue of the dent of the chrome topping. However, HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden did state at a conference at Emerson College a few years ago that he and a HSCA staff member had examined the chrome topping at the National Archives and that the nose of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet like CE 399 fit perfectly into the indentation in the chrome topping. And here is a photograph taken by Robert Knudsen of an earlier motorcade in 1963 which shows that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 5).

Steve, using the same website you linked for your Marina Oswald Warren Commission testimony, if you go to near the bottom of the 2nd page you will see the suicide exchange between Liebeler and Marina.

Jeff, just read Marina's autobiography. So much that was left unsaid. Volumes. Interesting her comments regarding Lee's fate of a quick death and how this was a just end for someone guilty of such a sinful act as killing JFK ( if Lee was guilty of this ) and better than the electric chair in suffering.

Steve, Marina's admitting such a serious act no matter by what means says so much about her state of mind with Lee, at least in the Spring of 1963. Knowing more about this admission and action by Marina is very important. Surprised this part of her story has received so little study. I've read much of Marina's testimony both in the WC hearings and the HSCA. She contradicts herself so much. He relationship with Lee was so complicated. I honestly believe however, that Marina felt relief when Lee Oswald was killed. In another testimony statement Marina says of Lee " He was a sick man." The craziness and fear and unhappiness and instability and arguments she went through with Lee was finally over. She also soon found herself on the receiving end of more donated monies that she could have never imagined married to Lee. Beyond her wildest dreams. Just one contract signing with Life brought her $20,000 minus her lawyer/managers cut. That was separate from the tens of thousands she received from concerned American citizens. Life was much better for Marina after Lee's death than before. I also never remember seeing her cry after Lee was killed with one exception being at his funeral. Marina and Lee's more innocent life ended when they arrived in the U.S. and the reality of poverty hit them hard.

Steve, I myself have not come across any corroboration regards Marina's suicide attempt in the Spring of 1963. However, the Marina Oswald WC testimony record as stated seems straight forward. I accessed this on a site titled "JFK Assassination Witness Page." It should be easily corroborated ( or not? ) just by going back to this question and answer exchange in the official Marina WC testimony text via your own preferred web search choice for viewing such. Do you doubt this record of the Marina Oswald WC question and answer exchange? If the Marina suicide attempt testimony is verified, would you have any thoughts and speculations as to it's import in the Lee and Marina relationship story?

I assume that books focused on Marina discuss the following shocking part of Marina's WC testimony. And that is Marina's attempt at suicide in the spring of 1963. It is not however, something I have ever read about myself until now while reading all of Marina's WC testimony. But it seems to me to be potentially a very important state-of-mind event in Marina's life with Lee in Texas that begs more discussion. Marina freely admits to this suicide attempt although asking not to be questioned anymore about it. The subject is then dropped by her WC questioners. If the DeMorenschildts and others were ever made aware of this level of despair on Marina's part regards her life with Lee, that might explain their bold suggestions to her that she needed to plan on divorcing Lee. Many other questions should be considered regards this significant event on Marina's part. Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has been advised that some time in the spring of 1963, you, yourself, either threatened to or actually tried to commit suicide. Can you tell us about that? Mrs. OSWALD. Do I have the right now not to discuss that? Mr. LIEBELER. If you don't want to discuss that, certainly, but I really would like to have Lee's reaction to the whole thing. But if you don't want to tell us about it--all right. Mrs. OSWALD. At my attempt at suicide, Lee struck me in the face and told me to go to bed and that I should never attempt to do that--only foolish people would do it. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell him that you were going to do it, or did you actually try? Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't tell him, but I tried. Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't want to discuss it any further? *Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Trump is almost too easy to figure. He's one of the most transparent individuals that's ever been elected president ... which he wasn't by 3 million + votes. Trump is a man super "obsessively driven" by only two main interests far above any other ... acquiring more and more wealth and the personal indulgences this wealth presents and satisfies - prestige, pampering, power over others and especially sex. It's his religion. His church. To me, Trump is actually a prisoner to this obsession and it's gratification of his every whim 24/7. It's an addiction and it controls his life in every way. There is often a great fear commonly felt by very wealthy people. People who's every whim is met from the second they wake up to the second they go to sleep at night. This fear is their worst nightmare. The nightmare is that they will wake up one morning with all their wealth lost. That they might have to instantly live the most humiliating, undignified, unprivileged, unprotected and dismissive life of a pauper. A nobody. And along with this loss, everything they have built their self-esteem and value system on. It's a foundation that is actually very empty and fragile. One could easily understand suicide or at least depressive mental illness from such a loss. Just look at Bernie Madoff and his immediate family's loss of wealth story. Trump measures every thought, policy and decision against it's profit margin potential first and foremost. And his own first and foremost. He always has, he always will. Everything else is just a self-promotion sideshow. And notice that Trump reserves and exhibits his highest disdain toward those who are disloyal or a threat to his standing, control and power. His own personal wealth. Other ideologies have nothing to do with Trump's daily concerns. I think Trump only sees two classes. A winning class...and a loser class. By the way, Warren Buffet recently stated that Trump's new tax plan increased his personal wealth by 24 BILLION dollars. Donald J. Trump...man of the people. A simple man to understand.

Don Jeffries said: People often ask me if I think everything is a conspiracy. I respond that our leaders have been overwhelmingly corrupt and/or incompetent for a very long time, and the manner in which they conduct important business is simply organized corruption. That's a pretty good definition of conspiracy. As Truman administration James Forrestal once said, before he "jumped" out of a window at Bethesda Naval Hospital, if things were random, once in a while a mistake would be made in favor of the common people. If true outsiders could ever attain power in this country, then we'd have someone good rise to the top, at least occasionally. Instead, whoever's "in charge," whether they are "liberal" or "conservative," we see the same agenda; perpetual war (more literally nonstop bombings and occupations of other sovereign nations); outsourcing of industry; demands that the riff raff continue to "sacrifice," leading to ever lowered standards of living; laughable rhetoric about how "great" America and Americans are; complete neglect of our crumbing infrastructure; and a rigged economy and marketplace that ensures a steady flow of wealth upwards into a small elite. The court historians, like mainstream "journalists," control the public debate with constant barrages of misinformation. Most Americans are historically illiterate; try even explaining the false official narratives to most young people. They don't even know the fake history, so how do we expose the lies? As Orwell said, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." As I will show in Hidden History 2, the leading "liberals" of their day supported virtually every war America has ever been in. This includes Vietnam, which was supported by almost all of the establishment Left (think LBJ, Humphrey, etc.) until the later years. If we had politicians, business leaders, and professional journalists who were independent minded, you'd see some real diversity at the top. You'd see some hard-hitting stories about the many crimes and cover-ups perpetrated by powerful people. But instead, each and every one of them, and I do mean every one of them, dismisses any "conspiracy theory" which rears its ugly head. Except, of course, for the "Russian" narrative they're trying to sell. None of this can possibly be mere coincidence. Both of these postings say so much truth. Truth about the reality of America both now and during the last 3 generations past. DJ: People have also asked me if I thought "everything" was a conspiracy if I dare mention anything like JFK. Always the same persons who feel the need to be the chosen, politically correct, smug social gathering debunkers when you dare mention anything outside of sports and celebrity gossip e.g. the Kardashians, Oprah, Super Bowl, etc.. They loved that stupid question and asserted it more than asked it. Eventually they or someone else backing them up would chuckle and say something like ...so you believe in UFOs, Big Foot, the Fake Moon Landing and Elvis is still alive too? These debunker types always seemed to me to be doing okay in their lives financially ...weird. I always wondered if they would still be willing to believe so little in conspiracies if something nationwide happened to instantly bring them down to their financial knees? I had an in-law who was always super far right republican. From Nixon through Bush they could do no wrong. Everyone who made it like him ( worth between 1 and $2 million in the 1990's ) just acquired their wealth through their own hard work and brains and self-discipline and Republican wealthy tax break creating trickle down policies. Working class and especially poor people were just stupid degenerate losers. They "liked" their lifestyle. Didn't really want a better one. He also lumped people who talked about conspiracies into this loser group as well. When the Bush Real Estate collapse happened in 2007 this fellow lost everything he had ( everything but his $4 to $5000 a month pension ) as he had tied all his financial assets into a big home in a wealthy area. Like millions of others he thought he could eventually cash out at $2,000,000. He paid $1,000,000 ( his life savings ) for the home and borrowed another $750,000 to upgrade it even more. He waited too long to try to sell this home and within one year it had dropped in value from 1.75 million to $750.000! He owed more on the home than the $750,000! He let it go back to the bank! He lost his initial $1,000,000 investment. All of his assets! We saw this relative several times after this wipe out and he seemed numb. He was in his eighties. He finally mumbled something to the effect that this disaster couldn't be his fault. It had to have been ... OMG...a conspiracy! Somehow the fed chairman Greenspan had manipulated the hyper-inflating RE value and loan market until after Bush II had been re-elected...and then Greenspan raised interest rates to stop all the feel good "WE'RE RICH" shenanigans and madness. Everything dropped at least 50% in a year! And yes, most Americans are truly hugely historically uninformed. They know as much about the foundations of our democracy and the principles and motivations and philosophies behind it's creation as I do Quantum Physics. Americans are more conditioned to just work and make as much money as you can and just do what people do. With the cost of living as high as it is in most parts of the country now millions are almost forced to live this way. To focus all their thoughts on work and just keeping up financially before anything else. These millions of Americans may not talk about conspiracies or have any historical perspective on them...but that means nothing regards their reality. When Nixon and his entire staff and their dirty political hired hands were all outed ( and IMPRISONED! ) in 1974...what America witnessed was the exposing of dozens of conspiracies! All at the highest levels of our government! And it's for certain this was just the tip of the iceberg during Nixon's entire run and the runs of LBJ and others. You want to ask conspiracy debunkers if they were alive during Watergate. And if so...do they think that wasn't all one huge mass of conspiracies? Everything is a conspiracy? No, but they are so much more prevalent than most want to believe. And Ron, you mention so many of the violent incidents that we read about on an almost weekly basis now that happen all across America and have for decades. When you list them side by side ( and there are hundreds if not thousands more ) all together it's obvious that America since the 60's has become one of the most violence prone nations on Earth. Much of the political connection violence the result of conspiracies. A noticeable part of our society has become mentally sick. Kids going off on other kids. Postal workers going off on other postal workers. Mothers and fathers killing their babies and themselves. People killing themselves over debt and loneliness. Most of us no longer have a sense of community. We are so divided economically, politically, culturally ( even language ) and we no longer have common bonds like we seemed to have before the 60's. Life is too competitive for young people. School is now about taking 3 main subject courses only and things like sports, art, music, clubs...are no longer publicly financed. Just here in California you cannot believe the financial divide. There is so much wealth in the Bay area with almost any home valued at least at $1,000,000 ...on the cheap side! Rents are 3 to $4,500 a month for a simple home! $2,000 for 1 to 2 bedroom apartments! The huge majority of Californians make $15 an hour or less. They can't even rent an apartment on their own! There are large chunks of wealth up and down the California Coast from Marin down to San Diego. Yet, drive in 50 miles to 150 miles inland across the inner parts of California and into the rural North and instantly you see some of the most poverty stricken areas with some of the most dilapidated housing you can imagine. Thousands of tin house trailer parks. I grew up in California ( 66 years here) and even I can't believe how many poor people reside here in towns like Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton and all along the Highway 99 corridor farther North and way more down South. Huge wealth to stark poverty often just 50 miles apart. And Spanish is perhaps the number one language spoken in the poorer rural and urban areas. Schools, hospitals, stores, government offices, jails. The majority of California residents are now Latino. Not mentioning that fact in a racially biased way. I mention it in how much we have divided culturally and linguistically in the last 50 years. When you divide this starkly economically, culturally, religiously, racially, linguistically, morally, educationally, etc. I think this fosters confusion and a loss of direction, identity, sense of our democratic history and maybe that what we were told growing up was the American dream? And spending most of our capital on the military since WWII just makes this whole situation even worse. Trump is the epitome of this divide. When JFK, RFK and MLK were killed off is when this massive divide truly took off... IMO.

Didn't Marina in later investigation hearing testimony ( or personal interviews ) admit she did not always answer her WC questions with complete openness and sincerity? That she sometimes held back or purposely played dumb ( my words not Marina's ) at times? She said she did this out of fear. Fear of incriminating herself and fear of what could happen to her and her children if she shared everything she knew. For instance, while still in Ruth Paine's home the night of her husband's arrest, she secured the Backyard Photo of Lee she had and tried to hand it off to Marguerite Oswald ( Momma, here...you take ) who refused to take it. Marina knew immediately how incrimination that photo was and kept quiet to the police about it. According to Marguerite's WC testimony, Marina eventually hid the photo in her shoe. I don't remember if she tore it up or burned it later or what became of it. But Marina was a survivor and she was smart and she was keeping things from the police and others ( at least the photo of Lee ) even before she was moved out of Ruth Paine's home. Marina's knowledge of the Walker incident and Lee's potential involvement also didn't leave her lips until much later. Does this behavior and further obsfucation and full truth withholding in future interrogation and testimony by Marina mean she was a foreign agent? Or just a terrified, traumatized young mother doing what she felt she had to do to save herself and her children from scary consequences she had imagined in her mind if she told everything she knew?

Excellent points. There is an illogicality in the round number and types to a degree that only makes sense in a specific plan. One such as you suggest Rick. In Paz's shared video above and near the end is a recorded conversation between LBJ and Senator Richard Russell in 1964 discussing doubts about the WC findings. Specifically the 3 DP shots. Russell perceptively ( and courageously ) stands firm in his belief that he didn't believe the "magic" bullet could have done all the damage it was reported to have caused and remained so intact and also more than one shooter had to have been firing. Russell mentions the exact points we make here. Russell mentions a highly trained shooter because of Jackie being within inches of JFK's head and not being hit. And how could someone so accurate in hitting bulls-eyes on JFK take a shot that didn't even hit the limo?

Whoever fired that last shot into JFK's head ( without harming Jackie ) was a marksmen of the highest order. If Jackie had been slaughtered along with and in the same brutal way as her husband, I truly think the public would have been outraged, upset and angry on an almost indescribable level...to the point they may have gone into the streets.

Kudos to almost every post above. Our JFK truth guardians may be less in number these last decades, but they never stop their brave and courageous efforts ( after 55 years!) to stand up against the still perpetrated MSM false reality lies whenever they can. Our Knights Of Truth.

Although we do have the Jackie Gleason story ( according to Gleason's wife at the time ) where Gleason confided to her that Nixon picked him up late one night at Gleason's home in Florida to drive to a military base in the area where he ( Nixon ) allowed Gleason to see preserved bodies of actual alien ETs. This story got out soon after and Gleason was furious that it did. He suspected his wife's gossiping for this. They were married but separated at the time and because of the leak Gleason immediately divorced her. I believe Nixon did know about the ET presence.