Joe Bauer

Stone's film "Snowden" will be a challenge to review and critique for many reasons.

After the film was shown Oliver Stone was interviewed on stage and was presented with a question from the audience there.

It was a typical one asking Stone what was the one main thing ( or message? ) he hoped his film would convey.

Stone seemed slightly irritated and said his film wasn't ( or wasn't like ) a "fast food restaurant" and that there were not quick and simple things he could say about it like that.

Stone said he just wanted to tell this story, and those that see it can decide what they want to take from it.

I do recommend everyone here to see the film.

It's very different in style and story than Stone's JFK ( JFK was more powerful in actually showing JFK's brutal slaughter ) yet there are connective moral and social issues to JFK and 11,22,1963 which anyone informed about that event ( everyone here ) will so clearly, easily and immediately recognize.

I would hope that our own Jim DiEugenio sees this film and reviews it soon for the forum.

I feel this film deserves insightful and interesting commentary much more well spoken than what I am capable of.

Just viewed the film.

Late here and I was hospitalized last night until 7:am this morning for various reasons so wiped out about now.

Will comment more on the film tomorrow.

But, of course the film is extremely thought provoking in many ominous ways.

Much like Stone's JFK in this way.

But very different in style.

Doug, you may find Owen Gleiberman's review interesting to say the least.

Search:

"Toronto Film Review: Oliver Stone's Snowden."

Will be listening to the C2C Haslam interview at 10:PM Pacific Standard Time.

But, before the interview of Haslam tonight, I am attending a special premier of Oliver Stone's new film "Snowden" at our multiplex.

Attendance of this was only by advance purchase and it is sold out.

After the film there will be live interviews of Stone and Snowden. Live on East Coast time and tape delayed for us here on the West Coast.

Thomas Graves you are right on one point and perhaps right on two.

Reviewing the part of the interview we are discussing, Leavelle doesn't look away from Mack anymore than he does in the rest of the interview in which he hardly looks at Mack with any eye contact at all.

I am not a body language expert but isn't this constant avoiding of eye contact generally known as indicative of something less than relaxed and open?

Yes, Leavelle's " C I " blurb could easily be what you mentioned - the " Criminal Intelligence" department. But I doubt this was a "you see I " one.

But, Leavelle does clearly immediately stop and pause upon saying " the C I ..." in response to Mack's " who gave you the key bit of information " question and then does seem to consciously get away from the "C I " answer and his new response seemed much less specific and even lame...

"Well, we knew he worked in that building ,,,and the snipers nest.." ???

These interview comments by Leavelle may mean nothing.

This all may be just a case of me expressing my personal bias suspicion, dislike and distrust of the person.

TG ... Your input on this point is valid, logical and appreciated.

In one of the many taped interviews of Jim Leavelle I caught a statement by Leavelle that aroused my curiosity.

This is at the 13:11 point in Gary Mack's " Living History" interview of Leavelle.

Mack to Leavelle -

"Within a few hours you and your co-workers were able to acquire enough information to charge, formally charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit. What was the 'key bit of information' that made you know that this ( Oswald ) was the guy? "

Leavelle then responds to this question from Mack by saying ... " the C.I. " ... and then Leavelle stops dead in mid-sentence and then glances down and away from Mack with what looks to me like a "Whoops" expression like he just said something he shouldn't have.

Leavelle then stutters and stammers ( clearly thrown off guard ) and starts to mutter something about ... well, we knew about Oswald working in that building and the snipers nest ... and uh ... another pause.

This new answer from Leavelle was so hesitant and stammered it seemed like he just made it up off-the-cuff to give "any answer" to move away from it all.

Leavelle's stressed interruption of his first answer " the C.I.... " to Mack's question also logically leaves one to assume he was going to add an "A" to that first unfinished response.

And to wonder why Leavelle would instantly stop short of saying this "A" and then divert away from Mack's original question?

And it appears that Mack inadvertently said "Tippit" when he meant " JFK" in his "key bit of information" question to Leavelle and Leavelle knew this thus he answered the question as if Mack meant JFK in the question.

Why would Leavelle be so stop dead concerned in regards to his caught -off-guard first answer to Mack's "key point information" question regard JFK in the first hours after JFK was killed?

To me, Leavelle's first "cut off" response begs a lot of seriously important questions about the full involvement of outside groups feeding the D.P.D. more info than many knew and that was clearly intended to make Oswald the single guilty party here.

I don't view Leavelle as warmly and trusting as many others. To me he comes across as a "good ole boy" racist bully who had a strong sadistic side, indicated by his almost bragging tale of kicking the crap out of reporters who got too close to Oswald in the chaos of the DPD scene.

Mr. McBride - your thoughts about Leavelle's strange cut off "the C.I. ... " answer in this Gary Mack "Living History" interview...if any?

With 62% of the adult American population polled in 2013 saying they still don't believe the 1964 Warren Commission's finding on JFK (

52 YEARS after it was published ) there is absolutely no question and no doubt that the W.C. and those that created it and promoted it...FAILED!

The loss of trust of our own government by the majority of Americans since 1963 until today reflects just how devastating the JFK murder truly was to our democratic principle based society.

Those behind the JFK killing and the massive long term cover-up ( never ending ) are accountable and hopefully someday we will know who they were.

Did Valenti actually say those exact lines to Jackie?

If so, yes, what a douchebag.

I read that when asked what was the toughest thing to deal with in her whole life after JFK was slaughtered Jackie responded..."Just keeping myself together."

Jackie Kennedy suffered a classic case of long term PTSD after 11/22/1963.

Portman has Jackie's voice inflections down you must admit.

Just a quirky thing but the junior civil air patrol photo of a young Oswald with David Ferry ( the one that made Gerald Posner look like a fool because it proved he was wrong in saying Ferry and Oswald were never together ) shows Oswald standing with another odd even uncoordinated posture.

Maybe Oswald just had this unusual physical trait?

I do however believe more than disbelieve that the BYPs were either faked or part of a patsy creation plan of incriminating evidence.

And Marina Oswald's testimony regarding her taking these photos always seemed unsettling to my sense of logic.

Doug, I also listened to this C2C interview of Richard Lertzman.

How this one writer got access to Jacobson's private writings and records amazes me.

You would think that with so many explosive revelations that people of higher authority would go after these and confiscate them before hand.

Kirk Galloway-

I accessed the links you mentioned including Col. Daniel Marvin's posts here.

I read Allen Eaglesham's comments that he eventually felt Marvin equivocated too much about David Vanek and this led him to question and be less than confident in Marvin's story.

I read about William Bruce Pitzer's widow's recollections after Pitzer was found dead. I read Dennis David's recorded accounts.

I read the intro to Marvin's book.

Like countless other forays into JFK related material, I am left in a quandry about what is true and what is false and what to think and believe.

My gut feelings ( which have not always been correct ) tells me Dennis David is telling the truth and probably Marvin too.

But with more published info on this subject being reviewed, you just end up kind of paralyzed with unsureness.

Seems the whole JFK / Lee Harvey Oswald truth journey is like this.

Thanks for the links.

I just watched episode 6 of this series.

I know several esteemed researchers have stated less than complimentary views of Nigel Turner and TMWKK and pointed out many flaws but to me most of it is very compelling to watch.

I don't know how many serious critical essays have been written about the series and specific parts but I wonder what the most JFK credentialed critics have to say about the interview of Lt. Colonel Dan Marvin?

Marvin's statements in this interview (if true ) were mind blowing and incredibly ominous indictments.

Does anyone here in the forum wish to comment on Lt.Colonel Marvin and if they find he and his story less than credible, please explain why they believe this?

Has Lt. Colonel Dan Marvin been researched in any significant way.

His comments about our government using the Mafia for domestic hits ( again if true ) just sickens me. That we would join hands with that monstrous criminal group in any way.

Anyone who has ever read even the most basic Mafia history knows the dynamic of working with organized crime. Once you ask them and they do you a favor...they own you.

It truly is getting in bed with the devil.

Also, I believe TMWKK story of Murchison family maid May Newman. Her tale of the Murchison family celebrating JFK's death for one week " like the champagne and cavier flowed " while she was the only one grieving ( she paused and seemed sad recollecting this ) just rang true to me and showed how truly ruthless and morally corrupted that oil wealth clan was.

I also believe that because several of the possible theories presented by Turner seemed quite illogical, and there was so much enlightening information presented that had never been exposed before...that the entire series ( in total ) is a great addition to the JFK research effort imo.

Turner's LBJ expose seems so much more informative and closer to the truth about him and his true level of corruption than anything we could ever see back here in our own country. It's like we are so afraid to confront and admit the sordid murderous truth about LBJ to the point of simply pretending it doesn't exist.

I also want to thank Doug for this M. Parenti link.

I had never even heard of Parenti before this.

Yes, Mort Sahl like.

Interesting comparison regards Julius Cesar and JFK.

I had to check out more Parenti videos. I found one of him debating Christopher Hitchens over the justifications regarding our invasion of Iraq.

Hitchens was always a well spoken speaker. Dramatically interesting. Reminded me of Richard Burton. He could have done well in theater.

However, time has proven Parenti was so right in that debate and Hitchens so wrong.

The Iraq war we started fractured and destabilized that country to a devastating degree. Millions forced to flee as refugees in great poverty and stress.

It is so common now to hear of serious PTSD afflictions of thousands of our combat troops who were sent to Iraq.

But can you imagine the PTSD affliction levels of those millions of Iraqi's? They will be affected for generations. And it is likely they do not have access to decent treatments for their PTSD.

Back to JFK and Oswald and Parenti's take here.

The Mort Sahl / old New York City incredulity analogy is right on.

You just cannot pull one over on those guys.

Vince, in your years of SS and specifically Clint Hill research efforts, did you ever consider the question as to whether Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy became intimate?

At any time?

Have you ever even heard of this possible relationship between Hill And Jackie K.?

Do you have knowledge that this closeness between these two did or did not take place?

If they did, would this simply be a personal issue you would consider unimportant?

Do you know anything about Clint Hill's marriage situation while he was protecting Jackie Kennedy?

Also, was Clint Hill part of the group of SS agents who were out late drinking in Dallas the night before 11.22,1963.

Did Clint Hill have a drinking problem as far back as 11,22,1963?

I've always had a feeling inside that Clint Hill has always held back his true deeper feelings about JFK and Jackie Kennedy.

Yours, JB

Regards a " JFK Snowden";

My guess is that most of the important documents have been shredded by now.

Is there anything left to expose?

I don't think Albert Thomas knew of actual JFK murder plot plans.

However, it wouldn't surprise me that he may have heard whispered things previous and not been surprised when it happened.

We all know now that Texas politicians ( and almost all levels ) at this time were just about the most corrupt in general than any others.

LBJ was their captain.

Massive military contracts and oil industry interests were the main priorities of these crooked pols.

Thomas got NASA headquartered in Houston. How many billions did that bring into Texas coffers?

And I believe Barr McClellan when he says that Ed Clark ran the state of Texas at that time.

I've said many times, that most American people are extremely oblivious to the actual level of corruption that has been such a part of our government workings on every level ( especially federal ) throughout the 20th century and even today.

In fact, corruption is one of the top three legacies of our society in the last 100 years.

LBJ was so corrupt he was like a Mafia Don.

Nixon was corrupt also on a high level but forces more powerful than he made sure one of his illegal deeds got exposed so that he was the first president to be caught and kicked out of office for this.

But LBJ's "true level" of involvement in corruption has been simply kept out of the main stream media, enough so that this sinister reality and it's actual effect on our history has not been faced.

That infamous Albert Thomas "wink" photo seconds after LBJ'S swearing in on Air Force One is still as disturbing and disgusting and sickening and suspicious to me now as the first time I saw this.

How anyone in that monumentally serious, somber and tragic loss room and within feet of the blood covered Jackie Kennedy ( whose face and body are exhibiting trauma and grief so deep that even today it's hard to see this without feeling this yourself ) could crack that congratulatory happy "atta boy" smile and wink at Lyndon Johnson is way beyond the realm of normal.

That picture says a thousand words ( maybe not quite a thousand ) about LBJ and his crooked cronies...in my opinion.

These summaries by James DiEugenio are incredibly enlightening.

One good thing that has came out of the decades of JFK event investigations are the many, many discoveries of so many other dark secrets and caverns of unwarranted power and influence regards those who have more influence in our government than our own elected representatives.

How much of this democracy threatening reality, that Eisenhower warned us about in his MIC farewell address, would have stayed hidden, were it not for the work of JFK researchers?

I am sure we would have had others not in the JFK research realm inform us of "some" of these dark power secrets ( as we have ) but we have learned so much more due to the JFK research community.

Jim DiEugenio.

I have been reading more and more of your essays.

I am learning more from them than any other single writer's work.

A comment on Walter Cronkite.

His lifetime acceptance of the WC Lone Gunman conclusion and his dismissive even condescending tone regards anyone who didn't always struck me as suspiciously weird.

One would think that after having LBJ himself tell Cronkite one-on-one, face to face that -

" I've never been completely relieved of the fact that there might have been international connections" regards the JFK murder

that this incredible statement by LBJ ( versus the WC lone gunman finding ) would have blown Cronkite and his acceptance of the WC finding away.

How could Cronkite hear this from LBJ and not re-think his blind acceptance of the WC and their finding?

I would love for some highly experienced body language experts to watch that LBJ/ Cronkite interview video and hear what they have to say about LBJ's body language and facial expressions during it.

I have hardly ever seen anyone act so nervous and shifting and closing their eyes and refusing to make direct eye contact and hesitating and halted speech than LBJ in that interview. I am no expert and yet I think I see someone who is so troubled by what they are saying they look and act like they need a sedative.

But, it doesn't make sense that after that interview and personally hearing LBJ say those remarkable doubts about the WC finding that Walter Cronkite could not doubt this himself.

Cronkite actually said in one interview that one cannot accept that there was a conspiracy in the JFK affair because it was just too "Machiavellian."

WHAT ???

Correction to my previous post.

The Florida Supreme Court decision to continue the vote count in 2000 was decided on a 4 to 3 margin.

Douglas, I listened to last night's show also.

That 5% figure is something isn't it?

Yes, her phone line cut off several times ( without her doing anything on her end like accidentally pressing a button or dropping her phone ) which doesn't happen very often on C2C.

When Ms. Harris was asked by George Noory if she thought the Florida vote count in 2000 was rigged and should have gone for Gore, she agreed that it was and that a large number of those 50,000 voters who were disallowed were later found to be eligible.

Together with the U.S. Supreme Court ( by that typical Republican favoring 5 to 4 vote count ) shutting down the Florida vote count ( unprecendented ) despite a "unanimous" Florida state Supreme Court ruling to continue it, Gore didn't have a chance

She mentioned the vote count fraud in Ohio in 2004 also.

8 years of George W. Bush ... and it was all possible by fraud.

What a sad state of our democracy

Yes, there was vote rigging in 1960 in Chicago and West Virginia too.

To me, G.H.W. Bush's nationally reported and recorded claim that he didn't remember ( and still doesn't ? ) where he was when he heard of JFK's murder was an outrageously brazen display of dismissive arrogance.

I always wondered if Bush truly realized how much that statement made tens of millions of American citizens who were alive on 11,22,1963 ( and over the age of say 10? ) instantly feel a twinge of uneasiness about his honesty.

I have personally never met anyone who was a teenager or older in America on 11,22,1963 that didn't remember where they were that day unless perhaps they were under anesthesia or mentally handicapped or very isolated ( camping, hunting, logging , etc ) from any TV, radio or newspaper reports.

This ridiculously illogical statement of Bush's ( "can't remember where I was on 11,22,1963" ) was actually insulting of millions of honest American's own memory intelligence and appropriately one of his most enduring top three negative historical association ones ... right up there with "Read My Lips."

Yet, he and the main stream historical community just seem to laugh it all off.

Ha, let the peons worry about my ridiculous absent minded explanation. Nothing will come of it.

And nothing really has, except that lingering twinge of doubt and suspicion.

But, even that concern is dying off as we of the JFK generation pass on.

I also remember another Bush act of arrogance. When he was debating Clinton and Ross Perot, the camera caught him pulling up his coat sleeve to look at his watch with an expression of bothered "can't these people hurry this up" annoyance.

I guess that is the attitude one acquires after three generations of elitist affluence and power.

Regards this fascinating Bush/Zapata essay;

incredibly revealing of how things really work in this corporate country of ours.

Just to veer this thread back to JFK somewhat, I wonder what he would think of Trump and Hillary?

I also wonder if Trumps mentioning a possible link between Raphael Cruz Sr. and Lee Harvey Oswald (both born in 1939 ) means he personally believes the JFK killing was a conspiracy, or does he just throw anything he can find out there ( with no personal convictions or beliefs about these ) to defeat his competition?

Whether Raphael Cruz Sr, did or did not know or know of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963, one thing is for sure.

He ( Cruz Sr. ) perfectly fit the extreme political background (with typically obfuscated personal activity and movement history) cast of crazy characters bill that occupied New Orleans at that time.

"It was like a circus" Jack Martin said to Jim Garrison when asked what he personally witnessed inside of Guy Bannister's offices.

For the seriousness release fun of it, I have imagined going back in time to New Orleans in the long hot summer of 1963 and observing all of these eccentric characters doing their

crazy things.

Guy Bannister running groups of hot headed army surplus outfitted Cubans and Rambo minded mercenaries around in the Bayous yelling and shooting with hairless David Ferrie leading the charge. Setting up hokey potential commie catching traps with infiltrators on college campuses or downtown or in front Clay Shaw's Trade Mart.

Ferrie and Shaw looking for young dis-functional boys/men to befriend and counsel.

Shloshed, sweaty under-armed Dean Andrews doing the samba in a dumpy ( but cheap ) French Quarter dive with a drink in one hand and a small umbrella in the other. I would have loved to heard first person his practiced "Cool Daddy-O" Beatnik/Bourbon Street hybrid lingo. Really got him going in this with exaggerated ego building praise ... DEANO...YOU'RE THE MAN! And ...ANOTHER ROUND ON ME ...AND BRING MY FRIEND SOME MORE JAMBLAYA!

And I could maybe run into Judy Vary when her and LHO were together?

I would have seen Carlos Bringuier taking swings at LHO in that busy downtown brawl.

Who knows who else I might have run into.

Marcello himself? Maybe Jack Ruby coming into town to talk Jada into performing at his higher class venue in Dallas?

I would truly loved to have sat with Big Jim Garrison for lunch at Katz-N-Jammers.

Same thing with Jack Martin.

Carnival character NO was so eccentric back then it was surreal. Definitely worthy of a Rod Serling script.

And Raphael Cruz Sr. ( who sounds BS loony even today! ) would have fit right in.