Joe Bauer

14 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

This is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    

A silly thesis?

Of course I disagree.

If LBJ and his "like a brother" compatriot Hoover had done what you suggest they could have done to take down JFK without a public execution ( all of the sexual stuff )  do you really think the Kennedy's would have taken this laying down and without a massive retaliatory blow back?

It would have been an all out political and character assassination war. And Hoover and LBJ weren't the only ones with dirt on their adversaries.

Imagine RFK unleashing the full folder of information he had ( to every media outlet in the nation ) on LBJ's massive corruption doings and connections and Johnson's own alpha lion extra-marital sexual exploits ( including two children out of wedlock?)  And I believe that Hoover was himself totally paranoid about his own sexual deviant shenanigans being released to the public as well.

And how can anyone think the Kennedy family still didn't have great power and influence and a huge base of extremely influential loyalists?

The outrage over LBJ and Hoover doing something like you say they could to JFK would have triggered a worldwide backlash against them on all the highest levels. Great authors would have trashed them for years. Investigative journalists would have dug for years. Foreign political leaders would have shut down relationships.  And again, it would mean LBJ would never be president himself before he was simply too old to run.

I believe the Kennedy's and their loyalists may have had their own political war "fail safe" system in place had Hoover and LBJ tried something as you suggest.

And both LBJ and Hoover were smart enough to contemplate all this and the damages to themselves if they triggered this scenario with Hoover's tapes and videos.

Imagine JFK losing to Goldwater in 1964. Where would this have placed LBJ relative to his "maniacal desire" (E. Howard Hunt ) to be President?

The "Executive Action" solution was the best possible one for LBJ to immediately assume the presidency himself and then as soon as he had this position he could control the official investigations and any other cover up influence that was needed. Basically control everything including RFK himself and the justice department investigations into his own criminal doings.

I also feel that certain highest ranks of the military and the secret agencies and JFK's own security had to be on board ( to relax security) and control the situation on the ground ( hence Lansdale? ) in Dallas that day.

If our top military leaders actually believed that a foreign power was behind the JFK event alone, do you really think they would have allowed them to do this without some equally damaging retaliatory action?  The fact that nothing like this ever occurred is a logical tip off that they didn't think this was the case.

So, my opinion is that a character assassination scenario to bring down JFK and RFK is the true silly thesis here.

Michael Clark, thanks for your affirmation.

Did you also see the two or three photos that show Lansdale's height relative to Alan Dulles and others and which must be 6ft. 1in. or taller?

He is right at Dulles's height in the photo and easily taller than the two other men in military uniform in that photo.

In fact, Lansdale is slightly "behind" Dulles in that photo ( which shows as a lower height ) and still looks to be the same height or if anything just slightly shorter than Dulles.

Dulles was taller than JFK and JFK's height has been reported to be from 6 ft. to 6 ft. 1 in.

There is also a picture of Lansdale standing with a group of Vietnamese and they are really short compared to him.

So, I think the question of Lansdale's height is answered definitively from these photos of him standing next to other men whose heights we know for sure. Any argument about Lansdale's true height ( 6 ft. 1n. or even taller ) should be mute after seeing these photos.

Lansdale sure wasn't 4 inches shorter than Alan Dulles.

Again, as Norman Mailer stated in "Harlot's Ghost" ...Lansdale was "an odd, tall man."

The man in the Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk photo is right around 6 ft. 1 in. to 6ft. 2 in.  as is the tall tramp.

Also, did you see and check out Lansdale's hands in these photos in the context I described them?

The photos I posted are too small to see this but if you click on the Fletcher Prouty video interview there is a much larger close up picture of Lansdale's left hand as he is walking by the tramps, which can be easily compared to his hand photo standing next to Dulles and the other two military men. Again, to me they match almost perfectly.

Also, experts in human motion dynamics can identify people by the motion of their body parts when they walk. They can actually measure this by computerized equipment if they have multiple videos or photos to compare.

Prouty and Krulak had seen Lansdale up close and walking to and away from them many times and they could identify these body movement dynamics specific to Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza/ Tramp Walk photo with certainty even though they were laymen in this scientific realm.

I am sure there are enough still photos of Lansdale walking ( front, back and side views  and entire body length ) or even moving film. I wish I had the funds to find the best experts in this field and could have them do a thorough study of Lansdale in this respect.

If it could be proved to a very high degree of scientific certainty that the Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk man is indeed Lansdale...I think we would have one of the most important pieces of hard evidence that would indicate a conspiracy in the death of JFK.

I agree with almost all of David Denton's essay points.

I totally believe Murchison maid Mae Newman's story about the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up where J.Edgar Hoover flew in and was picked up by Newman's fellow Murchison house staff employee Jules Feiffer ( spelling?).

Newman also mentioned the main Murchison family cook by name and recounted one-on-one conversations she had with both her and Feiffer concerning Hoover specifically,  with Hoover's name ( and even Hoover's nickname "Bulldog" ) clearly mentioned that evening. 

I also believe Newman's recounting of how the cavier and champagne flowed in the Murchison household for a week after JFK's slaughter. And how it seemed to her that she ( Newman ) was the only one grieving for JFK and his family during all that celebrating. Newman choked up a bit and her speech was halted and she glanced away for a second when she recounted the grief she alone felt for JFK. 

If Newman's story ( and her emotions while sharing it ) in that documentary interview were contrived. the woman missed her calling in the career department. She should have been in British theater. 

Newman's story and emotion demeanor in sharing it in the TMWKK interview comes across to me as one of the most sincere and honest and least contrived I have seen in this whole affair. 

Ms. Newman remained as a domestic employee for Virginia Murchison for decades after this event. She didn't give up what she saw, heard and knew about the Murchison get together, with Hoover as a guest, on 11, 21,1963 until she was retired and Virginia Murchison had passed away.

Her revealing her remarkable story at a much later date made perfect sense for someone who was obviously very dependent on the income she made working for this wealthy family ( I wonder how poor and maybe uneducated Newman may have been as a child in Ireland ) and one could imagine her probably liking her job and maybe Virginia Murchison personally?

But imagine if Newman's story is true. Hoover and the Murchison's ( and possibly LBJ also ) secretly meeting in person in the Dallas area the night before JFK is killed there?  

The implications are staggering and could answer some of the main JFK truth questions.

LBJ and Hoover were like brothers ( LBJ's own words to Hoover in that famous White House taped call between the two discussing the creation of the Warren Commission ) and close socializing neighbors for years.  It is so obvious that these two watched out for each other for decades and one can imagine how much and in what nefarious and blackmailing ways they were bonded and colluded to benefit each others positions, power and influence.

I believe it is this relationship ( they both hated and were threatened by JFK and RFK ) is one of the keystones of understanding how the JFK assassination and it's cover-up could be pulled off.

That and LBJ's other close relationship to other JFK and RFK hating powers to be such as you-know-who and even the Mafia.

I believe working people any day over professional and practiced and corrupted and compromised long time politicians and bureaucrats like LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, etc. 

For these same reasons I also believe Madeline Brown and her story regarding the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up and LBJ's presence there and his ( Those SOB Kennedy's will never embarrass me again ) comments to her following this.

Would like to comment further on Denton's piece later.

D. Caddy.  

Did E. Howard Hunt and you ever discuss the ET presence subject before Hunt made this comment to you regards JFK?

Because if not...I find it amazingly startling and curious that Hunt would spontaneously inject such a far out subject into his answer to you regards why JFK was killed.

I believe that Hunt didn't say what he said as part of some disinformation tactic. I don't think he felt you were a covert CTer who would spread this story around to other CTers.  Didn't Hunt at that time feel that you were "on his side" as far as his political views and actions?

Smathers seems like a double agent working at times against JFK.

Among the images of Lansdale in my last post are two which show his hands close enough that you can see his distinct hand anatomy and the position correlation of his thumbs and the other fingers.  

The image of Lansdale in military uniform standing next to Dulles has a clear view of Lansdale's hands ( right one especially ) as does the image of Lansdale dressed in a business suit and walking with other men ( perhaps after arriving by plane? ) and carrying multiple bags in his left hand.

Hand / finger anatomy and how one generally carries them in a digit positional way can be quite unique and uniquely identifying.

The left hand of the Dealey Plaza / Tramp Walk man matches the hands in the certified photos of Lansdale I specifically mentioned IMO.

Ron and Ron, is there any date stamped on that Texas Hotel claim check found among Lansdale's possessions?

Could there be any way that the claim check could be identified as coming from the 1963 time era?

Truly and wonderfully accurate.

We went from the most attractive , upbeat, intelligent, charming and inspiring president in our history to...

a paranoid, corrupted Ogre with LBJ.

Didn't Phillips, when he was near death, admit to his brother that he was in Dallas on 11,22,1963?

Curious what other members on this forum think about the Newman / Lansdale statement?

Michael, it is very difficult for me on a life experience level to dismiss people like Gordon Cooper. Edgar Mitchell, Walter Haut, Colonel Jessie Marcell Sr. , Jimmy Carter, Paul Hellyer and even Ronald Reagan and so many others in very high positions of authority and responsibility , as nuts or insecure attention seekers in their shared public statements expressing belief in the UFO  story.

And when members of your own family whom you know and trust implicitly ( for 50 years + ) share similar stories ( in private and not publicly ) it makes it even harder to dismiss this subject as totally untrue.

I'll share again a quote that I was told  years ago ( 5th thru 8th hand I admit ) that was supposedly uttered by someone employed in a high security position and who after having one too many beers and being harangued one too many times about what he did for a living by others said something like ... look, I'll tell you this...and never ask me about this again ...  " if the average person knew HALF of what is really going on in the world, they'd go into their backyard and kill themselves. "

If you type in this internet search  - " Images Of Edward Lansdale" -  you can see many photos of Lansdale that really provide much more comparative details of the real Edward Lansdale versus and relative to the Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk man.

To me, the similarities between the two become even more pronounced after doing so. 

The best picture on this images page showing Lansdale's true height is the one where he is standing next to Allan Dulles. Dulles was right around 6 ft. 2 in. tall.

Lansdale "may" be just under Dulles's height ( half inch? ) if not equal to it.  So we now know definitively that Lansdale was at least 6 ft. 1 in. to 6 ft. 2 in. tall.

The Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk man looks to be right at that height also.

Notice also the height level of the shoulders of both Dulles and Lansdale standing next to each other.

Dulles's shoulders are clearly higher on his frame versus Lansdale's ( Dulles has kind of a hefty build ) and Dulles's head is not as high up from his shoulders as Lansdale's.

Lansdale's shoulders set lower on his frame than Dulles's. Lansdale has a longer neck and again his head is higher up from his shoulders and his head is longer shaped than Dulles.

The shoulder height and even slope ( as well as neck length ) relative to the entire vertical body frame of the Dealey Plaza man matches Lansdale in the Dulles photo.

You can also see how thin framed Lansdale is in the Dulles photo as was the DP/Tramp Walk fellow.

I noticed also a picture of Lansdale's hands while standing relaxed with his arms at his side and facing the camera. His hands in this picture show a certain finger positioning where his thumb is at a specific distance and angle which looks exactly like the left hand of the DP man. Look at Lansdale's hand and finger anatomy and relaxed positioning  ( especially the thumb ) in the internet images and then look at DP man's left hand. To me, they match.

And it is also very clear how far down Lansdale's arms and hands hang down ( quite long arms ) in the Dulles photo relative to Lansdale's entire erect body. This arm length matches the DP man's also.

I would think that experts in human anatomy , body mechanics and comparative photo analysis could study the many full length body images of Lansdale and compare them to the Dealey Plaza/Tramp Walk By man, and make a scientific finding that could answer the question of whether or not that is truly Lansdale in the DP photo with a credible high degree of accuracy. 

Heck, If they could give this subject half as much time and effort as that given to studying the Patterson/Gimlin Willow Creek Bigfoot photo I am sure this intriguing mystery could be resolved one generally accepted way or another.

On 8/1/2010 at 10:43 PM, William Kelly said:

 

I just read an excerpt from Norman Mailer's "Harlot's Ghost" where Mailer as the narrator describes Lansdale as " an odd, tall man..."

11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This is the most I'll do - made this in April 2016. It's an animated GIF that loops and the file size is a little large so let it load. It doesn't prove anything except it shows the guy people think is Lansdale is wearing glasses:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxczd5THIwOEpiY2c/view?usp=sharing

Great photo work Michael.  Thank you.

I once again noticed that the tall tramp and the smaller tramp "Frenchie" are as clean shaven as the police escorting them.

And their hair looks like they had regular cuts. 

And Frenchie's clothing attire is downright fashionable for someone hanging out in dirty boxcars passing around a bottle of booze to share swigs from.

What an odd looking trio those tramps are. They just look so different from each other.

On 8/1/2010 at 10:43 PM, William Kelly said:

Rather than base judgement on the poor quality photo and untenable identification by suspects (Krulak), why not check Lansdale's papers and personal records and find out where he was and what he was doing on 11/22/63.

I remember talking with John Newman, who was once considering writing a bio of Lansdale, and he said he only did some preliminary research, but learned that Lansdale was registered at the same hotel JFK stayed at Ft. Worth, which if true, and can be authenticated, at least puts him in the ball park during the game.

LeMay, while he was temporarily chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff while Taylor was in Vietnam, had assigned Krulak responsibility for the US military support to JMWAVE maritime operations, so he was the boss of Brad Ayers, transfterred from Ranger training to JMWAVE, and for US Navy air support for the CIA mothership Rex and their officially approved attacks against Cuba from the USA.

So Krulak might have known more about the JMWAVE and Dealey Plaza operation than Lansdale.

BK

Here is the post mentioning "Lansdale was registered at the same hotel JFK stayed at Fort Worth."

M. Clark, thanks for pitching in.

However I respectfully disagree with your "stocky head" Lansdale description versus a taller thinner "rectangular shaped" head.

Looking at the Lansdale photo in the original post, Lansdale's head definitely looks to me to be more long and narrow versus wider and "stocky."

And the forehead height in the Tramp Walk photo to me matches the height size of Lansdale's forehead in the Prouty video interview photo.

It is a very high and flat forehead. That is a somewhat unique feature IMO.  I don't see foreheads that high generally.

I also feel that the DP /Tramp Walk man is just about the same height as the tall tramp. Perhaps the tall tramp "may" be 1 inch taller if he raised his head, but their shoulders seem to match up in height fairly well.

How tall was the tall tramp?

How tall was Lansdale exactly?  

Taylor seems clearly shorter than these two men and slightly stockier than the DP  tramp walk man.

JFK was 6 ft.1 inch as I recall.  Allan Dulles was taller than JFK, perhaps by one to one half inch. LBJ was 6 ft. 4 in.

Then there is that clearly obvious "stoop" walking posture of the man in the DP photo. I wonder if Prouty mentioned this?

Did Maxwell have a stooped posture when he walked? 

I did see in another post in this thread the statement that Lansdale was checked into the same hotel in Fort Worth that JFK was.

Don't recognize the poster. I'll go back and if he is still a member of the forum I'll ask where he got that info from.

The glasses? Yes, perhaps these were part of a flimsy disguise? Perhaps they weren't. 

Maxwell and Lansdale did wear a ring on the same finger on the same hand, however my eyes don't see a "gem stone" on the Dealey Plaza tramp walk man's left hand ring versus the ring on Maxwell Taylor's left hand ring finger in the photo Ron Ecker posts which does show a gem stone.

I wonder if a few "true experts" in photo identification analysis were to look at many Lansdale photos and then compare them to the Tramp Walk/ Dealey Plaza photo, what they would conclude?

Michael, could you maybe provide us with the two photos ( the Prouty video frontal one and the DP/Tramp Walk one ) side by side?

I would but just do not know how to do this.

Thanks, JB

In studying the photo that Prouty claims shows Landsdale in Dealey Plaza walking past the three tramps next to the Texas School Book Depository building in the early afternoon of 11,22,1963 I have tried to see how close the man in the photo does resemble Lansdale, even to someone like me - a total laymen in photo subject identification and who didn't know Lansdale like Prouty and Krulak did.

Here are my observations of similarities between the DP/tramp/TXSBD photo man and the full frontal photo of Lansdale in the Prouty video in the original post of this thread.

The head shape ( rectangular and vertically thinner and longer versus wide  ) seems clearly identical. You can also see that the DP man has a very high forehead. The DP man's ears are the exact same size, location and shape and distance from the head as the Lansdale frontal photo.

The hair cut is the same. The hair ( even in black and white) seems the same salt and pepper color appropriate for a man 55 years old.

Since the frontal comparison photo is of Lansdale sitting down, I cannot compare the rest of Lansdale in the DP photo accurately but defer to the much more knowledgable comparisons Prouty makes of these features.

One poster ( Kelley?) states that the DP photo is lacking in detail. I disagree. The bright light of the early afternoon sun in that photo reveals much light and shadow detail.  

I would ask however, did Lansdale wear glasses at the age of 55?  The man in the Dealey Plaza/tramp walk by photo is wearing glasses.

You can see them if you look closely and the shadow of this man's head on the diamond shape plate on the chain link type gate to his right clearly shows glasses on the front part of the head shadow.

Another curious question for me is this:

That area next to the TXSBD  building where this DP photo was taken is quite removed or set back from the heavy traffic front of the building.

In fact, it looks like a set back loading zone to me. What reason would the Lansdale look-a-like person in that business type suit have in walking through that area at that time?  Just some naive curious guy wondering "Hmmm, wonder whats back this away?" ???

 I need to edit in this disclaimer. I am not certain that the possible Lansdale DP photo location is actually part of the Texas School Book Depository building.  If not, my uniformed admission apologies.

And another poster here states that Lansdale was actually registered at the same Fort Worth hotel JFK and Jackie were staying in at the same time during this Texas visit?

Whoa...please... not another one of these incredible ( but meaningless ? ) coincidences.

Jim, I don't know if the alteration of the Zapruder film was a part of the "Blackbird" story line.

You'd think however that a film that had our hottest A level actor Blanchett committed and with Mamet as screenwriter and directing that it would have no trouble securing financing and production green lighting.

Perhaps Mamet himself pulled the plug for personal reasons. From what general readings of Mamet I have come across, he appears to be an unpredictable and rather complicated fellow although tremendously talented.  I can see films with his scripts multiple times and never find them any less interesting.

I do need to read your books. And so many others by these forum members.

But doesn't it seem almost impossible that a group like MJ-12 "wouldn't" have been created to study and manage this area of national security?

Larry, since after researching this subject for that long of time and you don't dismiss it as untrue , I am very curious what your personal thoughts are regards whether JFK knew about it, how much he knew about it and whether he believed it to any degree?

And do you believe there was indeed a group of high level military, academic and political men who were assigned the task of knowing and managing the whole UFO/ET truth and if so,  were they completely divorced from any political bias toward the presidents who were in office during the time they had this duty and knowledge?

I just feel that those in a group like this would be more inclined toward a secret agency and military loyalty stronger than  a presidential one, especially one who had serious animosity and mistrust causing differences with his military command and who had declared war on our most powerful secret agency.

I keep an open mind regards anything Doug Caddy has to say considering his important career one-on-one interactions with men who many on this forum believe were directly involved with the JFK assassination. That reality places Caddy in a very unique and special category versus all the other researchers here IMO.

The subject of UFOs is one that has been purposely marginalized in almost every realm of our media for 60+ years as part of a grand, well financed and organized agenda by the powers to be.

Talk about a huge and long term disinformation campaign.

Keep showing little ET Greys walking side by side with G.W. Bush into the White House on the covers of the tabloids which are then displayed right in the faces of millions while they go through the check out lines in 200.000 grocery and convenience stores across America.

Keep pressuring TV station reporters to chuckle dismissively while telling their viewers of some widely reported UFO sighting incident in their area with an implied threat of job loss if they don't comply.

The Governor of Arizona's ET costume Phoenix Lights press conference in 1997 was the most outrageous example of this purposeful media derisiveness. Fife Symington years later recanted his immediate words and actions after the Phoenix lights story and said the incident was a truly unexplained one. He said he performed that ridiculous joke news conference only to calm the public.

There have been a few reports of people who had some interaction with JFK ( maybe even just a chance meeting ) who believed that JFK was aware of this phenomena and was not a skeptic in regards to its reality.

However, this is a subject most serious JFK event researchers just don't want to even go near for concerns of damage to their credibility and what they claim is too much of a distraction from the real world search for the truth.

But let me share a couple of stories of personal interactions with a few people close to me of their UFO sighting experiences and these were 
"before" 1963.  

I do so only to contemplate whether there could be even a remote possibly that there might have been a  "JFK/UFO/ET " security problem story here with some credibility.

Because I trust these people and their honesty and veracity completely ( then and now )  I cannot then rule out the possibility that the phenomena was and is real and that JFK was well aware of this when he was president. And, if it was real, it would be of the highest possible security level with even a President denied access to all the information known about this subject. And if JFK wasn't trusted by the gate keepers and they even worried about his sharing what he knew with of all the people and nations on Earth ( the Russians? ) then this story of E. Howard Hunt telling Doug Caddy why JFK was killed, deserves to at least be contemplated.

My much older brother was an A.P in the Air Force and stationed at an air base in Morocco around 1961 thru 1962. He was later stationed at Vandenberg Air Base just south of Santa Maria, CA.

One day pulling night guard duty at the Morocco Air Base he and his fellow A.P.s witnessed red circular objects hovering over the base for several minutes. It was so unusual it rattled my brother.  He and his fellow airmen radioed to their superiors about these round ( disk? )  shaped red objects and their hovering above them.  After a long silence ...they were told this quote:

"We have nothing on radar, therefore you see nothing  And don't write home about it."

There are other stories I could relate by trusted family members but that's all I want to share here now on this subject as I don't want to veer too far away from our main forum message.  I just wanted to make the point that if anyone here believes the ET/UFO story to any degree, then they might consider not totally dismissing the JFK/ET original post question out of hand.

Yes, Doug Caddy shared this Hunt statement to him...with us months ago.

bumping