Joe Bauer

Two questions: Jeanne DeM asks Marina to show her around her and Lee's apartment and after opening a closet door she sees a high powered rifle with a scope? Marina admits it's Lee's? Paul, is this the same rifle you claim Oswald used on Walker? If so, how did non-driving, no car owning Oswald get the rifle back home to this apartment from Walker's residence? Obviously not on any bus night or day. Obviously not by walking home with it during the day. Did he simply run home with this in the dark cover of night? How far away was Walker's residence from Lee's? Simple logical question whose answer may say something about driving help? Also, we all remember the first personal TV interview of Marina. "Marina, what do you do all day?" What do others here feel about her English skills in that interview? It was just months after 11,22,1963. I thought she understood the questions and answered these in a broken but not totally bad level of English. Did she take English classes after 11,22,1963 to do this well? And she gave much thought to the questions, taking time to answer them. From that interview, I sensed she was very sharp, intelligent and controlling of her emotions and knew much more about Lee and his activities in NOLA and in Dallas than she ever truly let on.

My wife and I are movie buffs, although she is much more film savvy, having seen thousands since she was a child. My wife does not however, share my interest in the JFK case, nor the RFK and MLK ones, at all. I dragged her to see Tom Hanks "Parkland" which I have mentioned before was torturous for her to sit through. Two weeks ago I incurred a spinal trauma including fracturing one of my vertebras with 3 accompanying bulging discs. For this reason I didn't accompany my wife when she saw "The Post" this last weekend. However, I always ask her what she thinks of the films she sees without me. I enjoy her reviews. I like to compare hers to other reviewers such as our own SF Chronicle's Mick LaSalle. My wife liked "The Post" from a standpoint of film structure, plot drives, pacing, editing. All of this built and led well to a high emotion connecting ending ( a Spielberg specialty? ) which elicited some applause from a 2/3rds full audience. She didn't give any historical accuracy opinion regards the film. She isn't a student of the film's Washington Post/ PP real life event subject beyond what I would think the average college educated baby boomer would be and I think, like 90+% or more of every other person who sees this film. It's a very small percentage of Americans who know anything close to the research knowledge shared on this forum regards the PP and everything else JFK. After reading all the response postings in this thread I know I am going to feel more comfortable with Jim DiEugenio's take on the film ( I know, I still haven't seen it ) for the reasons he states which I conclude are based on his deeper and stronger reference research into this area, especially how the main characters ( Graham and Bradley ) are portrayed and their true relationships with secret agencies, LBJ and JFK himself. Establishment critics hammered and still hammer Oliver Stone's "JFK" for his supposed inaccuracies and embellished dramatic license which they claim makes the film more a myth than not. But my assumption from what I have read here is that Spielberg does the same thing with "The Post." Especially in his portrayal of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradley as over-sized more courageous heroes ( versus Daniel Ellsberg? ) than they were in true life. Both Stone and Speilberg are excellent story writers. And they both know that to keep making money in films, you must present something clearly larger than life. And as far as Spielberg wanting to highlight the importance and courage of women, where the heck is a film about a true iconic and even heroic American woman ( more famous and accomplished than Katherine Graham ) ... journalist Dorothy Kilgallen? A woman who "sacrificed her life" in middle age to reveal truths she felt we needed to know.

I don't think there is much debate over Lee Bower's under oath, WC testimony of seeing two men in the area of the picket fence ( although 15 feet apart ) on 11,22,1963 just before everything broke loose there. Bowers was clear that these two men were not dressed like railroad men. He clearly described one man as younger appearing and wearing a plaid shirt or coat versus the other man being older and heavier and wearing a white shirt and dark pants. Exactly the same "plaid shirt" description that Julia Ann Mercer gave her police interviewers that same day regarding seeing a younger man wearing this same type shirt while leaving the stalled Dealey Plaza plumbing truck and carrying a rifle case up the grassy knoll toward the general area of the picket fence, an hour or more before the motorcade. One could dismiss these two matching male, age and clothing observation testimonies in the same area and only 1 hour apart by two separate eyewitnesses as coincidence or even made up. My common sense doesn't make that easy to do so. How many of the male bystanders in Dealey Plaza wore plaid shirts that day? One? None? Maybe Billy Lovelady? And as I have mentioned before, of all the people wanting to get a view of JFK's motorcade through Dealey Plaza that sunny day, who in their right mind would choose a viewing location behind a view obstructing fence in the dark shadows of overhanging tree branches, AND standing in shoe dirtying mud in a tight space between car bumpers and the fence, when there were so many open view dry areas to do so? We know from several eyewitness accounts of fresh muddy shoe prints , mud on a car bumper and cigarette butts that someone was in this location at least while the cars were parked there that day. That action is so illogical it's ridiculous. Only covert security might position themselves in such a damp, dirty and difficult view area contrary to those chosen by two hundred other motorcade viewers in the Plaza. It's hundreds of illogical actions like this related by witnesses to the event or illogical interactions with the main suspects by other witnesses that FORCES a rational thinking person to conclude something other or much more than the WC "Lone Nut" finding.

With everything we do know about Morales, when I see straight on - full face photos of him I get a chill. This was a man who you called when you wanted the final option carried out in dealing with perceived enemies. A most serious minded, temperament and facial expression kind of man who apparently enjoyed and was proud of his work and even bragged about it to his childhood buddies later in life. Pity those who found themselves facing that icy stare of Morales in person ... the face of death. One can only wonder whether Morales's home town buddy or buddies recounting tale of his "we took care of that XXX " drunken bragging/sharing in his retired days regarding JFK and RFK were true. Considering what is known about Morales and his career work and his personal feelings toward the Kennedys, it's hard to dismiss the tale out-of-hand.

It seems attractive Marina was preyed upon ( maybe "hit on" is a more commonly used phrase ) by so many men for months after 11,22,1963. Jim Martin? Robert Oswald? Hugh Aynesworth? Others? That kind of pressure on such a young woman in an extreme emotional situation almost beyond description must have made getting through it even harder for Marina. Two small children to nurse and care for. No money in the beginning. Dependent on Ruth Paine. An absolute nutty mother-in-law. A brother-in-law who totally felt Marina's husband shot and killed JFK. Amazing she got through it all and looking more attractive and together with each passing year. Shows an unusually strong personal constitution if you ask me. Excuse the following question but...does anyone here feel that Ruth Paine might have had more in mind than simple human concern in wanting Marina to actually live with her? I've read a few reported statements (hints?) of this sexual inclination inference regards Ruth Paine over the years. It seems Marina couldn't break that bond with Ruth Paine fast enough as soon as she could afford to do so. And she ( Marina ) reportedly never spoke to Ruth Paine again after 54 YEARS!

From Harrison Livingstone's "High Treason 2" pg 466: A preacher also flits in and out of this story. The Reverend Jack Shaw was with Roscoe White as he lay dying after a mysterious fire - a fire his son says was no accident but intended to kill White. Shaw says that White confessed his murders (more than one) to him. Shaw also says he has tapes of Geneva White revealing what she knew. At one point Shaw mentioned to newsmen that he worked for the CIA. I went to the home of the Reverend Shaw and his wife, along with my chief investigator, Richard Waybright, and I was impressed with his honesty and knowledge of the case. "I am convinced that Roscoe White did shoot President Kennedy," he told us. "I believe that Roscoe was telling the truth, and had no reason to lie." If White's preacher Jack Shaw actually said the above, then he is clearly inferring that White actually told him something which made him ( Shaw) believe that White truly had a part in JFK's death ... if not actually firing at him. I have seen the Jack Shaw interview where he does say what the first quote says he said. Shaw is extremely halting and hesitant in sharing this info. Very nervous. My instincts tell me that he held back much in that interview. Much more specific details about what Roscoe White actually shared with him in those last two days and their confessional talk. And perhaps Shaw was extremely afraid, regards what he was told by White. Because if White told him that he was part of the JFK assassination, and this was true...Shaw could have been a marked man for being let in on this deadly secret.

Paul, I haven't read the chapter in Albarelli's book you mentioned yet. Can you give me the title of the thread? Regards Mae Brussell, she reported so much stuff that at times it was dizzying. Listening to her broadcasts was sometimes exhausting but she did come up with really important information in her massive culling of the wheat research effort that her listeners otherwise may have never been made aware of. Often dark truths. Things that a true democratic society needs to know about to keep some control over human nature power grabbing by those whose interests conflict with a such a society. Lance's views on the JFK assassination and other major society changing events in our modern history, and especially those who proclaim these events as conspiracies beyond rational thought as he describes such, are ones that I have many times given consideration to myself. And I trust so many others who believe these events were results of conspiracies have too. You do ask yourself at times to examine what is real and rational and what isn't? Whether you are overthinking about these subjects and why? Whether you are too involved emotionally versus rationally and objectively in these events because they were so traumatic to your personal sense of the world and it's order? Is the conspiracy view something that we choose because it makes us feel more secure in a very insecure world versus non-conspiracy coincidences? Are we conspiracy believers just very bored persons looking for something to fill that void? All very valid view points that must be considered in this realm. Regards Lance's assessment of government on all levels as being so riddled with disorganization, inefficiency and stupidity that makes deep conspiracies involving them more unlikely than likely, I must respond with my view that this take is way too simplistic considering how much the higher or highest rungs of power in government are often very separated from the large bureaucracies beneath them. These higher rungs of government ( especially the military and black budget agencies and their think tanks ) can be very organized, efficient, and intelligent. And they can keep secrets. From my simple, less than higher education working person's point of view, which is all I have had to draw on and depend on to get me through 60+ years of living in this often tough world, I have seen many conspiracies exposed in every level and area of government. Conspiracies that if suggested before they were exposed would be met with derisive criticism of those suggesting these including calling them whacky and nuts as the writers Lance mentioned like Bugliosi constantly did also. Crooked cops, judges, mayors, back room real estate and rezoning deals and pay offs, sex scandals, killings thought to be random later found to be perpetrated by organized crime, you name it. Conspiracies happen every day, all around us, all the time. To think that the JFK, RFK and MLK killings couldn't have been carried out by corrupt and powerful groups and conspiracies involving them versus lone nut crazies who just got lucky is to me as irrational as Lance labeling CTers as fringe nut cases.

I really hope this is not the case with this forum. It is simply the best we have. Thousands of readers. Many highly educated. And besides the JFK assassination, there are so many other "hidden secret agenda truths" of great importance to us all that have been found, exposed and revealed as a peripheral result of this research effort. And are still being revealed 55 years after 1963! JFK's nation shocking assassination and it's inadequate, unanswered questions coverage and investigation was sensed by thousands of reasoned, moral and justice honoring men and women who then took on personal missions to find the truth. And often these mission's involved lifetime efforts with great financial sacrifice. These men and women may have just become typical lawyers, writers and educators were it not for their inspiration for the truth following 11,22,1963. And because of their noble efforts in this often downplayed and even maligned area of study, we are all beneficiaries in being gifted with something more closely resembling the truth ... and in many more areas than just the JFK assassination, although usually related. When I listened to Mae Magnin Brussell ( Her grandfather started I.Magnin and I lived in the same small town location of her radio station ) starting in 1971 ( "Dialogue: Conspiracy" and"World Watchers International") I was often exhausted because she covered so much material she had discovered ( for hours non-stop ) and did so in a highly energized way while she herself never tired. However, so many things Mae Brussell found and covered in her broadcasts, came back to me in my later years when they were actually proven to be true ! Including Nazis re-integrated into our society and Allen Dulles's connection to them, even during the war. And I realized that this woman was not fringe or whacky and instead was an amazingly inspired and talented researcher whose mission to inform us and warn us about things going on all around us (that she surmised we truly needed to know) was a really important, good and courageous effort and sacrifice on her part. As far as the UFO/Alien story is concerned ( and I have read a lot about this subject ) I am more a believer than not...but even discussing this subject ( especially here on this forum) comes with risks that could harm the forums integrity... IMO. I wish there was a similar forum of this high caliber available to discuss this subject separately. Coast To Coast posting just doesn't get it.

David I typed "the kid in the restroom" and "Mike Robinson" in the search box...and nothing comes up except our own recent posts. Would this story be in a past "Roscoe White" thread.

I was a non-posting/non-contributing member of the forum reading audience for years. This audience is many, many times greater in number than actual posters. I well knew and highly appreciated ( like most other non-posting readers ) that this was an online forum where some of the most highly credentialed, educated and respected JFK researchers were willing to share, debate and inform others of what they have discovered in their "years" of hard, diligent, intelligently organized and probably expense sacrificing work in their pursuit of the JFK assassination truth. Now retired and with more free time, the time spent checking into the forum on an almost daily basis as a non-posting reader was satisfying a lifelong yearning of mine ( from the age of 12 through my 60's ) to know so much more about the most serious, competent and thorough JFK research. Seeing Mark Lane himself posting here was a highlight. Of course I knew, and still know, that I am not in this esteemed researcher league and only have in common my lifelong passion for the JFK truth which is as strong and sincere as these high bar researchers. So it is with some guilt ( after reading Lance's posting above) that I must admit that I am one of those forum contributors who probably lowers this high research bar with my poorly informed but impassioned post responses . I most often stay out of most thread discussions as I still have enough respect for the integrity of the forum to stay put in the reading audience and let the big boys and girls share their truly worthy research findings uninterrupted. Even so, when enticed by certain thread topics, I have decided to occasionally selfishly indulge myself by jumping up on the stage with you all. Call it an older age bucket list thing. Just wanted to feel more engaged with this passionate subject. But I still wouldn't call my less informed engagement a strictly "fringe" one. I do trust my common sense to keep me logically grounded in considering all the different realms of the JFK assassination research and speculations. SS Agent William Greer didn't shoot JFK. He could barely keep the limo in a straight line with both hands on the wheel and his head turned 180 degrees backwards watching JFK get hit in the head at the same time.

Is Mike Robinson alive today? How well has he and his story been studied? The story is compelling of course, but as always, nothing if untrue, When did Mike Robinson first make his story known and to whom? Does anyone know the title of the thread here that discusses Robinson's story? I was the exact same age as Mike Robinson the day JFK was slaughtered. I still have a clear and vivid recollection of almost everything I did and saw and heard that weekend, culminating with my most vivid memory of all... watching Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas PD building, 11,24,1963.

I believe much of White's story. Will comment later on this.

I've listened to the Coast To Coast AM radio talk show since the 1990's and have heard John Lear being interviewed several times on that show. In regards to the thread subject, Lear ( to me ) is one of those characters that you're not quite sure of for varying reasons. Kind of like Bob Lazar. But enough of what they say indicates they both know what they are talking about "in certain key areas." Enough to not discount totally what they have to say and share. Lear of course does have unique credentials in his flying history and birth father. I am certain he has had some very interesting discussions with people connected to some high agencies. After listening to or reading their tales you are just left to judge for yourself ( using your own lifetime experience trust gauge) how much to believe of what they say as true or not. Astronaut Gordon Cooper and his UFO/ET story intrigues me much more than either Lear or Lazar. It would be extremely interesting to hear or read about anyone who was close to JFK regarding whether they ever heard JFK discuss the topic of UFOs/ETs. I sure haven't heard of such. Lastly, if there was any one area of secrecy in the highest levels of command and government in this country and the USSR in 1963 that would send a fear of even death for revealing...it could only be this one. Hence no one sharing about it back then and even now.

I assume Doug Caddy is very, very busy at this point in time writing a book? However, I hope he does see this thread eventually and shares his E.Howard Hunt E.T. conversation story once again.

Wonder if proud Nazi Von Braun may have told his niece the holocaust was a hoax as well? My common sense tells me that millions of people worldwide ( most non-military) reporting and sharing similar observation stories (with thousands of new tech photos and even video ) of aerial objects moving and performing in ways that defy gravity and inertia beyond anything we could manufacture until the last decades, all being a part of this hoax is literally impossible. Overall I trust average working folk and their word over high elitist class persons who always seem to have a hidden, self-serving agenda going on behind the scenes and their words.

The subject is relevant to this forum in the context of how JFK may have been informed of and involved with it and whether this may have been another dynamic in his removal. According to Doug Caddy's recounting of a personal one-on-one dinner meet up with E. Howard Hunt where upon Caddy asked Hunt why JFK was removed, Hunt responded with ... the E.T. presence.

Two more specific subject connected "coincidences" ( just more on a mountain of hundreds of others ) of rifle guns being seen at the grassy knoll and in the TXSBD building within 2 days of 11,22,1963 that we are to just shrug about? Dealey Plaza eyewitness Arnold Rowland never said he saw anyone actually shooting a rifle from the TXSBD building on 11,22,1963 , but his WC testimony has always interested me enough to go back to it now and then because, if true, it suggests so much more than his WC questioners seemed to want to know. Rowland's wife did her best in her testimony to discredit her young husband's truth telling integrity, which I found weird if not sickening, but I wonder if she was lead into this by her questioners in an intimidating setting? But, Arnold Rowland knew what a 30-odd-6 rifle looked like. He had been around and even used one. And I always believed Rowland had a better and more close up view of the TXSBD building upper floor windows than most would imagine. We actually have a couple of buildings in our downtown the size of and even bigger than the Texas School Book Depository building. I have twice positioned myself on the street near them at the approximate distance Arnold Rowland stated in his WC testimony he was from the TXSBD building between 12:pm and 12:30 pm on Houston Street next to Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963. I also did this at Rowland's stated noon hour and in a position like Rowland described where the sun was shining on the building side I was studying. Let me say, I was taken with how much closer and visible these 6th floor windows were to my sight than I had imagined at the distance I was. Especially with the noon time sun shining on them. These physical realities made me believe that good vision Arnold Rowland could very well see what he claimed he saw in those TXSBD building 6th floor windows and with the specifics he states just before JFK's motorcade arrived. The other story of men ( young or old) mock target practicing with rifles from the grassy knoll picket fence aiming back toward Dealey Plaza just two days before 11,22,1963 in that specific area is just another head shaking, hair raising coincidence relative to what happened there soon after. And coincidentally on the same day rifles are brought into the TXSBD building to be shown off for the first time anyone can recall? Combined with rifle sighting reports from Julia Mercer, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, etc., in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 it seems that area had practically become a public firing range / gun show during those three days. Please...at what point in number do coincidences centered around a single event become more than coincidences? In the entire story of JFK in Dallas on 11,22,1963 a rational person is forced to consider that question.

Just an observation, but I had never really looked at many pictures of the Houston onto Elm intersection in a view from the School Book Depository side. I was surprised how "tight" that veering to the left turn appears to be "from that view" which looks back at the main part of Dealey Plaza. Maybe even greater than a 90% turn? I could see someone driving a hugely long "boat" of a limo ( like JFK's ), that required larger turning radius steering, not compensating enough for that tight turn, especially if they had only driven it once or maybe twice before. Otherwise, I'm not informed about the other points in the thread regarding the veracity of Truly and his testimony and statements. Were there any other points of the downtown Dallas motorcade that required 90 degree turns such as JFK's took onto Houston and then Elm?

It seems the main reference source for downplaying if not completely dismissing the Joseph Milteer story was ( or still is ) John McAdams's website essay, where he conjures up a laughably weak critique of other author's takes on Milteer being someone of interest in the JFK assassination. Like Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams loves to repeatedly intersperse emotionally unbalanced suggesting adjectives such as Whacky, Crack Pot, Bizarre, etc. in his JFK CT debunking pieces. They're all a bunch of Loonies! This type of extremely juvenile derogatorily suggestive labeling of anyone claiming something these two don't believe actually hurts, downgrades and deflates their own presentations. It's a clear exposing of "their own debate argument insecurities" when they feel the need to divert to immaturely inserting common psychological fear projection pictures into the minds of their readers thinking this somehow bolsters their debate presentations versus their adversaries. But this silly tactic doesn't work with rational thinking and even half-way intelligent and informed people regards the subject at hand. Unfortunately, this does work with millions of others who are not well informed or inclined to be such and who are more susceptible to this kind of emotional fear projection game. No one can argue the content of the November 13th, 1963 Miami police surveillance tape of Joseph Milteer and police informant Willie Somersett. It is what it is. And Jim Marrs' description of Milteer as the "Miami Profit" because of this tape says it all. Milteer's predictions of what takes place just 11 days later in Dallas, Texas are so specific in all the major details that to dismiss them as nothing is simply illogical.

In the video there is a few seconds of a photo showing what appears to me to be the well known "indentation" in the upper part of the limo front windshield frame. Not a bullet hole in the front windshield. It is such a big and noticeable indentation, I can't see the caretakers of the president's limo letting this large ugly anomaly not be repaired if it supposedly happened weeks or even months earlier. If it happened in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963...maybe this was from the first shot? Those older Lincolns ( especially limos) were built like battleships with heavy solid steel. To make that deep and noticeable indentation in that kind of steel took something powerfully impacting.

Weren't there at least some Dealey Plaza ear witnesses who said the last shot sounded louder or more powerful than the first two? Bang ............................ Bang ... BOOM ??? If so, could that more powerful sound wave effect have come from two shots being fired relatively at the same time? Another often repeated observation I know, but the shooter's accuracy improving as his target gets farther away defies logic. Especially in the JFK case. The first and closest target shot misses completely. The second farther away shot hits JFK in the back, which as a lone wound he may have survived. Then at 265 feet distance this two off-target shot shooter finally makes the perfect "bulls-eye" shot on JFK's cantaloupe sized head "while it is moving" dramatically up and down and side-to-side ( JFK jerks up, comes back down, then turns to look at and even leans slightly toward Jackie then back forward and down again ) in a vehicle that is moving farther away ahead and dropping on a downward slope ... all at the same time? That's "three - even four - noticeably effecting dynamics of movement" of JFK's head all during the lining up and firing time of the so-called third (and obviously hurried) shot. Up and down, side-to-side, farther away and dropping downward on the slope of Elm street as it nears the overpass. I know that hitting a bulls-eye on a "stationary" cantaloupe sized target not quite as far away as the length of a football field and brought even closer with a telescopic sight would probably be a somewhat easy feat. But move that cantaloupe in three or four ways simultaneously while trying that shot with a known inaccurate bolt action rifle and from a cramped position under life and death stress hurried circumstances ( Oswald or not the shooter must have known this could very well be a suicide mission ) and try this. Now, if a second, more highly trained shooter in another less visible location versus the 6th floor open window and with a better quality rifle had only one shot to line up in this stressed 6 seconds, that last moving target bulls-eye makes doable sense.

Rick, if that statement by Harvey's widow wasn't a "Freudian Slip" I wouldn't know what was.