Joe Bauer

Just musing here but... Does anyone else see the Dealey Plaza "Umbrella Man" and the tall "fist thrusting" black man sitting on the Elm street curb seconds after JFK's head is blown apart, so close together they could be holding hands ... as maybe a little suspicious? I can understand men jumping down next to or even on their wives and children who were that close to something that bloody violent ( and gun shot LOUD) , but in almost segregated Dallas in 1963, and men to boot, you'd think that the normal instincts of two individual men ( one white - one black ) who supposedly didn't know each other would not be to cozy up as close as a cuddly couple in a movie theater especially when there is so much open room all around them? Mind if I hold your hand friend? Just makes me wonder if these cozy mind set two were connected in some other way besides simple coincidental location choice 2 to 3 feet from each other before and during JFK's limo drive by. Also, it does appear that in closer up photos of the tall black man you do see something larger than a thick wallet near or in his back pocket area and in another photo of him still seated a somewhat large bulge ( larger and more shape defined than a simple fold of coat fabric ) underneath the back right side of his short waist length coat. What is the general take here on the black man back pocket walkie-talkie story?

Michael, maybe by the time Lansdale reached 55 years of age, he did use glasses , if only for part time use? And I know from experience, that I much prefer not wearing my glasses when someone takes a picture of me which might explain why so many "public domain" photos of Lansdale do not show him with glasses? Great shot with good graphics in that post of yours. And I agree about the chain link gate, diamond shape plate shadow showing clear glasses versus shaded ones. If they were sunglasses the opaqueness of them would show a "solid" shadow versus an open frame one. You say that if this was a planned operation it's carrying out would not be as dangerous and risky as I propose? I of course, disagree. The stakes for failure were just too high. The fact that Dealey Plaza was not as crowded as downtown Dallas, ( but still had what 200 to 300 people gathered there? ) would still provide enough running body and traffic "chaos and panic" to help create confusion for the purpose of real gunman escape diversion. If Oswald was actually the gunman and did what he did from the TXSBD building 6th floor lair, it is almost unbelievable to accept the reality that he could then simply get up, throw his rifle in between some boxes, run down the stairs, stop in the lunch room 4 floors down to put change into a soda pop machine, pop the cap and then drink some of this, then calmly give pay phone location info to reporter Robert MacNeil on the first floor before he then simply walkes out of the building and heads over a couple of blocks to catch a bus, which he then gets off because it's stuck in traffic, and in his southern gentleman mind set, offers his first cabbie ride to another more desperate woman ... without some diversion help. IMO, Oswald's frantic escape interruption episode of stopping at a soda pop machine in the 2nd floor lunch room to refresh his thirst is laughably preposterous. Just imagine yourself in Oswald's position and mind set after doing something so Earth shakingly powerful and violent and knowing that hundreds of trigger happy armed security forces would be charging his way within seconds ... would you then say to yourself just 4 stair flight steps away and only one or two minutes removed from your shooting action and location - Hmmm, man, an ice cold Dr. Pepper sure would taste good right about now." Machine change cha-ching, bottle slot drop, cap pop, fizz, gulp-gulp....aahhhh.

Michael is this posting of yours in April of the up close version of the tramp walk man next to the Texas School Book Depository building exactly as shown back then? With the "glasses" word comment and arrow graphics? Just curious.

As I mentioned earlier; if the JFK assassination was a coup, it was the most important, dangerous, risky, highest stakes covert action operation in the history of our country by an almost incalculable factor. And as such, requiring "unprecedented" tight ( perhaps even minute to minute ) control of every detail, especially on the ground in the killing zone , beyond anything before it. One understands why the true highest up controllers of most violence required operations position themselves relatively far away from the action, but "in this particular event" it would not be illogical to believe that those standard and traditional operation protocols might be changed to include closer-in control participation by at least "a few" of the real action experienced higher ups, considering the stakes.

The shoulders are definitely stooped and drooped in the Dealey Plaza photo. And his hands "are" lower than the tall tramp's in that photo even though they are very close to the same height. In the photo with Dulles and the other two men on the right, notice that Lansdale's hands hang lower than everyone else's, even though the two men on the right are "shorter" than Lansdale. In that photo Dulles is "maybe" a bit taller and even "his" arms don't hang down as low as Lansdale's. Those are some unusually long arms on Lansdale. And as well on the Dealey Plaza man.

Very hard to believe a major budget motion picture was never made of this iconic, super achieving, interesting and most famous highest society American woman and her suspicious middle age death under the most intriguing of circumstances. What more could Hollywood want or need in justifying production of such a film? Kilgallen's life and death was far more historically interesting, high society influential and wider sub-plot compelling than that of Dr. Sam Sheppard and yet that case spawned a famous TV show and an A-LIST major budget film. I wish I could initiate such a film...and let me tell you, Meryl Streep is at the perfect age to portray Kilgallen in her last years of life and activity. And Streep somewhat resembles Kilgallen in enough facial ways I believe we movie goers would find her believable mesmerizing in that role.

Jim, I wish you would submit a rebuttal piece regards this DA's ridiculous claim of no evidence of murder in the Kilgallen case to some New York City centric magazine that might find it worth publishing, if in the least because the story involves one of the most famous high society residents in their semi-recent history. There are millions of Americans still alive today who grew up watching Kilgallen on TV and many who may have read her so she and her suspicious murder are still relevant and of interest to those of our baby boomer generation.

I wasn't aware of how much of what I have been posting on Lansdale has already been covered in earlier postings on the Sterling Seagrave thread such as this one by David Andrews. I should have caught this before posting a repeat myself. Excellent and informative thread from beginning to end.

What an informative thread the linked Sterling Seagrave one is ( when read in it's entirety ) regards so many fascinating " hidden history" subjects.

I wish I knew the answers to your May Newman questions David Andrews. Unfortunately I do not. Most here feel the May Newman story is not even worth time and energy discussing. That even if there was some Murchison stepson arranged get together the evening before JFK was killed the next day just miles away in Dallas, that this meeting had nothing of importance to do with the assassination. However, any news about what these world's wealthiest, hugely influential and connected ( to lettered agencies, Mafia, Cubans and extreme right wing groups) and venomously JFK hating Texas power individuals were doing just before, during and right after JFK was butchered right in their own back yard is of interest to me. Be it personally placing JFK WANTED FOR TREASON flyers on parked car windshields ( H.L.Hunt himself? ) or celebrating JFK's death with champagne and caviar flowing for like a week after.

I entered the 11,21,1963 Murchison party subject realm decades ago when I first heard Madeline Brown speak of it on popular daytime national TV talk shows followed by other media appearances and later, her book and her interview in the documentary TMWKK. I wasn't a researcher but her story was so compelling in regards to her claims of being LBJ's long time mistress and her son Steven being fathered by LBJ ( which I think everyone now accepts as true ) and "especially" her claim of LBJ personally growling an ominous forewarning in her ear on the evening of 11,21,1963 that "after tomorrow those blankity-blank Kennedy's will never embarrass me again" I had to follow it. This JFK assassination forewarning claim by Ms. Brown suggested some complicity on LBJ's part even if it involved just knowing ahead of time that JFK was to be killed on 11,22,1963. To me, this was a mind blowing and super important assassination revelation...if true. Madeline Brown's JFK's assassination forewarning via LBJ claim captured massive national attention for a long time ( with help from benefactors ) regardless if there was no hard evidence to support it outside of some secondary validation that several parts of her LBJ mistress, LBJ fathering her son story were, to debatable degrees, true. And still today, Ms. Brown's JFK death forewarning via LBJ part of her story is still compelling enough to occasionally read and think about ... if only to imagine how much this shocking implication ( if true ) would rock us with a chilling awareness of not just who was responsible for JFK's assassination, but also how much of a false reality we have been living in since 11,22,1963. But why bother with such frivolous contemplation? There have been many discrepancies discovered in Madeline Brown's story over the years. Enough so that many esteemed researchers have simply dismissed her JFK/LBJ forewarning claim as simply untrue and a waste of time to even discuss. As Larry says, Brown's Murchison gathering story ( and other related one's like May Newman's ) are simply unimportant wasteful diversions from much more important hard evidence JFK research information and discussion. However, the reason I give May Newman's Murchison get together on 11,21,1963 with Hoover in attendance story any forum time at all is because I believe it. And because I believe it, I feel it has more importance than solely a wasteful diversion as it bolsters Madeline Brown's Murchison story at least in the sense that the meeting happened and took place the evening of 11,21,1963 and that Hoover did attend. And if Hoover was there, I find it much more believable that LBJ may have raced out to this gathering even after he and his wife checked into their hotel at 11:05 PM considering he and Hoover were so close ( as LBJ said to Hoover on a recorded call..."like brothers" ) and for so long. And if LBJ did attend this meeting, it makes Madeline Brown's story of LBJ's forewarning to her of JFK's death the next day just possible enough to not dismiss it completely IMO.

David Andrews, I don't know anything about May Newman's early personal background but I "assume" she was born and raised in Ireland. Her accent sure indicates such. And she remained a "seamstress and companion" all of her 36 years working as a domestic for Virginia Murchison. That would indicate to me that Ms. Newman probably wasn't highly educated and perhaps even poor growing up in Ireland. And from her age appearance in the TMWKK documentary video ( which was what ... almost 40 years after 1963? ) and with Newman claiming she had only started working for Virginia Murchison 1 or 2 years previous to 11, 21, 1963, she must have been a fairly young woman at that time. So, you have a young woman raised in another country and who obviously wasn't studying "International Relations" at the University Of Dublin. J. Edgar Hoover was someone a young person raised poor in Ireland like Newman might easily have never heard about in her daily circles and discussions there. Hence, her claim of not knowing who Hoover was seems logically believable.

If the Life Magazine Bobby Baker/LBJ graft expose story that was to be published the week of December 4th, 1963 is true, why is it hard for anyone to acknowledge the reality that the damage of such a piece in perhaps the most popular magazine in the country might very well have ended LBJ's political career not to mention fostering possible criminal charges of kickback corruption? What greater threat to his political and personal life had LBJ ever faced before this? It's so obvious there was much more to LBJ's red faced anger and stress during JFK's Texas visit than just JFK choosing John Connolly to ride with him through Dallas in the presidential limo versus Yarborough. LBJ was about to be done in by Life Magazine via RFK! My guess is that the goal of RFK's feeding Life Magazine this Bobby Baker/LBJ dirt was a power move to be used to pressure LBJ to voluntarily leave the 1964 ticket. But the most important question to ask in this scenario of LBJ under life ruining threat circumstances ( again if true ) is what LBJ felt he could or must do to counter this threat. How far was he ( and his lobby ) willing to go to end this threat? Whatever LBJ decided, the fact is that with JFK blown away...this massive threat just evaporated instantly and entirely. No one can argue this reality point. And it has been mentioned that LBJ didn't even want the presidency at this point? That he just wanted to go back and be a grand old senator again? All that obsessive super ambition and effort LBJ exhibited and expended his entire political life had just petered out by the time he was 55 for who knows what reasons. Just three years after his own presidential run? And all the super wealthy and JFK hating power groups and people LBJ fronted for ( Brown and Root, Hunt and Murchison - the richest men on Earth- and the protected by LBJ Hoover ) who would benefit like they never had before if LBJ were President, would just have to understand that ole Lyndon had just had enough and they'd just have to fend for themselves under another JFK 4 year term. Please! Whether or not LBJ didn't want to be President, his wealthy constituents sure knew what they wanted and needed and LBJ surely couldn't allow himself to be ruined politically. Once again, common knowledge and common sense make perfectly clear what the stakes truly were in November, 1963 regards LBJ and all those he represented versus and in conflict with JFK/RFK and how much LBJ and his benefactors stood to gain and or lose by what happened to JFK and LBJ up to the election of 1964.

With all the information regards the death scene alone anyone can see that Kilgallen was murdered. Getting lethal doses of certain types of drugs that fall into so-called "accidental overdose" categories into someone with or without a struggle was certainly a killing procedure that was very doable and used back in the early 1960's. Maybe Kilgallen was slipped a previous mickey to make her more pliable for her last one? Maybe a gun was put to her head with an order such as "drink this or I'll pull the trigger."? Someone "dressed her" after she was unconscious. And all Kilgallen's notes and files go missing immediately? Her close confidential friend dies soon after also? Maybe Kilgallen's husband was involved? Here are just a few possible motives on his part: Jealousy? Humiliation? ..... A younger man is squiring his wife. Greed? He acquires all of their shared assets. Fear for his own safety and that of his children? Perhaps he was also receiving death threats and was told that if his wife continued with her investigation he and his children would die? And transferring the autopsy to the reportedly Mafia controlled "Brooklyn" Medical Examiners department when Kilgallen was from Manhattan and died there? ... Please.

This entire thread and what is being revealed by Doug Caddy in it is mind blowing. And this is just one of many. I believe in Mr. Caddy and I believe what he states in his writings and interviews. I am often wondering what to make of Mr. Caddy and all he does and shares regards defending, protecting and promoting democratic principled truth and justice through his true politically important historic figure insider enlightened expose's and interviews with as many of his fellow citizens who will read and listen to what he has to say. And to do so under apparently real threat from serious minded forces who seek the opposite ... it all just seems incredibly courageous, even heroic. I wonder if we are not realizing the true democracy defending weight and importance of what Mr. Caddy is saying and trying to do for us all in this regard and realm? That impromptu airport luggage area interview of Roger Stone was also mind blowing. Stone actually implies physical harm will come to those senators who may push for impeachment of Donald Trump. He says violence could come from both sides if impeachment is initiated. Implying such scenarios can sometimes be interpreted as coded threats depending on who says these. What are we to make of Roger Stone? I get a chill and dark feeling whenever I see and hear him speak. Thanks again to Doug Caddy.

Michael. I just read your post response and am considering your views with an open mind. Perhaps I am "wanting" the Tramp Walk photo man to be Lansdale? Perhaps not. Perhaps prompted by my desire to find a truth telling hero in all this such as Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak or even Jim Garrison ? I think a deep and harshly honest self examination is important sometimes when one decides to commit to a cause or belief that compels them to actively commit much time, energy and emotional involvement ( especially in public forums ) to this. I will admit that the JFK event ( especially watching Jack Ruby whack Oswald on live national TV ) had a deeply profound effect on me that could possibly be described as traumatic and that may still be in my psyche as an unresolved issue? I have contemplated this. However, I am definitely not as hung up on believing, as you seem infer, that all the nefarious characters you mention were in Dealey Plaza at 12:30 pm on 11,22,1963. Hunt, Bush and throw in Morales, William Harvey and maybe even Frank Sturgis. The reason I am much more interested in Lansdale specifically being there is not just his well known military covert background and Prouty's and Krulak's seemingly certain ID of him in that photo, but also because to my eye the man in the photo does look like Lansdale compared to all the images I have had a chance to study of him that are so publicly displayed on the internet. However, I must admit that I have never read or heard Fletcher Prouty comment on the fact that the Tramp Walk man in the photo is wearing glasses. That fact must be considered somewhat in a totally objective analysis. I still think a credible source scientific comparative analysis of the photo should be done.

I believe I read that Lansdale was a very "hands on" facilitator regards his operations. The photo in question was taken somewhat after the actual shooting. It took some time to search for and round up those three so-called tramps who were reported to be in a box car. So, when people say that Lansdale wouldn't have been so lax to allow himself to be in the crowd at Dealey Plaza to be photographed during and right after the assassination, when everyone was taking film video and still snap shots...I could see him making an appearance after things settled down somewhat. This would have been the biggest and most important covert action ever dreamed about. Blowing this ( and the exposure of who was responsible ) could mean death sentences and maybe even riots in the streets. Nothing could be left to chance. Still, what it all meant if it was Lansdale is open to speculation except to figure it was a covert action by some agency ( military and or intelligence ) in our own government. If it isn't Lansdale in that photo ( proven with scientific accuracy ) I'll go into forum posting seclusion.

Because I have never read of such, I really would like to try to find someone very well qualified in the individual identification/photo analysis field and present them with the Tramp Walk photo, that many of us feel is Edward Lansdale, and ask them their thoughts about whether they feel this person is Lansdale or not and to what degree? They would have a decent amount of Lansdale photo's ( many images of Lansdale on the internet ) to compare to the Tramp Walk one in this analysis. Unlike so few of someone like say ...David Morales. If anyone has any thoughts about the exact type of experts I could contact that could help in this analysis, I would appreciate it. I don't have funds to pay for such an analysis, but sometimes experts in specific scientific fields will donate at least a brief amount of effort for free, just because of the interesting backstory involved. I did this with an expert body language reading person who was interviewed by George Noory on the national talk radio program "Coast To Coast AM." I e-mailed him via his webpage and sent him a link to the YouTube presented video of LBJ being interviewed by Walter Cronkite and LBJ's squirming statement that he couldn't rule out the fact that "others may have been involved" in the JFK assassination. I asked this expert if he could look at the video and possibly send me his analysis of what he felt LBJ was being truthful or lying about in saying what he said to Walter Cronkite , relative to his extremely unsettled body language and often animated facial expressions while doing so. This fellow got back and graciously did indeed send me his body and facial interpretation analysis of LBJ truth or non-truth comments in that interview which I posted here on the forum. So, sometimes one can find experts who will provide feedback and do so without charge. And with what seems like a good amount of easily accessible and full body images of Lansdale on the internet to compare to the Dealey Plaza -Tramp Walk one, I would imagine a conclusive analysis would be possible and this quest being one worth trying at least. I am so compelled to see what experts say about the Tramp Walk photo in this regards.

I don't know how the Mae Newman interview came about. Where it was filmed. Who interviewed her? Was she paid for this interview? Did some researcher find her? Did she come forward to a researcher on her own that perhaps she had read about? Newman and her background ( apparently everything she said about her employment-duties and duration and employer- were true ) and her credibility isn't being trashed as much as Madeline Brown's ( and she didn't have such a deep personal pain and loss grudge against anyone like MB had against LBJ ) but she and her Hoover story are dismissed simply because she wasn't at the meeting herself and of course saw no one that attended, especially Hoover. Everything Newman says in her interview is just recalling second hand accounts by other Murchison servants that she knew and worked with on a daily basis. So even if Newman believed what she is saying in that interview was true, her story is considered meaningless because again, it was all 2nd hand hearsay, she wasn't at the meeting and saw no one herself and there is no way to verify her recounting as those other staff members are probably dead now and apparently these mentioned staff members never came forward to anyone to corroborate Newman's story of 11,21,1963. All these realities about Mae Newman and her TMWKK interview account of a 11,21,1963 Murchison/Hoover get together make it hard to look at her story in any light other than unimportant, misinformed gossip shared by an uneducated domestic employee nobody. I guess the only thing worthy of Newman's interview is her heart tugging tale ( if true ) of all the champagne and caviar celebrating in the Murchison household for a week after JFK's slaughter. And how it appeared to her that she was the only one grieving for JFK ... a fellow Irish Catholic. I'm sorry, but I believe Ms. Newman and her entire story of that 11,21,1963 Murchison gathering and Hoover's attendance there. How many times are we JFK truth seekers forced to go to and rely upon our lifetime experience, common sense gut feelings in deciding what we believe of all the second hand accounts ( hundreds if not thousands) of JFK event related testimonies related by people of all types of various economic, gender, ethnic, educational and credibility backgrounds? Most everything we come across falls into this category versus first hand eye witness, hard evidence ones. Heck, not one person ever came forward to say they personally witnessed Lee Harvey Oswald sitting in the TXSBD 6th floor sniper's lair and firing a rifle at JFK's motorcade. Everything anyone uses to establish that as fact...is based on second hand testimony and disputed hard evidence findings. And even if Hoover and LBJ were or were not at this supposedly less than ominous Murchison social that had nothing to do with JFK and his visit to Dallas, we all know of Hoover's stays at Murchison's Del Charro motel in La Jolla, Ca which was also a hangout for known Mafia members and not far from the Del Mar race track where it seems Hoover and his man friend Tolson got some very profitable "hot tips" on certain horses in certain races. I think we all feel that Hoover had some suspiciously questionable "friendships" with some very bad background people who did him favors that the average person would consider graft. This whole cabal of Hoover, Murchison, LBJ, etc ... all JFK hating, all corrupted. It's hard for me to read or listen to any defense of these characters and their actions as anything less than totally despicable.

I seldom start any new threads on this forum myself. However, we all know that G.H.W.B. is not going to be around much longer and I thought that now, before he actually moves on from this mortal coil, might be a more interestingly relevant time to reflect and share our collective thoughts about this extremely influential and highest government position involved U.S. historical figure and his place in the JFK assassination story. Obviously there will be plenty of this kind of discourse soon after Bush passes. But by then, for sure, there will also be so many of the expected heavily brushed with white paint Bush "good guy" commentary pieces presented in every form of media that it will make the whole eulogy show boringly trite and overcrowded to a distracting degree. Perhaps it'd be more interesting for us to look at and talk about any historically important aspects of G.H.W.B. that relate to our own forum context now, before all the contrived white paint applied ones muddle up most of the rest of them throughout the media and internet. I myself do not have any substantially interesting introductory commentary about G.H.W.B. to kick-start the discussion simply because I am not as informed as 95% of the members of this forum on him. However, I know that many here "will" have some really interesting and relevant thoughts and findings to share that we can all appreciate and enjoy and that will add to JFK event historical truth we endeavor to reveal. Of course, I must first mention the two most commonly known G.H.W. Bush weirdisms that he is on record stating: 1. "I don't remember where I was when JFK was shot." 2. " after a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy" ... with a smile? Part of Bush's eulogy speech at Gerald Ford's memorial service. Why would Bush think that using the specific words "deluded gunman" was important to mention in a Gerald Ford memorial context? Couldn't he have said simply "after JFK was struck down?" Adding the words "deluded gunman" to that part of his eulogy was so inconsequentially out of place, it was as weird and begs as much suspicion as his JFK assassination location memory lapse statement. Bush's connection to George DeMohrenschilds ( both socially and professionally ) is one of the most intriguing Bush/JFK links ( possibly ) to me. Please members, join in with what thoughts you may have regards G.H.W. Bush and his place in this realm.

Larry H.'s "first hand knowledge" take on MB and her story seems closer to the truth to me than those who have tried to make her seem more "out of it " than not. Regardless of Madeline Brown's take on the 11,21,1963 Murchison get together, her recountings of her many intimate rendezvous over many years with LBJ ( dozens if not many more than this number? ) and the one-on-one conversations they shared during these as well as her financial support story through connections on behalf of LBJ provides very interesting and I feel important personal backstory information that helps to fill in a more complete picture of LBJ that we may never have known about otherwise. Dismissing most or even more-versus-less of MB's story and her LBJ recountings because she made some embellishments regards the Murchison get together is an illogical mistake.

David, just go to You Tube and type in THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY PART 9 THE GUILTY MEN. At just after the 23 minute mark the Mae Newman interview begins. The interview continues with a few breaks and her final remarks begin at the 27 minute and 33 second mark.