Joe Bauer

Speaking of eye witnesses and the accuracy of their testimonies in Dealey Plaza 11,22,1963; I have never been in Texas let alone Dealey Plaza, but I have read many times that the whole area where everything took place is not as open and far apart as one would imagine. Such as the distance between an alleged shooter from the sixth floor window and JFK's limo during all the shots. I have always wondered about the Plaza crowd people who happened to look up at the Texas School Book depository before and right before JFK's limo drove under and saw a person with a gun or persons with guns in the upper windows. How right or wrong were they? Arnold Roland and Carolyn Walther seemed pretty clear on what they claim they saw, although Walther insisted the men with rifles she saw were on a floor lower than the sixth one. I believe both these witnesses saw someone with a gun in those upper windows. The fact that they saw this before JFK rove under the TXSBD is of course disturbing in that at least two untrained citizens with no training, no binoculars and no reason to scan those upper windows saw this...and all that security for JFK didn't even look? We have a fw buildings where I live that are 6 floors or more in height. They are downtown and overlook a few main streets. I have stood as close to these buildings 6th floor windows as the distance Rowland and Walther supposedly were from the 6th floor School Book Depository windows and let me tell you, if there was a gun sticking out even a foot from the windows I looked at, you could easily see this and any man or men behind the gun if they are that close to the window. How much weight should we give these two witnesses eye witness testimony? The two people seem of very good character and I am sure neither of them had any agenda other than wanting the authorities to know what they saw. They for sure never made any money from their testimonies. For those reasons and the one factual aspect of their testimonies regarding their closeness to the 6th floor windows, I give them much credence.

G. NALL; Your posting took me back to so many aspects of eye witness testimony from the very beginning in Dealey Plaza and how they varied. Jean Hill seemed most traumatized of all. Describing a small dog in the lap of Jackie Kennedy? Brehm, the Newmans, Altgens, etc. All with slight to noticeable differences. Julia Ann Mercer was not in a highly traumatic situation when she saw what she saw. I would give her testimony more weight because of that fact. Your listing of the different types evidence is appreciated because it helps one to better understand their values and purposes in seeking the truth in the most discriminating way possible.

Doug Caddy, What happened on COAST TO COAST last night regards their interview of John Barbour? I was listening to the interview when there was a cut off and then host George Noory calmly says he was ending the interview due to Barbour's overuse of inappropriate language. The rest of the show consisted of "open line" call-ins only. Since Noory cut out the offensive words of Barbour before they aired, I am sure many listeners were probably startled like I was at the shocking end of Barbour's interview. In all the years of listening to C2C, I have only seen this happen once before. That interview cut off happened because the interviewed guest was coming off as truly disturbed. Not sure about Barbour though. He did seem unable to stop sharing story after story of his life that didn't relate to the Oswald one and seemed bent on trying to coloring these in an overly comedic light. Sad to see precious nationally heard talk time wasted like that.

Bolden's comments and recollections about all the subjects Joseph McBride lists have always intrigued me. And I have always believed Bolden was telling the truth. When interviewed by Mark Lane, Bolden related some very heavy stuff regarding several agents in the White House SS Detail and their incredibly blatant and strong racism as expressed by statements such as these: Bolden's WH boss to Bolden: ( not exact quotes but very close ) Bolden, you were born a n++++r , you're still a n++++r now and you always will be a n++++r. And don't forget it. And Bolden says he overheard more than one agent saying ( again, not quotes but we all know close to what Bolden said ) that they wouldn't react quickly if someone were to initiate harmful actions toward JFK - inferring they hated JFK for his sympathetic views on blacks and their civil rights that much. I was born in 1951. Let me tell you. Most adult males in those times ( 50's and 60's and white like me ) were much more black hating racist and open about it than someone today can even imagine. I witnessed and heard black hating racist comments just like the one's that Bolden relates about his fellow SS WH Detail agents all the time. In the 50's and early 60's and back into the forties America was so much more a "white" society with almost all positions of authority, security and opportunity occupied by whites. And to see blacks given opportunities like Bolden was given was incredibly threatening to people of this mentality and their sense of white favoring control, values and destiny. I would "expect" at least some members of the WH SS Detail to be like this and to talk as Bolden describes. I have viewed JFK's and Nixon's presidential election debates from 1960 and in at least one of these , I couldn't believe how clear and committed JFK was in the area of improving the rights and opportunities of blacks in this country. JFK's comments on this issue even back then in those 57 year old nationally televised debates are no less sympathetic and encouraging and advocating for the advancement of civil rights than those said by liberal politicians today including Obama and Hillary! I've always said that I think the hatred of JFK, just for his sympathetic views on race and civil rights alone was so deep and widespread in this country that it equated into actual "wishing the man harm " rage toward him. My own stepfather used to call JFK a n++++r loving bastard every time he saw him on the news. And he was typical of many working class fellows back in those days much more than we want to admit today. The day JFK was slaughtered, this racist step-father only held back a little in gloating was simply because he didn't quite believe that someone would actually take JFK out like that. I apologize for my personal non-research comments on this top research board but sometimes I feel it doesn't hurt to include these in the JFK assassination discussion especially from those of us that were alive in that time and experienced the event first hand as individual citizens. And my own experience in this historical drama has always left me with a view that racism was a much greater part of the Kennedy hate rage and even efforts to kill him.

Just did a search for Tex-Italia Films / Marina Oswald. Was the $132,000 actually paid to her? And if so, did she keep this huge (at that time ) amount of money? Was this before or after her WC testimony? First link listed in my search was an essay by a George Bailey titled "Oops." Have read about these "Oops" points many times before but it's still unsettling to see them again even now.

Posted Today, 09:02 PM So let me ask you, Robert, based on your hunting experience or other knowledge of ballistics. Lipsey believes that one bullet entered the back of the head, blew out the back of the head, and in addition blew out the right side of the head including the right side of the face. Is that even conceivable? I too was always curious about how much damage the supposed "3rd" shot bullet actually did to JFK's head. It seemed to not just obliterate a third or more of his skull into many separate pieces but also "explode" it's inside brain matter into an outward trajectory spray so powerful it covered the back of the presidential limo and even went so high and far in back, it went into the faces and clothes of the following DPD motorcycle officer's ( at least one ) faces. I have never hunted in my life and have never even owned a gun in 65 years, so I am really uneducated in the area of guns, ballistics and bullet damage to bodies and heads. But have deer hunters with similar caliber rifles and bullets as the Carcano hit deer in their heads ( from 265 feet away ) and seen that much damage? Perhaps the answer is a simple yes. I don't have a clue. But is it possible that JFK's head was hit with a different type bullet than the ones used by the Italian Carcano? A bullet that had a more deadly and powerful make up? Could it be that the testimony of some Dealey Plaza witnesses ( I only know of two so far-Beverly Oliver- and a person in her presentation audience who was there that day ) that the last shot seemed different in sound and intensity from the other earlier shots - that it seemed louder and more powerful ( a "BOOM" versus a "BANG" ) add some weight of logic to the scenario of a different weapon firing the head shot? I don't know how many other Dealey Plaza witnesses ever described the three shots in the different sound way as I have described, but if it were true that the 3rd shot did sound different than the first two, how could the same rifle being fired make different sounds like that? Posted Today, 09:02 PM So let me ask you, Robert, based on your hunting experience or other knowledge of ballistics. Lipsey believes that one bullet entered the back of the head, blew out the back of the head, and in addition blew out the right side of the head including the right side of the face. Is that even conceivable?

Gorgeous. Like her. Lets see, if I sell my presidential elections political button collection and have a garage sale where I might make $50, I'd only need another $38,994,900 to swing that deal.

C. Newton; In the General Walker video you just posted the next door neighbor boy relates that within seconds of the shot sound and running to the fence ( overlooking the area that he apparently heard the shot emanate from ) that he saw a "black Ford" going down the driveway and little farther past the Ford he saw a 1958 Chevrolet ( he seemed very confident on that specific car ID point ) and a man in the 58 Chevy throwing a rifle in the back seat and then leaving. If this now grown neighbor boy's recollection is true, it would be so hard to accept the theory that Oswald did this alone and simply ran with the gun, ditched it, and then caught a late night bus home. Do you believe the neighbor boy's story? Personally, I believe ordinary people witnesses more than anyone tied to the government and military who have careers and retirement pensions to protect number one over the truth if the truth is not what the Government wants the public to know.

Oliver's description of the Dealey Plaza gun shot sounds and sequence did catch my attention. Multiple shots ( almost on top of each other ? ) ...bang,bang,bang...then BOOM! And when a member of Oliver's audience spoke in the question and answer part of the presentation, she repeated the same scenario Oliver described. This gun shot hearing woman wasn't in Dealey Plaza but apparently close by and she also said that she thought she heard multiple shots with the last fatal head shot of JFK was a lot louder - bang, bang, bang,...BOOM! I wonder how many other persons that day in Dealey Plaza ( and/or close by ) that could hear the DP shots, thought the last shot was much louder and more powerful sounding than the other earlier shots?

I just watched the entire video. The woman could hold an audience ( including me ) with her high energy, church revival experience, still attractive, big busty blond haired brassy/folksy Texas charm way. I loved her singing of Amazing Grace even without musical accompaniment. Sarah Palin has nothing on Beverly Oliver. Ms. Oliver could have been the biggest female star ever on national Christian television if she had been placed there at a younger age. One strong woman. Back to the serious business of Beverly Oliver's presentation/message; I sense she is telling the truth as she feels and knows it most of the time. She speculates a lot. She seems to know enough of the most commonly reported facts unearthed by some of the most well known JFK researchers and writers which she uses to frame and keep the context of her own story from wandering too far into total disbelief. She brings up some story subjects which I have also felt strong suspicion about such as Roscoe White, Regis Kennedy, etc. I am feeling somewhat more believing of Oliver being the Babushka lady after reading all the postings in this thread.

I've never studied the Dealey Plaza Babushka lady story much but these postings and their info and especially their photographs have pulled me in. Whoever this woman was, she was certainly right there close to the moment of head shot impact upon JFK. Just for that reason alone her observation story would be important. Because she was taking a photo or film and she was that close, you would think the investigative authorities that day would want to speak to her. Yet, there is no evidence she was ever identified and questioned outside of Oliver's tale? The older looking lady running up the grassy knoll to me is not the Babushka lady. Unless maybe her face was super-imposed onto that big coat wearing body? And that older angular face just doesn't seem to fit on a woman with thicker ankles as the pictured BL has. The photo of the much younger and full, roundish face woman does resemble Oliver to a point ( and her dark hair does look weird like it could be a wig ) but her nose and lips don't match up to my sense of similarity to Oliver. There is a photo that when enlarged shows a different, box like single shot camera in the hands of the Babushka lady other than a moving film one. Someone mentioned that that big coat the BL wore didn't seem like the kind a 17 year old would wear. But, who knows what someone would find and put on, maybe what's handy even it isn't teen stylish? I wonder what Beverly Oliver's ankles looked like at 17. Were they larger than most women? Was she always big boned? Is Beverly Oliver lying about it all? Hard to tell. The story that she didn't come out on her own looking for press attention but was kind of outed by a friend after sharing with him that it was her in that BL photo just adds to the question of truth and reality. But, even if Oliver isn't the BL, I have always found the commentaries and stories of the young Dallas strippers who worked for and or knew Jack Ruby as Oliver did a truly interesting part of the whole JFK/Oswald/Ruby 11,22-24,1963 history. Their characters and lives ( interesting how and why they all got into stripping - usually abused as girls from poor families and desperate for money - and most were just above teen years and were as innocent and vulnerable and taken advantage of in that vice industry. Several of these girls wanted to tell more of what they had seen and heard around Jack Ruby, but were terrified to do so. Yet, a few did despite the danger. That took courage. Little Lynn seemed traumatized. The girl was still just a teenager when she got pulled into that strip joint world. Like so many of Ruby's girls she was very poor and even had to ask Jack Ruby to wire her $25 bucks ( which he did just before he shot Oswald ) just to buy groceries for a few days. Dallas in 1963 was like so many other larger American cities. Full of vice which centered around vulnerable young women coming from poverty stricken families and poor small towns. I remember San Francisco back in the fifties and sixties. More vice joints than Dallas ever had. Stripper Carol Doda was the face of that town in her hey-day. Prostitution was huge and tolerated in the city most of that time. Strip joints were where you went to connect to that type of business. The Ruby and his Carousel Club perfectly reflected that part of American big city life. And all centered around poor and usually uneducated girls and young women like Little Lynn. Beverly Oliver seemed stronger than most the way she came out of that world and has had a good and seemingly healthier life in her middle and older age years. Excuse my off-point rambling. Reading about Beverly Oliver just brought out thoughts I have pondered about her and her sister strippers and their lives and parts in this tragic yet fascinating historical event.

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