Joe Bauer

Doug, is there any way your friend Robert Merritt could communicate on this forum ( through you ) regards perhaps answering a few questions from our members?

Of course, trying to keep the discussion somehow JFK related would be tough.

I watched the video. I wanted to ask Mr. Merritt what is truly motivating him in his end-of-life efforts regards this subject?   Is it a heartfelt concern for others being kept in the dark about important truths that he thinks they should know for the betterment of their lives and their children's and grandchildren's lives?

I "thought" I heard Mr. Merritt state something else in the video that I found quite disturbing.

If I got this right ( and I might not have ) he said he had killed others ( whether or not on orders from his handlers) and that he didn't feel remorse over these killings? Even in his last "life review" days?

Not to get off the fascinating Nixon letter story too much, but if what I "thought" I heard Mr. Merritt say was true, I speculate that he was so damaged by years of failed child protection sex abuse as a child by adult men, that he was left with rage and human feeling disassociation so deep that murdering other adult males in his later adult life without feeling and remorse ... would be a logical extension of those extremely severe emotional injuries.

Doug, Merritt's claim, if true, represents something simply too scary for most average people who don't really want to acknowledge or face something so beyond their psychologically safe zone reality.

Regards this particular subject ( ET presence on Earth )  if given a choice between it possibly being true and being told about it by our official government or "not" being told about it officially, I believe most would still rather "not" be told about it. Yes, even if true.

It's a subject most don't even want to talk about.

That "can't handle the truth", "head in the sand" mentality is born out of fear. Fear of the unknown which we all have. A not unnatural or even irrational emotion in certain situations. Especially this one.

And the fear aspect perception of the ET presence on Earth subject has been hugely fed to the general public in every form of media for almost 100 years now. 

Just in my generation I have seen aliens depicted so frighteningly so many times in films such as "The Thing", "The Blob", "20 Million Miles From Earth", "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" and so many others from the 1950s and becoming even more frightening and numerous in later decades with films such as "Alien", "Predator" "Independence Day" ... you name it. Also TV shows like "The Invaders."

Face sucking, body impregnating, human body eating, devilish looking creatures.

And add in the thousands of books and personal stories of alien encounters and even abductions, half of which depict our Alien visitors as having less than benevolent interest in our human race well being.  Read "David Jacobs."

This scary negative fearful perception of Alien visitors is world wide.

If one were to ask persons who have reported well known Alien abductions or close up interactions if they would go through this again if they had a choice, my guess is almost all would say ..."no way."

My point is, there will never be any real public majority support encouraging or emboldening the release of Nixon's letter in my opinion. The subject is too frightening.

Doug, I have however, always agreed with you regards JFK and the ET subject. Those that controlled that folder would never have allowed JFK  to share that with the general population ... and with our greatest political and military threat enemy.

I've read and heard it stated that highly professional and purposely planted disinformation stories are usually a "mix" of truths and falsehoods. That this mix is the most successful way to really cloud and confuse.

The National Enquirer has been doing this for years. Hence, when I see and read a NE article on some very important and controversial national story I always remember to keep in mind this dis-info formula and figure half the story is probably true.

I believe that half the information shared in the TMWKK series is also probably true. Sensationalized or not, I still re-watch many of it's episodes. Many of the interviews are extremely thought provoking and many of the interviewees come across to me a unsophisticatedly honest and sincere.

One of the questions that throws me regards Oswald ( if he was the shooter from the 6th floor ) is how he could leave his rifle anywhere on the 6th floor knowing it would be found within minutes or hours and traced back to him once those who found it had a chance to check it's provenance. 

He must have known that each employee of the TXSBD would be checked out for links to this rifle and it would soon be known the rifle was his.

His only chance at freedom would be to run. To Mexico?

He would have needed help in that regards. He didn't drive himself and he would know the bus systems would be watched and checked thoroughly. His only chance for escape would be for someone else to drive or fly him out of the country. If so, obviously he was left to fend for himself by his betrayal buddies.

And then there are Oswald's backyard gun toting photos. Some of the most guilt incriminating pieces of evidence we've ever seen in a high profile murder case. So incriminating you are forced to wonder why he would take these and days before 11,22,1963 not make some effort to retrieve these from his belongings and from George DeM.

Was LHO simply that deficient in planning forethought?  Was his whole plan including escape that loose and impulsively amateurish?

In my opinion Oswald seemed too intelligent to be that incompetent. He was either betrayed by his fellow conspirators or he wasn't the shooter on the  sixth floor.

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was banned because of some of the things Barr McClellan said on the show.

Like, "I know Lyndon Johnson killed Kennedy!"  There was nothing in his book that merited any such absolute and metaphysical certitude.

Our side, when given such an opportunity, has to be very careful.  Since the other side, which is in power, will use anything they can to discredit us.

Which explains the other part of your question about Dale "Mr. Single Bullet Fact" Myers.

As I said, Turner had a wonderful opportunity to really do some valuable things.  There were many people he could have had on: Eddie Lopez, Dan Hardway,  Gaeton Fonzi, John Newman, Bill Davy, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles etc.  I don't recall any of them being on.

When you give people like that the back of your hand, and instead you welcome the likes of Judy Baker, Barr McClellan, Dan Marvin and Tom Wilson, well, that tells us a lot about Nigel Turner and his interest in the JFK case.

 

Jim, do you have any personal conclusion beliefs as to Nigel Turner's true motives or agendas in making the TMWKK  Documentary series?

Was Turner just a money minded opportunist who shamelessly threw out interviews of the most sensational story characters he could find, no matter how fringe sounding,  simply to garner a larger viewer audience? Like a circus sideshow?

Oliver Stone admitted he incorporated the use of a fair amount of Hollywood dramatic license in his JFK film for several reasons including greater audience appeal. Of course, he and the people who financed the film production had to make money on this project.

Or, was Turner just untalented or ignorantly misguided in choosing to include several interviews of controversial characters alongside what I and many others believe are very important, valid and believable ones?

Or, was Turner's real agenda a National Enquirer disinformation type one of diluting the real truth effort by purposely including just enough controversial characters ( some say "out there" ) in his documentary to ultimately deflate it's integrity and importance?

Some  on our forum believe there is a great deal of important, honest, valid and useful information offered in Turner's documentary. Information no one else ever found or at least got out to the general public.  

No one can disagree with your list of very important JFK  researchers and Dealey Plaza event witnesses that should have been included in Turner's documentary series.

Just curious whether you feel these omissions were deliberate and why, or just incompetence?

P Brown.

Did Judyth's sister Debbie confirm that Judyth did indeed tell her about having an affair with Oswald not long after the assassination?

And if Debbie did confirm this story...do you believe Debbie to be honest and believable?

You knew Debbie personally did you not?

17 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Joe, where are you?

Bruce, I am located on the Monterey Peninsula on the Central California Coast line 125 miles South of San Francisco.

Home to such luminaries as Doris Day, Clint Eastwood and passed on ones such as Mae Brussell, Harrison Livingstone.

On 2/15/2018 at 1:16 PM, Bruce Fernandez said:

Pitzer was right handed with no deformity!

Bruce, very interesting your relationship to Pitzer. Thanks for mentioning this.

Since you were close enough to him and apparently his wife, have you come up with any confidently held personal thoughts regards why your uncle may have taken his life?

Was his relationship with his wife even half-way strained? Was he having an affair and afraid of it's being exposed?

Did he have financial, gambling or other huge debt problems?

Did he have a family history of depression and or suicide? Was he abused as a child?

Did Pitzer carry some huge guilt about something? A past criminal action, anti-social impulses or even a gender identity conflict?

The autopsy revealed no serious health problems. No drug or alcohol or heavy meds problems. He was only 49.

If one seriously wants to know the truth about someone killing themselves or not, it's rational to ask these types of questions to determine whether there were any of the usual signs ( even one ) to explain the personal motivations behind the suicide.

In the death scene drawings and rendition of Pitzer's body position from the photograph, we see marks of where the gun was first found.

In the death scene drawing, with feet and inches marked, we see a circle designated spot with the word "revolver" shown and a line drawn from this to the body that states "9 feet." That's 9 feet "to the left" of the body. Quite a distance.

In the photo rendition a gun "chalk mark" looks to be closer but still 3 feet out to the left and down at the end of his body.

If your uncle was sitting down when he was shot as most investigators believe and the right temple shot resulted in him falling face forward down with his head landing slightly under the bottom step of the ladder, where much blood was spattered, and the rest of his body ending up face down prone with his left arm bent outward and his right hand pinned under his body...it begs a lot of questions how the right temple shot revolver could find it's way so far away from his body ... and on the "left" side.

One would think that a gun used to shoot oneself in the right temple would maybe recoil back farther to the right or perhaps remain in a nerve locked right hand or at least dropped immediately on the right side.

The guns resting point distance left of the body creates valid questions of illogicalness.

Pitzer certainly didn't fling this gun away after firing it, either over and behind his head or quickly under and away from his body.

And a question I asked earlier ( and that hasn't been answered ) regards whether there were any other live bullets found in the gun upon its discovery seems a somewhat important and valid one. If there were extra bullets in the gun, then there could be Pitzer's finger prints on them from loading them into the chamber. That finding could add credence to the suicide explanation.

I read Eaglesham expert's finding that suicide guns rarely have "identifiable" prints on them due to a grip and smudge effect. Was the gun at the Pitzer death scene found to have smudged prints...or none at all?

The time of death was listed at 4:PM and possibly even earlier in the day. Mrs. Pitzer stated that her husband wasn't answering his phone as early as 1:30 PM.

As I mentioned...no one else in the building reported hearing a gun shot?

It was a Saturday afternoon and yes, there would be less staff on a weekend versus a weekday, but the gun shot was not late at night, when one would expect many fewer potential ear witnesses.

Dennis David reported being asked to look at some pictures by your uncle. He mentioned film but also mentioned single slides and prints.

Perhaps these slides and prints showed David what he claimed regards JFK's head wounds as much as a film?

And the fact that no autopsy film has ever been discovered doesn't mean one didn't exist.

If Pitzer truly wanted to kill himself and in such a bloody way...why would he choose such a public place ( his work station ) to do this?

I am not an expert on suicide studies, but I wonder what percentage of people who commit suicide choose a public location to do this versus a more isolated one?

Especially those leaving behind a spouse and children they loved? An example would be husband and father Vince Foster choosing a bucolic and isolated location to do this versus his home.

Pitzer also didn't seem like the kind of person who would want to traumatize his fellow staff and underlings ( some friends? ) by blowing his brains and blood out where they would come in for work the following Monday and see or hear of this...regardless of a cleanup.

It seems the right hand, left hand argument is mute. 

The imaginative explanation Eaglesham gives for the Pitzer wife's 3rd party family member telling her the agency couldn't get her deceased husband's wedding ring off due to swelling is pretty out there if you ask me. That the retriever didn't do this request effort so he or she made up this lie from the authorities to save face with Mrs. Pitzer?

And efforts to discredit Dan Marvin seem fairly debatable.

One:

Marvin found religion and was trying to redeem himself?

And in this vein he went a little crazy trying to find and talk to Mrs. Pitzer? Maybe overdoing this? 

I don't see Marvin's religious conversion reflective of irrationality. Especially if he did personally kill other people in his life, for any reason.

All my life I have seen people finding and turning to religious commitments to help them get through extremely rough periods in their lives. Whether anyone finds fault with this, I must say that many of the people I observed doing this really helped themselves and those around them in real and practical ways by doing so if even temporarily. Often they quit drinking, drugs, being angry and fighting, cheating, etc.

If that is what it takes for many troubled, pained, angry and guilty people to change their lives around or find some peace, redemption and give back some restitution...this is more a good and rational mind set versus not IMO.

And you yourself Bruce did say in your post that Marvin seemed sincere in this way.

I read all 4 of Eaglesham's findings and speculation essays.

Seems to me there are as many debatable and contradictory findings and conclusions in them as there are solid suicide indication ones.

And again, how did Eaglesham find David Vanek when Marvin couldn't? The military lied to Marvin in saying they had no military records on Vanek.  Why would they do that?

And Vanek denied "everything" Marvin claimed about that Special Forces get together? No mock up of Dealey Plaza? 

Is Vanek still alive? Did he have an answer as to why the military would tell Dan Marvin he ( Vanek ) had no military record?

Did Vanek ever have any assassination assignments and that he carried out? If he did, then he must also be a man of secrets beyond the average.

18 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Pitzer was right handed with no deformity!

Bruce, why do you believe Dennis David ( Pritzer's close friend, workmate and Bridge partner and who knew his interview comments in TMWKK interview would be presented to the entire world ) would confidently assert in this interview that Pitzer was "left handed?"

Dennis David even gives a graphic first hand account of Pitzer's left handedness that he (David ) personally witnessed by the way Pritzer dealt the Bridge cards in reverse.

I keep waiting to see some research copy of a sworn and notarized affidavit by Pritzer's wife or sons or official school or medical records regarding Pritzer's left or right handedness. The truth about Pritzer's death is very dependent on this information.

Bruce,  could you please send me a link to the primary or even secondary source of your finding regards Pitzer's left or right handedness? 

Thanks.

Wecht said Pritzer's death was a suicide?

I would think that the evidence of no prints on the gun, no powder burns on the bullet entry area and an exit wound on the left side of his skull etc, is pretty worthy cherry picking.

I will read Eaglesham's full analysis.

Don't know how I missed it. Thought I clicked 

on everything that was presented regards his study.

Was verification from other sources sought out regards Pitzer's right hand being deformed and to what extent?

Dennis David clearly said in his TMWKK interview that Pitzer was left handed. And one would logically think that a regular bridge playing partner just feet away would notice any "obvious" deformity of a fellow player's hands.

Did Pritzer's wife confirm this deformity?

When Pritzer's wife said the government couldn't get her husband's

wedding ring off his left hand finger, did she wonder or ask them why this was?

And even if his right hand was deformed...does that mean he was not right-handed versus left-handed?

No fingerprints on the gun? Pritzer wiped it clean after he shot himself?

And did you see where they marked the gun location as found at the scene? 3 feet to the left and more feet away behind his body?

Ray, if Eaglesham was right about Marvin's story not being credible...why do you think Colonel Dan Marvin made this up and was willing to share it to the entire world...considering the risk to his career and family standing and reputation.

On 2/14/2018 at 12:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Read Allan Eaglesham on the Pitzer/Marvin story.

The Kilgallen story, from what I understand, is under serious consideration as a documentary. As it should be.

Jim, I read every link regards Eaglesham including his response postings ( and those by others) to Simpkin's original thread.

So many thoughts and questions

It seems even Eaglesham and Palmer for quite some time believed Pitzer's death was not a suicide based on their research of the death scene and body and wound evidence combined with conflicting medical and physical investigation report findings. Not to mention the incredible run around difficulty they encountered trying to get information from the agencies.

Regards Dan Marvin and his TMWKK story, Eaglesham and Palmer actually find David Vanek ( how did they accomplish this when the military told Marvin that David Vanek didn't exist- no military records? ) and found what they reported to be discrepancies between Vanek's and Marvin's recollections of that August day in 1965 of special forces training where Marvin claimed he was asked to eliminate an American citizen on American soil and after turning this assigment down, Marvin claims that the CIA man then talked to Vanek. Marvin honestly stated he didn't know what Vanek and the agency man talked about...saying it could have been the cost of ice cream.

Eaglesham reported that when confronted with Vanek's very different take on his interaction with Marvin that day and Marvin's solicitation story, that Marvin became extremely evasive and even refused to participate in a one to one conference telephone call with Vanek on the other end.

Eaglesham finally concludes that Marvin and his solicitation story did not hold up and was not credible.

One of a hundred questions here:

Did Eaglesham still believe Pitzer's death was not a suicide after concluding Marvin's story was not true?

Other questions: 

Was Vanek ever asked by Eaglesham whether he ( Vanek ) participated in assassinations of designated targets as Marvin described in their SF duties?

Vanek at least must have acknowledged being within the training area Marvin describes and on that specific day. 

So Marvin was right about Vanek's presence there.

Eaglesham reported that when confronted by Vanek's contrary recollections of that day in training, Marvin backtracked about his specifics of Vanek's closeness to him that day ( not mentioned by Marvin in the TMWKK interview ) and said something to the effect that even though his exact recollection of Vanek's actions that day might be wrong, it didn't mean that his basic story wasn't true.

I don't know anything about Eaglesham, his history and bonafides. So I can't speculate as to his own credibility.

As to Dan Marvin, it's very puzzling to me why he would make up his amazing story and be willing to publicly share it.

He had a full colonel and father and grandfather standing to risk in doing so.

Maybe I can come up with more worthy questions later about the Pitzer killing and Eaglesham's take on this and Dan Marvin.

Thanks for the links.

Oh, the gun found several feet to the " back left" of Pitzers body? That seems a physically illogical place for it's location even if it was jarred loose from his right hand as he slumped forward and down after it's discharge.

Were there any live rounds found still in the gun after it's use?  No fingerprints on the gun?

Aren't 38 caliber guns extremely loud when discharged? No one heard this? No one else in the building at the time of the gun firing?

Dennis David was wrong about Pitzer being left handed? I had not heard this until now. What authority made this determination? Pitzer's wife?

Pitzer having an affair with another woman in Pensecola Florida where he took secret trips?  

More questions than before after reading Eaglesham's research findings and conclusions.

Could someone here tell me what makes them feel the Dan Marvin story is not credible?

Also, any new episode would have to include Dorothy Kilgallen's story and death.

Not only because of her decades of national celebrity fame and accomplishments but also because she went right to the heart of the action, interviewing Ruby in jail and who knows who else. Her death circumstances alone are worthy of much review and speculation.

Also, the newly disclosed fact that Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell was CIA should garner some coverage.

2 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

So, let me ask you this Michael Walton, and not condescendingly but really wanting to know. Is it of your opinion that the current Zapruder film has not been doctored in any way other than the "Oops, we accidentally damaged the film in these spots"? And if that is your honest opinion then we must assume that you think Zapruder was either lying or "misremembering" when he said he started filming and never stopped and started back. And that you believe there are no limo stops whatsoever unless you count a very slight, almost imperceptible breaking. And Greer turns his head back twice in the span of an eighteenth of a second or possible twice that time. Am I correct so far? If you are questionable about any of that and the film has been doctored in any way and for any reason then why wouldn't it be a reasonable leap of logic to question anything and everything about the film? So much of what is seen in the film has NEVER been described by eyewitness accounts. I have yet to hear an eyewitness describe the violent backwards head snap seen on film. That would be kind of hard to miss. And the fact that the spray of blood and brains from the fatal headshot (or headshots if you ascribe to the two shot there from behind and then a frontal) dissipates in record time. What is it seen for? One frame? Two? Enough brain matter and blood to splatter Jackie and the rear motorcycle officer? Just curious as to your thoughts on those issues?

There is absolutely no argument against JFK's limo driver Greer turning his head "180 degrees" behind him  ( twice! ) just after the second shot that supposedly hit JFK in the back and John Connally as well. And there is even a brief holding it there by Greer visible.

You can see this so clearly in the Z film it's a mute point.

Try doing this yourself..and count the seconds it takes to turn your head all the way around and then back like that. At least one second.

And if I was ever driving a moving car and turned my shoulders and head a full 180 degrees around like Greer did ( not a quick 90 degree turn to maybe see merging traffic )  I am instinctively going to either ease my foot off the accelerator or totally pull it back and maybe even move my gas pedal foot to the break one as a precautionary move.

The limo was supposedly going only 11 MPH before Greer turns so fully back.

Just "easing off the accelerator" would slow down the car to less than 11 MPH. I believe Greer even touched his breaks when he turned around. There is photo evidence of the limo's break lights going on at that precise moment of Greer's action.

2 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

Getting back to the classroom photo- I too have long wondered about the circumstances behind this photo. Oswald blackening out his teeth is a ridiculous notion, but how (and why) this picture was taken is I think an important question. 

I never remember a single instance of anyone taking a photograph inside a classroom during my twelve years of public education. I'm not sure cameras were even permitted in schools, and one would guess that the teacher (or a student) would have noticed the photographer getting his camera out and snapping the picture inside this classroom. If the idea was to display the remnants of a fight, why not simply take a photo of Oswald outside the classroom somewhere? 

There is much about Oswald that is almost surrealistic. For example, what kind of cosmic coincidence is it that the only home movie footage of him just happened to be taken on November 22, 1962? How many other young men in his economic class would have been offered both radio and television interviews? How many would have been the subject of a novel (written by his very interesting Marine Corps buddy Kerry Thornley) before the assassination? 

Some or all of these intriguing questions may be related to the Harvey and Lee phenomenon. But there is no doubt that Oswald- whoever or whatever he was- was far more than a misguided Marxist defector forced to work lowly-paid jobs. 

Don, the memo that David Josephs posted seems to explain the circumstances of the photo in a reasonably sensible way.

My own school experience memories tell me that the photo is not suspiciously illogical in it's provenance.

In my own high school yearbook is a photo that is so similar to this one it is uncanny. While the teacher is engrossed with interaction with the majority of students who are intently listening, there were always a couple of what I would categorize as Attention Deficit Disorder afflicted kids that were always outside of the inner circle and often fidgeting or looking around and even clowning around at the same time. A school year book picture taker of ours took this photo as well.

Seems to me most teachers in the public school system back then with 30+ kids in each class were used to always having 2 or 3 kids in the class who were like this and they just let them alone ( to different degrees ) to do their distracted thing ( usually in the back of the room where they purposely sat these effected kids ) as long as it didn't cause too much noise or distraction for the rest of the class.  

But your summary of Oswald doing so many strange things and interacting with so many strange people during and after service life which was so far out on the scale of normalcy that this reality forces one to face the fact that he was part of something bigger than his own little world ...is a more logical view than not.

When one list even 50% of the out of the ordinary things Oswald was doing and involved with in his short 24 year young life, this alone is enough to rationally conclude this view.

Paul's reminding us of Oswald's neglect as a child is a very large and important piece of the Oswald puzzle IMO.

Oswald not only had poverty to deal with as a child, he had no fatherly love and nurturing and guidance and protection in his developmental years and if anyone has read much about his mother, he was forced to exist and deal with an absolute ghoul of a person for a mother to boot.

The loneliness, neglect and pain he obviously felt as a child and adolescent under those neglectful circumstances must have been tragically horrible. These developmental dynamics usually leave their sufferers with deep life long bitterness and anger and mistrust toward almost everything and everybody.

I have known some women like Marguerite Oswald in my life. I don't know how their kids survived their childhoods with them.

Paul, in a general way I agree with some of your George DeM personal and social life speculations.

So much of his motivation in life seemed to be mainly regaining the rich life he once had with all it's indulgences , accessories and social status and which he lost, and was losing more of every few years as he was getting older.

Beautiful homes, cars, first class travel and dining on a whim, high society activities with beautiful people, especially women. Providing your children with anything they need to have a similar life. Connections to other wealthy people which only secures this even more.

Once you've lived this level of indulgence ( it is like a drug ) and you are used to it, losing it probably feels as bad and hard as withdrawals from any powerful feel good drug like heroin.

Woody Allen made a film a few years ago "Blue Jasmine" that is centered around this specific theme of wealthy persons losing their wealth and how devastating this is to them...to the point of suicide.

In the case of the main character of "Blue Jasmine" ( Cate Blanchett ) after she lost her personal wealth, she ended up being one of those poor crazy people who sat in public places talking to themselves.

That devastation of one's self-perception and esteem and motivation and purpose in life,  after living a wealthy life style for many years and then losing it all and having to live like everyday working class citizens or worse...is a very real thing.

Look at all the wealthy Cubans that Castro threw out and who had to live middle to low income lives here in America. Silvia Odio's family for example.

They were enraged the rest of their lives over this great injustice! And they would have done just about "anything" to regain the wealthy status they once had. They dream about the good old days and about how they can get it all back. That was often their main after wealth life obsession and motivation.

So this losing wealth syndrome is real and powerfully effecting and happens all the time and George DeM suffered greatly from it's effects in his final days which IMO wouldn't make purposeful suicide an unlikely scenario in his death.

Interesting points.

Curious what Marina Porter would say ( if anything ) if she was asked what she knew about Lee having any dental appliances etc.

51 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

DeMohrenschildt’s previous wife in Philadelphia, Phyllis Washington, worked for Radio Free Europe in the early fifties. His brother Dimitri von Mohrenschildt, described by the CIA as being "employed in a confidential capacity by the U.S. government," is said to have been one of the founders of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. These connections are a link between Cord Meyer and de Mohrenschildt (Ref. William Kelly 2011). He was subjected to five separate investigations by intelligence during the 1940s and 50s, and could not gain security clearance for OSS work. After the United States entered the war, George Von Mohrenschildet (and apparently his brother) changed their names to de Mohrenschildt, so they would not be viewed as German. De Mohrenschildt had previous experience as a CIA contact for a New York lawyer named Herbert Itkin, knee-deep in anti-Duvalier politics ... he had been introduced to Itkin by none other than Allen Dulles.  In 1954, a young oil lawyer named Herbert Itkin arranged a meeting in Philadelphia with Allen Dulles.  Dulles set him up with a meeting with de Mohrenschildt, who told Itkin he was "from that man in Philadelphia" and that his name was Philip Harbin. William Gaudet provided an HSCA deposition that he knew George under his alias as Philip Harbin (De Mohrenschildt's wife, Jeanne, was from Harbin, China). CIA Director Richard Helms later testified that the agency’s “initial interest” in George de Mohrenschildt was because he had been a petrochemical consultant with the ICA, which became part of the Agency for International Development (AID) in 1961.

In the early 1960’s, de Mohrenschildt was part of Clint Murchison’s interests in Haiti, and became involved in oil transactions with the dictator Papa Doc Duvalier. A former CIA agent, Herbert Atkin, revealed that Mohrenschildt’s activities in Haiti were actually a cover for his intelligence-gathering operation for the CIA’s attempt to overthrow Duvalier.  In May of 1963, he arranged a meeting between Clemard Charles, who grew hemp in Haiti, and Army Intelligence. In 1967, Charles was later connected with a CIA/Haitian Cuban Exile plot to invade Haiti from Florida, a sequel of sorts to the Bay of Pigs. In May 1963, an order was issued for the Ambassador of Haiti to be recalled to Washington, D.C.  Just two days after the meeting, an unnamed “charge” is sent to Haiti, purportedly to attend Duvalier's self-coronation.  Just four days later (one month to the day after the phony staged attempted "kidnapping" of Duvalier's children), Ambassador to Haiti Thurston is recalled to Washington for "consultation," leaving the U.S. Embassy in Haiti in control of the Charge d'Affaires (Thurston was not returned to Haiti).  And just four days after that, DeMohrenschildt arrived in Dallas, hastily packed up his belongings, and tore off to Haiti, arriving on Sunday, 2 June 1963. The U.S. Embassy in Haiti now was in control of the unknown Charge d'Affaires.

When de Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti, he remained there for over four years. He and other investors had set up an industrial development enterprise whose work was to include conducting a geological survey of Haiti to plot out oil and geological resources on the island. After the assassination, he returned to The de Mohrenschildt’s later left Haiti in 1967 and returned to Dallas four years after the assassination, to testify before the Warren Commission.  HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi noted that in late 1963, several large deposits popped up in de Mohrenschildt's Haitian bank account including one for $200 thousand dollars from a Bahamian bank. This occurred when de Mohrenschildt and one Clemard Joseph Charles, proprietor of the first independent commercial bank in Haiti were supposedly running a sisal plantation, a derelict operation they never went near.

In author Dick Russell’s words: “Like Fitzgerald's Gatsby, Baron George Sergei de Mohrenschildt was borne back ceaselessly into the past’. Intrigue and oil were the two constants in the Baron's life. He was an emigrant son of the Czarist nobility who spoke five languages fluently and who, during the Second World War, was rumored to have spied for the French, Germans, Soviets and Latin Americans. The Warren Commission took 118 pages of his testimony to satisfy itself of de Mohrenschildt's benign intent. De Mohrenschildt moved in both European high society and the American underworld, and would have made a splendid character in a Graham Greene novel. 

George DeM...what a background story.

How many people actually get a personal old friend to old friend response back when they write to the head of the CIA "George Bush?"

Quote

The highest value gift in this mostly friendship starved world of ours is an offer of such from one human being to another, beyond blood family, for no reason other than pure unselfish humanitarian goodness.

Buell Wesley Frazier offered this to Lee Harvey Oswald ( not an easy person to even be around ) just out of the innocent goodness of his unsophisticated heart and moral make up.

Beull Wesley Frazier was the opposite of everything Oswald criticized regards our society and it's values.

Frazier offered and gave Oswald real and tangible help in the transportation area  ( not to mention his kind words of greeting the first time he met him on the job ) out of simple unselfish altruism and even has defended Oswald most of his entire life, pointing out Lee's good character traits such as being kind toward children.  I hope Oswald thanked Frazier personally for his ride help and maybe offered him a dollar now and then for shared gas cost help.

You can have so-called higher educated and more sophisticated co-workers who would pretend not to even see you walking to a distant bus stop after a hard day of work ( in maybe harsh weather or in the Winter dark) and purposely avoiding offering you a ride when they know they are going in the same direction. ( with women to men exceptions. )

I learned long ago who is worthy of my respect and admiration in this world. And it is way more often than not the lower income people who extend a friendship helping hand when they see and feel you need this.

Frazier a "Hayseed?"  I'll take hanging with a hayseed with a compassionate and basic needs sharing heart any day over the company of so-called educated people who could care less about others right around them in their time of need.

IMO Buell Wesley Frazier is a breath of fresh good humanity air in this whole story. 

Time to give him his proper and justly deserved due.

 

On 2/2/2018 at 1:08 PM, Robert Harper said:

•  

  , 

• Today, I left the following on the comments section of the Wall Street Journal of the story headlined below. Unlike the NYTimes, they let different voices speak:

• House Releases GOP Surveillance Memo

• There are only two FBI memos that interest me. Everything else is distraction.

  Both were written by J. Edgar Hoover.

•  

   

  One, in 1960 he wrote of "someone else  using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate". (we were told they never heard of him until November 1963). The other was written by Hoover, the day after JFK's murder. It said that he "informed George Bush of the CIA" about the activities of anti-Castro  groups.

•  

   

  Now each was discovered by researchers, but never really discussed in the media. This latest one pales next to those two I think. Ever since I learned that the FBI took all the evidence from Dallas to Washington, and then returned,"officially" with more than they picked, and took it back toe Washington.    

  Until that gets squared, all FBI stuff is held at bay by this wsj reader.

Totally agree Robert.

Just frustratingly crazy that these mind blowing important documented proof memo's were basically just ignored by our media.

Since they became known one would have expected 60 Minutes or many other so-called highest bar and integrity truth seeking  investigative T.V. productions to have gone after these factual memos as they reveal a reality that is far from the one we have been led to know, believe and accept.

For what it's worth and only because it runs parallel to the uncomfortable Frazier toward Oswald sexual suggestion post by Paul.

Ruth Paine (left) and Marina Oswald in 1963

Speculation of a lesbian connection to JFK’s death also persists to this day, though there’s a similar lack of supporting evidence.

At the time of JFK’s death, his accused killer, Oswald, was separated from his wife, Marina.

Marina resided in suburban Dallas with Ruth Paine, a Quaker woman who was separated from her husband, Michael.

Both women had two children, who also resided in the Paine home, while Michael resided in a nearby apartment.

Paine and Marina met at a party in February 1963 and began a brief friendship.

They lived together for about two months, up until Nov. 22,1963, when JFK was assassinated.

Ruth never charged Marina rent, noting the benefits she received from the friendship, including learning Russian, which Marina spoke proficiently.

In his 1967 best-seller “The Death of a President,” author William Manchester repeatedly insinuated that Ruth and Marina were in a lesbian relationship.

Manchester quoted selectively from letters between the women, which were affectionate but could hardly be considered love letters.

In one letter, Marina wrote to Paine: “I kiss and hug you and the children.”

“I love you Marina and want to live with you,” Paine said in a particularly effusive reply.

Manchester also claimed that Paine intended to take Marina to a Planned Parenthood clinic, for advice on achieving sexual satisfaction apart from their husbands. But his book provided no documentation for this claim.

On the evening of Nov. 21, 1963, Oswald unexpectedly visited Paine and Marina at the Paine home, which is now a museum.

During the visit, Marina repeatedly rebuffed his entreaties to “quit Ruth” and live with him, according to Manchester’s book.

“Again and again he repeated that her preference for Ruth was unbearable for him,” wrote Manchester.

Inconsolable due to Marina’s rejection, Oswald went “mad” and shot JFK the next day from a sixth-floor window at his workplace, according to Manchester.

Oswald himself was killed by Jack Ruby two days later, proclaiming his innocence to the end.

Manchester’s book was billed as the definitive account of JFK’s death, partly because it was commissioned by Jacqueline Kennedy, though she later dismissed it as “tasteless and distorted.”

His insinuations of a lesbian relationship between Marina and Paine remain firmly entrenched in the minds of many Americans.

But extensive government investigations haven’t yielded a scintilla of supporting evidence, and both women have consistently denied being in a lesbian relationship.

For his part, Lee told police he was grateful for the assistance that Paine gave to his family. He described it as a “nice arrangement,” while he struggled to get on his feet financially.

In a 1974 People Magazine interview, Marina said, “They called me lesbian, because I had a friendship with Ruth Paine, who isn’t that way at all. People are quick to applynames. I assure you I am normal.”

Marina has also repeatedly expressed her belief that Oswald didn’t kill JFK.

In 1996 on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” Marina said Oswald had “absolutely nothing” to do with JFK’s assassination.

Marina’s denials apparently didn’t hold any water with staunch anti-LGBT psychiatrist Charles Socarides.

In 1978, he gave a lecture about homosexuality at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa., during which he repeated Manchester’s canard that Marina’s lesbian relationship with Paine drove Oswald to kill JFK.

When informed of Socarides’ lecture, the late LGBT pioneer Barbara Gittings dismissed it as yet another attempt by Socarides to cast homosexuality in a negative light.

Ironically, Gittings was friendly with Paine, and Gittings’ name appears in the exhibits released by the Warren Commission in 1964.

Ruth and Gittings sang in a madrigal choral group in Philadelphia, before Paine and Michael relocated to Texas in 1959.

Gittings described Paine as a very kind and generous person, who never gave any indication of being lesbian or bisexual.

After Oswald was killed, Gittings added, she felt sorry for the newly widowed Marina, and sent money to Paine.

“I didn’t even realize Ruth knew Marina,” Gittings continued. “But I knew Ruth lived in the Dallas area. And she’s such a caring person, I figured she’d find a way to get the money to Marina.”

Today, Marina, 73, lives in suburban Dallas with Kenneth Porter, an electrician whom she married in 1965.

Ruth, 82, divorced Michael in 1970, and she never remarried.

She lives in a Quaker retirement village in California and has a male companion in her life.

While we may never know who killed JFK, speculation about an LGBT connection to his assassination should be put to rest once and for all.

I had never heard nor read about Buell Wesley Frazier having physical yearnings for Lee Oswald before Paul's post.

Wonder where Paul came up with that theory or proposition.

I "have" read a few reports of speculations about Ruth Paine having such for Marina.

Doesn't seem like Oswald had any more interest in B.W. Frazier other than getting free rides although my common sense tells me he appreciated Frazier for this and also Frazier's innocent and rural upbringing unsophisticated goodness, friendliness and generosity.

Frazier was the opposite of many of the characters Oswald interacted with in N.O. and later Dallas. Educated but nefarious agenda men, hot tempered Cubans, George DeM., Michael Paine, etc.   Although maybe David Lewis and his wife Anna were rare exceptions.

Many "Lone Nut" proponents used to love suggesting Lee Oswald wasn't intelligent enough to be a part of any conspiracy on a level of the JFK assassination. That's ridiculous of course.

However, in a good and actually complimentary way, B.W.Frazier could never be part of a similar level and type conspiracy because of his unsophisticated yet much more moral, decent and well meaning makeup. 

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Paul, that is what I meant.

And let us not ever forget:  Hoover was so confounded by the Tague hit that he literally tried to make it disappear!  I mean literally.

He carved it out and then cemented it over and in his three hit scenario, there was no Tague hit.  And there was no SBT.

This is one of the key reasons that the FBI report was not included in the hearings and exhibits.  Can you imagine the impact that would have had if it was included?

 

So, considering Hoover's strongly wanting the Tague hit to disappear,  wouldn't it be logical to wonder whether the F.B.I. "no copper on the cement" finding might have been a purposeful false finding? 

"Something" caused solid material to fly up and hit Tague's face with enough velocity force to cause bleeding. And right during the heard gun firing six second interval. 

Did Oswald have a history of diary writing and keeping before his sojourn to Russia?

Or was this a first for him?

Did he start this diary when he first boarded the freighter to France?

When Oswald returned from Russia did he keep and make entries into a diary here?

Considering random speculations regarding Oswald's motivations for keeping a diary of his doings in Russia I guess one as logical as any other could be that he was doing this whole thing (defection) for the purpose of writing a book about it?

Which he thought might be a big seller ( when he returned back to the U.S. ) considering how extraordinarily cold war high drama attractive he imagined his adventure to be?

Whatever, I've read the beginning of the diary and my take is that who ever wrote this was more fixated on the women he was encountering and his feelings about them including attraction versus anything else when he first arrived and was put up in his hotel, visited and driven around for various reasons.

Oswald seemed to be ...well...horny! And enjoying his interactions with all these interesting and attractive women and his odd little celebrity. But his extreme wrist cutting action throws things into the bizarre again. Like almost everything else regards this whole story.