Joe Bauer

Veciana was cut a check for what...$250,000? Which in today's dollars would be well over $1,000,000?

Nobody pays that large a sum to someone who they feel has done them a great deal of harm.

That was such a huge amount at the time.  

How does this fact play in the larger picture of Veciana's credibility or his truthfulness in all that he has said and written since then?

I don't know...but handing someone in Veciana's covert field that kind of dough ( without it being hidden ) means something important in my mind.

I just read all the postings under the "David Talbot: Walter Sheridan And Jim Garrison" thread Ron B provided at the end of his post.

Whew!

Reading those, I feel spent as if I just witnessed an epic, 12 round, heavy blows, top contender heavyweight boxing match!

Going back to many of these classic forum debate threads like that one just reminds me why this JFK website has always been in another league compared to so many others.

I am going to add a few comments regards my views on some of the main debate points in that thread even though I know they do not hold one ounce of the 100 lbs research weight of the esteemed writer's postings in the original thread.

Then why even post these?  

Sorry, but the original thread was so deeply effecting in it's knock down-drag out, gut wrenching battle over RFK and Jim Garrison and W. Sheridan, I am worked up myself enough to shout out my own feelings regards some of the thread points no matter how weakly informed they may be. It's a visceral thing.

The flaws of Jim Garrison. Who do we compare Jim Garrison to in even considering such things about him relative to how this validates or invalidates his work in the JFK assassination investigation?

LBJ? Richard Nixon? Allan Dulles? J.Edgar Hoover? Ed Lansdale?

Compared to the flaws of those men and those who worked for them or served them blindly, Garrison is an Eagle Scout and they are twisted with greed and arrogance, sadistic, unethical dangerous power mongers.

Garrison's and his work was under sabotaging seige from day one by powers so much wealthier and powerful and connected, it truly was like the Gilligan's Island "S.S. Minnow" up against the "Bismark."

When someone takes on a battle like that for years I don't know if any of us can truly understand the toll it would take on your entire life.  Garrison could have just cracked at some point ( especially under pressure from his wife to do so ) and said..."The Hell With It." I think 99.999% of average people would have.

And I don't think he willingly sacrificed as much as he did ( don't tell me it didn't hurt him to see the pressure on his marriage ) just because he loved the national celebrity limelight or his automatic publisher accepted book writing status.

There is a press video on You Tube where a reporter asked Garrison "if he had to do it all over again...would he? Garrison hesitates for several seconds and stares away from the reporters as if in deep, self questioning thought and then responds..."yes, but... and paraphrasing here...under different circumstances or approaches?  Something that to me revealed an exhausted weariness as one would expect from daily battles with forces that out-manned him 1,000 to one.

RFK Flaws?  Of course he had flaws. But again, who are we comparing him to in this regards? That same devious group...that won out over both the Kennedy's and Jim Garrison too?

I think he was thrust into circumstances that were frankly much more sinister and cut throat that he even imagined at his young age regards who he would be battling himself his whole adult life in Government.  He leaned on his wiser and more street smart brother to guide him and when JFK was taken out...I think he went into a self-protection withdrawal of sorts. Probably confused as to what he should do and what direction to take...and remember he had a large family to protect and nurture.

Sheridan?  RFK's pitbull? I agree with Joan Mellon regards Sheridan. How many times have we seen loyalist to high status icons take that loyalty too far? To the point of violating the very principles their idols stood for?

Nixon had his loyalists do things that landed them all in prison! Hoover had his. LBJ had his.

Loyalty is a mind-set that can lead someone to self-destruction if not tempered with philosophical and rational common sense restraint.

Like a pitbull becoming blind with fight blood chemistry in the brain and they can't restrain themselves once they feel enraged enough...that analogy is a valid one.

I know for a fact that here on the Central California Coast in early November the sun is not up at that hour. My wife gets up at 6:am every morning to get ready to go to work and has done so for years and I just asked her if she remembers the sun coming up that early in that month. She of course said "no, it would be dark. Maybe 7:am."

And we are at a lower latitude than New Hampshire so their sunrise would be even later, if by minutes.

The exact time of death and maybe even ear witnesses testimony ( if any ) as to the exact time of their hearing this rifle shot, are so important in this case.

Was Sullivan close enough to his own home when shot that perhaps his wife heard the shot or was maybe awakened by it?

What time exactly did the police chief say the young shooter barged into his bedroom? Was it still dark enough that the chief had some difficulty at first recognizing the boy?

Knowing exactly when the Chief was awakened by the boy, one can then go over the boy's story and accounting of all that he did after he shot Sullivan to get some idea of how long each of his immediate reactions took in minutes and even when he gave up trying to drag Sullivan, how many minutes would it have taken to then go to his truck and drive to the Chief's house?

Just read Chief Young's official accounting statement ( on the McAdam's site no less! ) and he states that at approximately 6:30 am he was awakened by the young shooter in his home bedroom. The state police received his call reporting the shooting at 6:35 am.

The time frame of everything here in minutes is very important.

Going into the boy shooter's account of the shooting one can logically come up with at least a general time frame of what he says he did and saw.

How many minutes went by from the time the boy says he shot at Sullivan, then started walking toward Sullivan, hesitating at approximately 50 feet when he says he was questioning what he shot, then the next fifty feet and then how long did he take in evaluating the shocking scene, looking at Sullivan on the ground and then trying to resuscitate Sullivan using CPR and then picking his body up and struggling while dragging him 15 feet and then giving up and leaving him at that spot?

Then he had to run to his truck. How far away was his truck from Sullivan?  That's very important. Then the boy had to drive to Chief Young's house and exit the truck and barge into the home and then Sullivan's bedroom.

Chief Young stated that he was awakened by the boy in his bedroom at approximately 6:30 am. If the boy could do all that he stated before he barged into Young's bedroom in 1/2 hour that would seem amazing to my life experience common sense.This is why the exact time of the shooting is so important.

Was the shooting done when there was enough light to rationally do so in the realm of deer hunting?  How light was it at 6:am in New Hampshire that time of year? And if the shooting took place even earlier than 6:am, this suggest the boy's story is even less logical than it already seems.

And this wandering friend of Sullivan's who was out by himself in the woods with his hunting rifle at that early hour and who couldn't be clear about where he was when the shooting took place? And did he report even hearing the shot?

Were all these fellow's homes right next to each other? Within perhaps only hundreds of yards apart?  That might explain some time questions, but it would also raise others about a loud shot that close not being heard by the parties involved?

Steve, agreed.

On 7/4/2017 at 6:10 PM, James DiEugenio said:

George,

Anyone can say anything they want on these forums. Since moderation is so loose. I mean look at the subject of Larry Hancock's book.

 

Jim, is the fact that Hancock's new book is about UFOs and not the JFK assassination your point in the above post?

I read just about everything you post and I click onto many accompanying links to your other research and commentary works.

I listened to the entire interview with David Giglio.

When I want to listen to taped presentations and interviews that are quite long ( over one hour ) I put the volume on high and do simple chores at the same time. I do this when I feel the contents of these presentations and interviews are worth that effort.

In this Giglio interview you mentioned the Jack Ruby shooting of Oswald in the Dallas Police Department building basement on live national TV as an image so powerful and suspicion arousing ( contrary to the national media message of a single lone nut action ) to millions of average American citizens that it became the "fly in the ointment" regards the national media's complete and constant embracing and promoting of the WC Lone Nut finding.

How true and clear that view is.

I watched Ruby shoot Oswald on live TV. I was 12 years old at that time. That image will never leave me.

Even at that young age I was intelligent and aware and informed enough ( I was reading and watching every news item I could find on the assassination until I konked out late at night ) as at least half the adult population I am guessing. Like probably the great majority of Americans I was incredibly stunned and shocked about the JFK / Dealey Plaza event ( that one could only read about ) but I was far from instantly suspecting a conspiracy.

I was naively accepting the thousand times reported and repeated national media message that this crazy commie lone nut looking for attention was simply the perp and there wasn't much else to consider...until I saw Jack Ruby whack Oswald in the DPD building basement the morning of 11,24,1963.

From that second on, every fiber of my body and mind was charged with the deepest suspicion and doubt about the officially reported JFK killing narrative before then.

The national TV broadcast image of Ruby whacking Oswald witnessed in live time by perhaps tens of millions of Americans is the single most powerful psychological dynamic that back then and still today has rendered the MSM lone nut propaganda narrative as an emasculated and disbelieved one and triggered 50+ years of the greatest mistrust our society has ever expressed collectively toward their federal government.

The JFK assassination ( accompanied by Ruby's whacking of Oswald ) and RFK's and MLK's soon after are still the main keystones in this now institutionalized mind set. As they should be.

Jim, your sharing in this Giglio interview regards our 4th estate and it's neglect and abuse of it's original tenets in regards to the JFK assassination and the damage this has caused is clearly and coherently laid out.

I just wish that through it all and still today more Americans would care more about such matters that effect them in ways more important than they've ever realized.

Ron, I had never read up on the details of Bill Sullivan's murder before reading the links you provide.

What a ridiculously unprofessional investigation.

Bill Sullivan is running around outside "by himself" between 6:am and 6:30 am. ?

So is the third party of his planned group hunt but no one knows how close or far away he was from Sullivan during the time he was shot?

 A rifle shot is loud, even if this third party were a mile away he would have clearly heard this. Especially at that quiet early morning time.

Third party police Chief Young is asleep in bed at this time ?

How much sunlight is there in New Hampshire at that early morning time and at that time of year?

Do hunters shoot at deer in the dark?

Did they use night vision googles back then?

Since the supposed young hunter who fired at Sullivan couldn't carry him more than 15 yards, couldn't he instead have driven his truck to Sullivan's body?

Since the young shooter claimed to have tried to perform CPR on Sullivan and the wound was in the neck which probably meant a decent amount of blood there or even around or even in Sullivan's mouth, did the young shooter have much blood around his face or clothing next to his face which one would expect in that specific wound area / CPR performing circumstance?

As it is today, generally speaking, we expect our government to withhold most if not all of the truth when we ask them what is truly going on with regards to major foreign and even domestic military and political decisions and actions that effect us all in powerful ways.

What a sad ( and scary ) real truth withholding reality that is.

And it's been this way since WWII.

Good luck with the new book LH.

Thank you.

If he did share this Wallace connection item info with Walt I sure hope Walt would share what it was to us.

Did your friend tell you where specifically he saw Bush in Dealey Plaza that day? Would his sighting match up to that photo that has often been posted that shows someone who looks very much like Bush in front of the TXSBD building?

57 minutes ago, Dawn Meredith said:

I learned something new yesterday while talking with another of J's good friends. He shared with her that he had picked something up that day in the Plaza after the assassination which connected Mac Wallace to the assassination. He never told her what it was stating that it was too dangerous for her to know. The other thing that this friend reminded me of yesterday was that J said he saw his distant cousin there too: George H. W. Bush.  

 

Dawn, do you think that whatever your friend picked up in Dealey Plaza that day 11,22,1963 regards Mac Wallace will ever be revealed, perhaps stored in his papers?

You would think that he might have had a plan to reveal something so important upon his death.

And his claim of seeing H.W. Bush there that day also begs questions as to the details of such. Why do you think your friend never shared his Bush sighting with you?

How much credibility has been given to this statement by Gary Underhill ... and by whom?  

If true, Underhill expresses his frightened almost disbelieve that the forces he believed were behind the assassination actually carried this assignment out and even got away with it.

Since that time of course, MLK and RFK were also taken out. Seems the forces who got JFK felt emboldened enough with that success to continue their murderous policy of taking out the top society influencing icons of that era, no matter how high their level of national popularity and political standing.

One could imagine Gary Underhill's feelings if he had lived to see MLK and then RFK taken out.

Whether there was a Corsican Mafia hit team or an American one, remember Colonel Dan Marvin ( who posted right here on this forum ) stating in his TMWKK interview, that our secret agencies would contract out to the Mafia to do hits in this country where they couldn't do these themselves per the dictates of their original charter.

And when one listens to Bill Harvey's wife reflecting in a late year's retirement home interview on her and her husband's personal hatred feelings regards JFK and Jackie Kennedy during his presidency "they were real scum" and that they felt Mafiosi Johnny Roselli was a real patriot ( versus JFK  and RFK being the opposite ) and Roselli being someone who Bill Harvey would prefer riding shotgun with, I think any reasonably intelligent person can see Dan Marvin's take on the JFK hit seems more believable the more we know of how married these dangerous wings of our secret agencies were with the murderous and corrupt Mafia.

12 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Joe You're draft story reminds me of my own in a way. I think I'm a little older. My draft number was 45, and like you I went to Oakland for my exam, probably in 1970. I passed the physical, but before I went for my psyche exam I put a 'get out of Vietnam' sticker, which someone there was handing out, on my papers. I did have a letter from a Quaker org that supplied psyche exams for draftees. I ended up getting a psychological deferment. My examining psychologist told me he agree with my anti war sentiment!!!!

Paul, we didn't have to go. That was good.  However, I will always remember seeing those huge lines at the final processing counters where hundreds of young fellows who weren't so lucky were having their papers stamped "1-A" and told they could sign up now or take 30 days to get their personal affairs in order. Remember, these young men were being drafted. They weren't joining out of choice.

A few comments on the Vietnam war:

Here we are 50 years later and the Vietnamese treat our tourists better and with more friendliness than many other SE ASIAN countries.

They lost 2 to 4 million in that conflict. And their post traumatic stress from all that must have been 10X times worse than ours.

Did we really need to lose and damage all that life and spend 100's of billions ( trillions in today's money ) on the entire war effort ( this includes the massive cost of beefing up our troop count, hardware production and fuel costs there and here at home ) just to reach the peaceful relationship we have now? Can anyone look at this current reality fact and say anything but no?

Can't we gain more support from poorer countries by investing our monies there to "improve their economies" versus dropping more bombs on them than we did during all of WWII? The latter option sure seems like a massive and insanely stupid money wasting investment toward that goal.

Had 6 brothers all serve during that time. All enlisted. 4 Navy ( one retired as a chief ) 2 Air Force. 

All 6 signed up out of financial and career need. We were single mom welfare kids ( father's years of binge drinking finally took him out of the picture ) and there was no meaningful or decent paying work opportunities in this smaller town area and no one could afford college.

2 used their benefits after serving to attend school. One earned his doctorate. 

I was the 7th and last son. Had 1969 draft number 51. The day after I turned 18 I got my letter saying " greetings..."

Was more conscious of political and government discourse and less trusting of our leaders than older brothers. Who wouldn't be after JFK, MLK and then RFK were taken out.

And like so many my age, I sure didn't want to go to Vietnam for many reasons. Least of which was the reading of our high school bulletin every morning where once every 2 to 3 months we'd hear about another of our classmates being reported killed there.

And it was curiously ominous to me that it seemed like all the kids from our school that were being killed in Vietnam or had joined to serve or been drafted were from low income families. Right up my poor kid alley!

Kids from better off families somehow all got out of serving at that time. High draft numbers or for reason's I could never figure ... just never went or had to join the military.

I didn't evade or burn my card or run off. I went to the draft induction center in Oakland like I was told with 200 other poor looking kids out of Salinas, CA at 5 in the morning on what seemed like 5 or 6 ugly old buses. Went through the whole humiliating induction center process ( they yell at you like you just arrived at boot camp already ) in my underwear holding a basket with my clothes. We would be told to march in order without questions and follow colored lines on the floor. We would arrive at "stations" where they would test or ask you about your eyes or feet or sexual orientation, etc.  At each one of these stations one or more fellows would be pulled out of line.

When I made it to the "feet" station I raised my hand when it was shouted " ANYBODY HERE GOT ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEIR FEET?"

I had bone deformities in both feet! And I had twisted and turned and sprained my ankles so many times as a boy through teen years, my tendons were torn and stretched and I had many bone chips that had calcified into joint movement obstructions.

That was my ticket out.  Went back home on a Greyhound bus the next day oblivious to the fact that I had split the back of my pants the day before. Next few years were rough trying to get on my feet. But I felt lucky not having to go to Vietnam during that time.

Garrison's analogies couldn't all be great. Most were very good and even creatively interesting, thought provoking and even hilarious.

The one about swallowing a "greased cannonball" in his "On The Trail Of The Assassin's" still makes me laugh heartily.

JFK himself had that same gift of combined intelligent, interesting and well placed witty anecdotal humor communication skills and talent.  

12 minutes ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

No way is Garrison a better communicator than our current chief. Trump slays Twitter.

HA HA HA HA HA ... 

Garrison really frightened the powers to be with his intelligence, his commanding and professional presence and his high level communication skills both spoken and literary.

Garrison was more gifted in these ways than most of our presidents.

View and listen to some of the many pubic speaking videos of Dallas DA Henry Wade and then compare them to those of Jim Garrison. The disparity is cringing.

Same with their writing skills.

I try to view the televised Jim Garrison NBC response at least as often as whenever it comes to mind or is presented or comes up in a posted link.

It is such an important presentation not just about the subordination of the truth regards the assassination of JFK at the highest levels of our government and major press entities, but also a highest concern wake-up-call warning to every American citizen that this "conflict between truth and power"  is a rock hard reality that does and will always exist in our country and our government and that average citizens need to understand, be and stay aware of and face up to when it occurs.

It's also importantly interesting to note how much this Jim Garrison presentation echos point by major point President Eisenhower's 1960 MIC warning farewell address speech that was delivered with just as much passion and high concern.

Mr. Caddy, I just viewed the film "ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN" again for the 6th time or so.

Each viewing of this film, I'm always disturbingly reminded of not just the true depth of corruption ( the list of perps went on and on ) at the absolute highest levels of our government but how blatantly and long term this massive corruption was carried on and how the entire citizenry of this country was so easily kept ignorant about it all until it was finally exposed by first journalistic and then congressional investigation.

And also even after this unprecedented criminal constitution violating enterprise was being revealed, that (as Jason Robard's Ben Bradlee character says in the film ) ...  "half the country still doesn't give a XXXX about it all."

I totally agree with Bradlee's sad film line assessment of widespread American apathy ( even if Bradlee never actually said this in real life) and feel this great flaw in our societal mind-set is one of the main reasons we and our constitutional democracy have been so abused by so many and for so long. This 50% apathy never really left us in my opinion since Watergate as well as manipulation to keep so many ignorant of what is really going on behind the still existent Wizard Of Oz government curtains. 

But Doug Caddy, since you were actually right there next to and even involved with the Watergate event and many of it's key historical figures and so generously willing to reveal what you knew and know, I am inspired to ask your take on a few script aspects of "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" if I may.

Hal Holbrook's "Deep Throat-Mark Felt's" character's most pop culture remembered line to Robert Redford's "Bob Woodward" in his dark shadow-under ground garage scenes is "Follow The Money." Apparently this line was not actually spoken by Felt and was created by screenwriter William Goldman.

That line does however, fit what actually happened in Bernstein's and Woodward's investigative efforts to a large degree, but there was another Deep Throat to Bob Woodward line that was more ominous and important in my opinion. And I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding this line and whether this was also from Goldman's creative license or an actual line that Woodward may have quoted in his Watergate memoirs?

This Felt line was the one telling Woodward that the Watergate "cover-up" by Nixon and his cabal was more about covering up much more serious criminal and subversive activity that had occurred "nationwide" for many years before Watergate and that involved all the most powerful lettered agencies. 

This one line in the film has always given me greater concern in it's implication than just the Watergate break-in and the many other  "dirty tricks" that the Republican party was perpetrating to sabotage the most feared Democratic candidates.

I remember listening to one of the Nixon tapes ( or reading a transcript of this ) where John Mitchell tells Chuck Colson that this Watergate thing was just the "tip of the iceberg." My God, one can imagine what that implies?

D C, do you know if ( or feel that ) the Felt line to Woodward was an actual quote and if so, your thoughts about what this more serious subterfuge activity was, including perhaps JFK cover-ups and maybe even killings?

Could you remind me again as to what character in the film is you by another name?

What are your feelings regards the over-all script of ATPM as done by William Goldman?

Your feelings regards how Bernstein and Woodward  ( and Ben Bradlee ) are portrayed in the film versus what you may know or feel about them in real life?

There is so little in the film ( nothing really ) about your personal insider's story regards the DC police and their own corruption and efforts to entrap and physically harm you. I would imagine that you feel that the film misses so much more serious and heavy intrigue and corruption that you personally experienced than the average person could imagine?

Thanks for any thoughts you may share on the film and my questions.

RFK had to be taken out...sooner than before building up a stream locomotive campaign movement that could not be stopped.

RFK would have defeated Nixon.

Being defeated by two Kennedy's for the highest office in the land in one lifetime within 8 short years probably would have sent Nixon into his delusional breakdown sooner than 1974.

As always incredibly informative.

The MSM sphere graphic is a nice addition tool in better understanding how newsworthy events are handled, processed, filtered and their truths controlled.

Until we quit living in and accepting a false reality history world and acknowledge and face the true level of LBJ's murder ordering corruption ( as well as so many other false histories such as those Oliver Stone mentions in his documentary "The Untold History Of The United States" ) we will continue to stumble and meander half-blind in the darkness such false reality history lies create.

Just going on my gut feeling here, but in studying the Carousel Club Oswald and even the smiling, thicker necked young Marine Oswald, I do not see, feel or read them as serious and reserved book readers who liked Russian opera music and books by Russian philosophers.

Not the Oswald George DeMohrenschildts or even Marina Oswald described at all.

Now the pictures of Oswald in DPD custody do look like George De M's Oswald.

Could we have a Manchurian candidate doppleganger here?

And if so, on whose side?

The overruling of the Mac Wallace jury and their finding of murder with malice by presiding judge Charles O. Betts is one of the most outrageous incidents and indicators of LBJ's incredible corruption and power ever.

How anyone can read the detailed and documented historical record of this Doug Kinser/Mac Wallace murder story and it's trial outcome and LBJ'S influence and control of it ( let alone the murders of Henry Marshall and other person's who threatened LBJ's standing, power and wealth ) and not see this ... is such an extreme case of choosing to live in a false reality history world that you can only conclude that people of this mind set are either very immaturely irresponsible and/or apathetic or perhaps even mentally ill...or genetically incapable of knowing the difference.

Whether one likes or respects Robert Morrow and his topic message regards LBJ's corruption on a "Mafia Godfather" multiple murder ordering level versus our main stream historical record one of LBJ as much less corrupt - there is just way too much evidence and testimony available to keep clinging to that main stream false reality.

With help from the likes of main stream revered Robert Caro and the monied groups who paid him and promoted his books and writings  ( and others like him ) the full and honest historical truth of LBJ's corruption is still being ignored, buried, downplayed and altered.

It's truly sad that the great majority of our society still seems psychologically unable  ( fear of scary truths?)  to accept realities such as LBJ's true and full measure of corruption and to at least question the main stream media and our "official stamp of approval" history books and their selectively edited and downplayed version of LBJ's true level of corruption despite all the documented records, evidence and testimony that is so clearly contrary to their watered down takes.

The conflicting testimonies are incredibly intriguing and even more so because of their numbers.

I hardly ever gave the "two Oswalds" story much thought and consideration but when one reads all the testimonies it is much harder to dismiss.

Regards the Carousel Club photo of a possible 2nd Oswald, this fellow looks a bit heftier ( stronger ? ) than the Oswald we all saw on national TV starting 11,22,1963. And his right ear seems to stick out farther and differently than the arrested Oswald.

And wasn't Oswald known as a total teetotaler? The Carousel Club Oswald looks like he's knocked back a few beers and has booze stupid eyes as he ogles the stripper on the stage.

Prouty's sure that Lansdale was the man behind the event.

And Prouty's connection to Mae Brussels is interesting.