Joe Bauer

This rather nice and good guy Putin take, even from Oliver Stone whom I revere, has me very confused.

The documentaries I have viewed on TV and on the internet seem to indicate the opposite.

Who's right here?

There was  a green lighted JFK related film that was supposed to start shooting in 2013.

The title was to be "Black Bird" and it was to star one of our top A-List actors - Kate Blanchette.

This was a David Mamet film and he was to write the script and make his directoral debut.

Blackbird was to have an intriguing premise – that of a story of a Hollywood special effects designer moonlighting for the US Government, with a possible link to the assassination of JFK. Blanchett was to star as the granddaughter of the deceased SFX man, whose death sparks off the unravelling of the ‘Hitchcockian’ thriller.

The film got shelved.  I always wondered if this was due to political pressure.

By the way, it has been reported that David Mamet does not believe the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

Parkland was worse than a box office bomb.

Look at those other films that we call bombs. They made close to their basic production costs, but as Jim Di points out, a film needs to make 2 and 1/2 times it's basic production budget to break even. To cover distribution and marketing costs, etc.

Parkland basic production cost was what ...$10 million?

And it's domestic ticket "gross" was $650,000?  That's less than 10% of it's basic production cost!  10% !!!

That's not a box office bomb.  That's a film industry joke! 

An embarrassment on a level that those involved with it tell celebrity interviewers in advance that they won't do the interview if this subject is brought up.  

Like an indecent exposure in public charge in their past that their publicists keeps paying to keep buried.

And what was Parkland's foreign ticket sales ... $50,000 at most ?

And who the heck is going to pay to see this joke of a film now through rental?

Sometimes movie people of great success and influence will push through a film project no matter how illogically bad the idea is on it's face.

Tom Hanks has that kind of clout. But he has to live with this money losing joke of a film.

I hope it gives him at least a little sleep disturbed reality check now and then on how wrong his sense of JFK history was and is to the thinking and views of the huge majority of people both here and abroad.

To me, the following is a true "mind blowing fact" regards who was possibly or probably behind the JFK killing in Dallas on 11,22,1963.

If that well known, police escort tramp walk through Dealey Plaza photo Fletcher Prouty claims shows Ed Landsdale walking past the tramps next to the Texas School Book Depository building ( and seconded by Marine General Victor Krulak )  is indeed Landsdale,  then that fact would ( IMO ) be one of the most important pieces of evidence ( top 3, 4 or 5 ) strongly suggesting who was truly behind the assassination.

It's amazing to me that this photo just never seemed to get the important scrutiny I always thought it deserved considering it's "mind blowing" implications.

Was it ever given anything close to a thorough analysis by the "best experts" to either confirm it was Landsdale or not?

Not that I have read about.

Just from looking at what photos of Landsdale I could find in internet searches myself, it certainly appears to be Landsdale.  

I also feel based on my life experience that when someone physically interacts with another person ( often up close and face to face ) over a period of years ( as Prouty and Krulak did with Lansdale ) even if it may be just a half dozen times each year, they could know them well enough and recognize them well enough that even a picture taken of this person from behind is enough for them to identify that person with certainty and credibility.

Especially highly intelligent and highly achieving individuals such as Prouty and Krulak.  You don't achieve long career high military rank by being a poorly observing, poorly thinking BS artist.

Over a period of years of interacting with someone, you can't help but notice subtleties and nuances about them. How they dress. How their clothes fit. Their builds and body movements and postures. Their hands ( rings they wear? )  How they carry themselves when walking to and away from you. Their hair type, color and cut. 

That Dealey Plaza photo is a great one in regards to how many details it offers like this to someone who knew well Ed Lansdale.

When enlarged and brought up close it is a sunny broad daylight, brightly lit full length head to foot, back and side view body shot with clear details of everything from clothing ( including shoe type ) to hair cut to height, weight, body type, head shape and size, ear size and type, hand size and type.  It also is of someone walking which reveals how they carry themselves (with perhaps a distinctive stoop? ) the step distance and style,  how they carry and swing their arms and even their hands.  So much more body size, shape and movement identification information than a photo taken of someone sitting and in darker lighting.

It would seem that there must be some still photos or even film of Lansdale walking ( front and backside views ) that could be compared to the Dealey Plaza Tramp walk photo and ID'd quite easily due to the clarity and full body measure of that photo.

I personally am convinced that the Dealey Plaza tramp walk photo does indeed show Lansdale which literally forces me to believe in the premise that he was involved in the JFK event. I can't believe that he would be in Dealey Plaza the afternoon of 11,22,1963 for some other incredibly coincidental and innocuous reason.

Please excuse all the underlining. I don't even know what key I accidentally pressed to make this happen, hence my not correcting it.

I remember when Parkland first came out to theaters.

Although my wife wasn't then and still isn't interested in the JFK event, I convinced her to see this film with me.

The film had just came out that week.

We got there early to make sure we got a good seat. Not too close and not too far back.  By the time the trailers had finished and the movie began, my wife and I ... WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE THEATER!

With the one exception of a very swarthy, disheveled and heavy set fellow ( seriously, between 300 and 400 lbs.) who sat in the back of the theater, and who was snoring so loudly at the twenty minute mark ( and never stopped! ) that my wife and I often missed some of the dialogue during the rest of the film.

The film was so bad as it was, but with only 3 people in the viewing audience and one of those snoring like an old lion throughout, I burst out laughing several times at the ridiculous scene.

I think the ticket sales numbers for that film were some of the "lowest ever on record" for a film with it's production budget amount.

Look, isn't it a given that just about everyone in the JFK research community strongly suspects that McAdams is probably and simply a disinformation agent?

Many times over the past 5 years when I do web searches with the entry of JFK assassination key words, McAdams' site links pop up at the very top of the page!  That tells me that someone behind McAdams is manipulating the hit numbers to push his blogs and writings to the first ( and usually most read ) web listings.

Book sales are also an area of manipulation.  Some well financed groups or individuals buy up tens of thousands of copies themselves of books that promote their self-interested agendas.  I always suspected something like this with Bill O'Reilly's JFK tome.

In the radio debate Burnham asks McAdams why he does what he does regards to spending so much of his time and energy trying to debunk those McAdam's feels are "conspiracy theorists" in regards to the JFK assassination?

McAdams replies: ...  "I don't like nonsense. I don't like falsehoods. I don't like people who don't tell the truth."

Oh Please! 

The point of Burnham's question ( I think ) is...if McAdam's feels the JFK case is closed and he is 100% sure the WC and Gerald Posner got it right...why spend years of his time and energy reacting to and interacting with people he thinks are nonsensical and basically emotionally unbalanced nutcases chasing a myth?  Like someone constantly going to a psyche ward ( McAdam's view of CTers ) to argue with patients about their mindsets and views?

What's "nonsensical" here is McAdam's laughably weak and even irrational stated motivations for his years of debunking time and effort.

So weak in fact that one can't help but view him - at best - as a desperately insecure attention seeking publicity hound ( using the JFK event as a bandwagon ) and/or at worst,  perhaps a serious disinformation agent paid by more powerful others who have a self interest in keeping the JFK truth buried.

Sadly, one does become aware of how much ( and for how long ) people in our own government agencies spy on fellow Americans and even try to entice them into compromising situations so they can control them.

Hoover tried to ( and successfully did ) get the goods on everyone. Celebrities, all our federal elected officials, etc. Just so mind boggling in it's scope.  It's so sick.  Amazing ( and also disturbing ) that we don't look upon this reality as it is.

Studying the JFK assassination and related realms for decades has exposed so much about America that is so dark it's tragic.

Justice.

Would filing another appeal on McAdam's part be expensive relative to the income of a college professor?

Just curious.

Thanks Doug.

It's amazing to me that you have a continuous and open and honest dialogue with someone like Rothstein who was personally part of such a dramatic event involving two of the most intriguing characters ( Sturgis and Lorenz ) in the entire JFK/Castro affair.

And someone who also was actually a participating witness to the Bay Of Pigs and it's death and destruction.

What Rothstein witnessed at the Bay of Pigs obviously traumatized him.

Experiencing something so traumatic ( life and death with bodies ) that it wakes you up on dark lonely nights years later and you never forget the images of this the rest of your life ... is the essence of a serious PTSD event.

In all his years of living with that traumatic event however, I wonder if Rothstein ever pondered the question as to what went wrong with that operation...and who was to blame?

If Rothstein did indeed blame JFK for the BOP's failure, then I just can't completely let go of keeping a small seed of "something" in my mind regards his true feelings toward Frank Sturgis.  Did Rothstein harbor stronger negative feelings towards JFK regards the BOP than he did toward Sturgis for perhaps killing JFK?

Doug, you dealt with E. Howard Hunt on a one-on-one personal basis.  Did he ever indicate anything to you about Sturgis and his possible role in the JFK event?

Getting back to the original thread content;

Who knows better when their life is truly in danger than someone who has been a professional killer themselves?

Marita Lorenz knew fellow killer Frank Sturgis well enough to know what his true intent toward her was and how serious and capable he was in carrying this out when the NYPD became involved with her case and were requested to be there when Sturgis arrived at her apartment.

For Lorenz's daughter to take the most extreme, even panicked measure to protect her mother from Sturgis one can logically surmise that she also knew that Sturgis meant business in regards to preventing her mother from testifying further.

For Rothstein and his partner to be stealthily positioned with guns drawn upon Sturgis's entry into Marita's apartment, they also must have become convinced that Sturgis wasn't coming over for coffee and cookies and warm old memories chit-chat. 

My point being that the Sturgis harm to Marita threat was real.  

With that specific reality being accepted by Rothstein and partner,  I have questions regarding the other reality that these two were confronted with by Marita. That Sturgis was directly involved with killing JFK on 11,22,1963.

When Rothstein blurts out a congratulations to Sturgis regards Sturgis killing JFK , that pretty clearly indicates his being told this by Marita and that he believed this charge enough to throw it in Sturgis's face within minutes of arresting him.

Did Sturgis react to this mind blowing charge?  Did he admit or deny any involvement in all the one-on-one time Rothstein had with him?

Without actually being there to know everything that was said between Rothstein and Sturgis, all one can do is speculate about their conversations.

However, even considering the "good cop/bad cop" interrogation methodology,  I have a problem with Rothstein's  brothers-in-battle, Bay Of Pigs bonding comradery and congratulatory comment and handshake with Sturgis.

If I am dealing with someone I know ahead of time is a STONE COLD KILLER of scores of victims, as well as a nefariously well known prison time serving criminal ( Watergate ) and someone who I also now strongly suspect murdered my President, I would have to fight to keep myself from conversing with him in any manner and tone but angry disgust and disdain.

I couldn't hide my outrage!      

But, I guess if one is a long time career lawman who has seen it all regards deviancy and brutality, one would develop a harder outward shell and control of those emotions.

Still, I feel the good cop congratulatory comment and brothers-in-combat handshake from Rothstein to Sturgis was out-of-line in this particular instance and made me ponder the question of Rothstein's true personal feelings toward JFK and his murder, especially since Rothstein himself was a close up eyewitness to the deaths of many soldiers at the Bay Of Pigs and when it seems most participants in that incident blamed the death and failure there on JFK.

It was clearly admirable what Rothstein did to confront Sturgis and stop him from harming Marita Lorenz. And also the effort to have Sturgis held over for more investigation. No problems or questions there.

Oh, I want to edit in this question. Why would Sturgis even bring a bag or carrying case with a " change of clothes" to his meet up with Marita Lorenz?  I guess one could speculate that he planned to spend the night and these clothes were for the next day?  But, considering his threatening message words to Marita not long before this visit and Marita and her daughter's panic in response to them, one must doubt that Marita would allow him to stay there. 

General Walker more motivated ( to kill JFK? ) than any Mafia leader who ever lived?

More motivated than viciously mega-mean Carlos Marcello who was personally humiliated by RFK when RFK  had him ( Marcello) arrested and deported by flying him to be dumped in Guatemala?

And Jimmy Hoffa?

Thanks Sandy. Whew, that thread you linked me to was long, but totally informative.

Through all these decades of research the Sylvia Odio story seems to just gain more and more weight and credibility than the reverse.

Taken as fully true, there is no doubt now that it is one of the major keystones of a conspiracy.

Where is Sylvia Odio now? Did she pass away?

Gee, what a coincidence. 

Chicago, the home base of Sam Giancana, Tampa, the home base of Santos Trafficante.

Both cities where these two JFK and RFK haters and their organizations had tremendous long term influence on probably every aspect of governance and policing.

Dallas was Carlos Marcello's territory.

Excuse me, not to interrupt the flow of this interesting debate, but what were the official finding results of the Parkland hospital analysis of the paraffin tests on Oswald?

This entire thread and it's accompanying links ( Peter Dale Scott - Slawson interviews  ) is one of the most enlightening pieces I have come across in all my forum readings. Scott's reportage on the world and domestic drug trade highlights my often stated points of how corruption ( largely the marriage of organized crime with our elected and non-elected secret government ) on levels the great majority of American citizens for generations could never have imagined,  has been one of the most powerful guiding and controlling influences in our nation's domestic and foreign policy history for the last 80 years.

Until we collectively allow ourselves to acknowledge and face this reality  ( LBJ/Nixon/Hoover etc. ) in any way close to it's totality ( no matter how upsetting it may be to our comfort zone senses ) we will continue to live in a world of misconception, misguidedness and mistrust.

Mike, I actually only respond to about 10% of the threads I would like to here because I am fully aware of my limited hard research knowledge and I sincerely don't want to interrupt the flow of our truly informed member's contributions and discourse.

I understand and appreciate their decades of hard and sacrificing work in this JFK truth seeking realm and making this forum what it is...far and away the best higher plane JFK assassination research site ever.

I also know that there are hundreds of passionate for the JFK assassination truth seeking people like me who follow this forum  ( and have for years ) and who relish the deeper research revelations and don't post because of what I mentioned earlier. They ( we ) don't want to be included into Gary Murr's recent post categorization of uninformed "morons" who dilute the discussion here.

I do feel guilty of this to a degree and am trying to limit my interjections to certain topics and to better thought out questions versus just making poor research assertions.  I will say that I am improving my own research knowledge ( this forum is a great research educational site and tool on it's own ) and I do access as many links as I can that are listed here and "thoroughly" read the research material they provide ( Jim DiEugenio's and others )  I am reading more JFK books and articles and I am always reading the Warren Commission and HSCA testimonies including the most obscure entries.

However, I'm too old and not energized enough to ever reach the research knowledge level of the main posters here but I'll keep posting occasionally until I feel I am more in the Gary Murr moron category than not.

I suppose that my conclusion regards the question of who killed JFK  ( and MLK and RFK ) is a broader realm one of the corruption of America to a degree we have never come to grips with.  This corruption ( as Eisenhower partially described in his MIC  warning farewell speech ) including the corrupting marriage of organized crime with our highest level government agencies and offices and mix in deep racism hate, inflamed hot headed Cuban exile hate and incredible self interest greed and power acquisition obsession... JFK and RFK  didn't have a chance.   

Thank you Mike.  Same to you.

Mike, I caught that year date error and quickly corrected it in my original post.  Yes, June 1968.

Doug, has Rothstein ever conveyed his personal feelings about JFK  to you?

Did Rothstein harbor any resentment and anger toward JFK regards the Bay Of Pigs?

When Rothstein describes in detail the death he personally witnessed in the waters there, it sounds as if he was deeply and negatively affected by this and one wonders who he blamed for it all.

19 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Joe: I asked Detective Rothstein today the two questions that you posed.

1) Sturgis was not armed when first confronted in Marita's apartment. All he had with him was an attaché case with a change of clothing in it. The labels and anything other identifying tags on the clothing had been removed. So how had he planned  to kill Marita? With whatever means presented themselves in the apartment. This could range from a kitchen knife to a heavy vase. Whatever was available. Strangulation was always a possibility. Sturgis was a stone killer and had killed many persons and knew well how it could be done. Marita, by agreeing to testify to the Select House Committee on Assassinations and by agreeing to submit her files to the Committee, was violating the "Rule of Eighth Avenue" and the penalty for talking about how JFK was assassinated was that she would be killed.

2) No, Rothstein did not ask Sturgis if he had planned to harm Marita. Paul Meskill of The New York Daily News, who had set up the meeting earlier that day between Rothstein and Marita at which she told him of Sturgis's plan, possessed a telephone tape recording in which Sturgis made the threat. Rothstein later listened to the tape himself. Further, Monica, Marita's daughter, had been arrested that afternoon hiding in the bushes outside the apartment house armed with the intent to kill Sturgis when he showed up. Rothstein, a skilled detective, knew how the New York Police Department worked. He knew of the powerful rogue element that was within it. He knew that the only way he could make the arrest of Sturgis without alerting the NYPD first of his plan was to arrest Sturgis in his capacity as an officer and investigator of the New York State Select Commission on Crime. At the time of the Sturgis arrest Rothstein and his partner were assigned to the State Select Commission On Crime. Governor Carey had assigned them over the heads of the NYC Mayor and Police Commissioner. They were totally independent of NYPD but were still NYPD detectives. He knew that when he booked Sturgis at the police station he had to use Sturgis' real name, Frank Fiorini, because few knew of his real name. Otherwise the NYPD brass and the department's rogue element would have been alerted immediately and all hell would have broken out. Remember, when Frank Nelson mysteriously showed up at the station and asked if there was a Frank Sturgis being held here, the desk sergeant denied that there was such a person there but volunteered that a Frank Fiorini was being held. Nelson recognized the name as being Sturgis. This set off the bells and NYPD brass quickly entered the picture. So why did Rothstein take the precautionary measures that he had done in booking Sturgis under his real name? Because there was a powerful rogue element inside NYPD (as there is today) that had sanctioned Sturgis coming to New York City to kill Marita. Her murder was to be a sanctioned one. The truth of JFK's killing had to be suppressed. Rothstein relates what happened subsequently and how NYPD and the judge essentially enabled Sturgis to walk in a cover-up arrangement.

Both Marita and Sturgis were stone killers. Rothstein once asked Marita how many persons she had killed and she replied, "eight were  sanctioned by the government and the rest did not count." He did not asked the number of the rest. Some questions are not asked.

Thank you Doug for taking the time and effort to actually contact Rothstein and personally ask him these specific questions that I had presented.

I am so appreciative of your substantial commitment to this forum and all the other public venues where you clearly are trying to get important truths out for the enlightenment and betterment of our society and humanity's collective interests. The amount of your personal time and efforts in this endeavor seem huge if not "full time" and even more.   

Rogue elements in the NYPD in the 1970's? and still today?  Ominous indeed.

Same with the L.A.P. D.  in June of 1968?

Thanks for the response D. Caddy.

Oh, was Sturgis armed when first confronted in Marita's apartment?

Did Rothstein ask Sturgis if he had planned to harm Marita as she had claimed to Rothstein?

Officer Rothstein   "congratulates Sturgis on the assassination of J.F.K." ???

Was this congratulations from Rothstein to Sturgis stated sarcastically?

One has to ask because it is also stated in this story that as soon as Sturgis finds out Rothstein was there in the combat zone of the Bay Of Pigs as Sturgis was, and Rothstein mentions this fact along with the negative addition of JFK refusing air cover  there, they then shake each other's hands? 

Like war combat veteran brothers?

Please! 

It sounds like Rothstein was of like mind as Sturgis in regards to their shared hatred of JFK.

If true, that's an important personal bias to keep in mind regards that whole story and Rothstein's part in and telling of it.

Was Sturgis armed when Rothstein and his partner put their guns on him when Sturgis first arrived in Marita's apartment?

Perhaps a gun with a silencer?  Or some knock out - heart stopping vial of drug?

If not, how did Sturgis plan to get rid of Marita, if this was the feared purpose of his going there according to Marita?

Sturgis was captured and jailed at the Bay Of Pigs?  If so, is there any hard evidence of how he was treated while in captivity? Was he tortured? You'd think that since Sturgis was such a high profile person in Castro's original revolutionary team and who then turned coats to do Castro in...that he would be subjected to some pretty harsh interrogation and treatment - if not shot!  

How long was Sturgis held and how in the heck did he ever get released?

He sure never looked like he suffered any long term injuries ... like the famously revered ex-pat Cuban who lost his eyesight.

Tunheim says he saw no Marita Lorenz files?  There goes the credibility of his investigation.

And that 22 page confession letter from Sturgis to the Catholic Cardinal - never found either?

And when it is speculated that E.Howard Hunt held back or changed things in his end of life confession ( his part in it for instance )  regards the "Big Event" in Dallas on 11,22,1963 to perhaps protect still living fellow compatriots...?

I believe that if he did so it wasn't to protect these other characters ... but to protect his surviving family.

Can you imagine being one of E. Howard Hunt's children after it was discovered that their father had a direct connection to J.F.K.'s murder in Dallas on 11,22,1963?  The stigma of that would haunt and damage them the rest of their lives.

Oswald's two daughter's went through some of this in their early years...but with time and the huge majority held believe that Oswald didn't act alone or not at all...there seems to be a lot of sympathy for them instead.

When Colonel Dan Marvin gave his interview in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" he broke down when talking about his legacy of killing and how he hoped ( and prayed ) that this reality of his life didn't harm his grandchildren and hopefully they would grow up seeing him more as a loving Grandpa versus a stone killer.

Hunt couldn't tell the whole truth about his involvement in "The Big Event" out of his similar Dan Marvin type concern for his surviving family's stigma effected welfare and peace of mind ...IMO

The Sturgis character has to be real.  Gung-Ho dangerous crazy real.

Like G. Gordon Liddy or Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Hemming looked like Clint Walker when he was younger IMO.