James Lateer Wrote:"Why would ex Nazis from Hitler's Army want to assassinate Jack if Jack had nothing to do with World War II that makes no sense?" as asked by Mr. Kaiser.

The leftover WWII Nazis did not leave all their problems behind as of April and May, 1945. You might remember that in 1960 to 1961, Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentina and taken to Israel for trial.

As far as I have ever heard, nobody knows whether JFK had to sign off on this kidnapping, trial, or whether JFK was o.k. with more and more Nazis being kidnapped and taken back to Germany and/or Israel to stand trial. Although the kidnapping of Eichmann took place under Ike, many people like Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of Germany were already looking with concern at the likelihood of a JFK Presidency and what it would bring. That probably included the influential ex-Nazis.

The election in the US in 1958 was a liberal Democratic wave. And with that wave came increased influence in the US of traditional Democratic supporters such as Jewish and Zionist voters and contributors. And we had Operation Paperclip ex-Nazis living in the US, probably numbering in the thousands.

And don't forget, the manager of the Saturn Five moon-shot rocket was Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi scientist who was sent back to Germany to face possible prosecution in 1979 or shortly after. As thanks for managing the moonshot, Rudolph was stripped of his US citizenship and sent running, basically for his life or his freedom from 1979 to 1993.

So no, the leftover Nazis from World War II did not instantly become "good old boys" as the comment by Mr. Kaiser might suggest. On top of that, you had major military leaders from Hitler's Wehrmacht serving in the top posts in NATO as of 11-22-63. Some suggest that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were meeting with ex-Hitler general Adolf Heusinger, (of Nato) at the moment JFK was shot.

One thing is certain--- after 1960, things had gotten a lot hotter worldwide for the former Nazis. Wernher von Braun had to go to court to defend himself against a War Crimes lawsuit brought by the East German Government in the mid-1960's. Von Braun used the facilities and the cover of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in that case for his secretive deposition.

Also, the above comment suggesting that since WWII was over, the Nazis would have forgiven and forgotten the bad effects of World War II seems (sorry) superficial. In actuality, Mr. Kaiser and other Americans were fooled into believing that the Nazis in Germany had all been eliminated, neutralized, re-educated and were again good citizens after 1945. NOT!!!!!!!!

But thanks for raising this very important issue on these pages. It really does matter.

James Lateer

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

James Lateer Wrote:"Why would ex Nazis from Hitler's Army want to assassinate Jack if Jack had nothing to do with World War II that makes no sense?" as asked by Mr. Kaiser.

The leftover WWII Nazis did not leave all their problems behind as of April and May, 1945. You might remember that in 1960 to 1961, Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentina and taken to Israel for trial.

As far as I have ever heard, nobody knows whether JFK had to sign off on this kidnapping, trial, or whether JFK was o.k. with more and more Nazis being kidnapped and taken back to Germany and/or Israel to stand trial. Although the kidnapping of Eichmann took place under Ike, many people like Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of Germany were already looking with concern at the likelihood of a JFK Presidency and what it would bring. That probably included the influential ex-Nazis.

The election in the US in 1958 was a liberal Democratic wave. And with that wave came increased influence in the US of traditional Democratic supporters such as Jewish and Zionist voters and contributors. And we had Operation Paperclip ex-Nazis living in the US, probably numbering in the thousands.

And don't forget, the manager of the Saturn Five moon-shot rocket was Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi scientist who was sent back to Germany to face possible prosecution in 1979 or shortly after. As thanks for managing the moonshot, Rudolph was stripped of his US citizenship and sent running, basically for his life or his freedom from 1979 to 1993.

So no, the leftover Nazis from World War II did not instantly become "good old boys" as the comment by Mr. Kaiser might suggest. On top of that, you had major military leaders from Hitler's Wehrmacht serving in the top posts in NATO as of 11-22-63. Some suggest that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were meeting with ex-Hitler general Adolf Heusinger, (of Nato) at the moment JFK was shot.

One thing is certain--- after 1960, things had gotten a lot hotter worldwide for the former Nazis. Wernher von Braun had to go to court to defend himself against a War Crimes lawsuit brought by the East German Government in the mid-1960's. Von Braun used the facilities and the cover of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in that case for his secretive deposition.

Also, the above comment suggesting that since WWII was over, the Nazis would have forgiven and forgotten the bad effects of World War II seems (sorry) superficial. In actuality, Mr. Kaiser and other Americans were fooled into believing that the Nazis in Germany had all been eliminated, neutralized, re-educated and were again good citizens after 1945. NOT!!!!!!!!

But thanks for raising this very important issue on these pages. It really does matter.

James Lateer

James, We have been here before, and no doubt will be here again now that you are on the Forum..... As I have said before on this Forum in answer to others and in answer to your posts [and I have read your book, which I think has a lot of merit], I agree there were multiple Nazis [I think that term is fine for the Germans who took part] plus neo-Nazis [fine for the US and other fascist participants] in the JFK Assassination and related, BUT [and it is a very LARGE B-U-T!], I can NOT see any case that the Nazis were the impetus, the planners, the funders, the main actors, nor the persons engaged in the cover-up. I'm really not interested in trying to make a complete list, but was Dulles a Nazi [no - only a Nazi symp]; was Le May and those around him in the military and MI who participated Nazis [no - although they rubbed elbows with them at the end of the war]; was Hoover a Nazi [no - again just an all-American fascist type]; were the N.O. 'crowd' Nazis [no - again rightwing neo-fascist types or had friends who were Fascists during the War]; were the CIA personnel who helped plan and execute and then cover-up the events of Dallas Nazis [no - just not adverse to working with some, 'hiring' some, using some]. Were those in Mexico City at Hotel Luma or in the CIA station Nazis [no - but some players among them were or knew others who were]....and one can go on and on and on......I do NOT deny that some WWII Nazis were involved - but to assign the event as 'their baby from conception to delivery' I think is to mislead and just plain wrong. I know this is your thesis and you will continue to promote it....but I ask you and others to look objectively at this....many 'groups' were involved - but it was, IMO, an American plot using many outside groups - German Nazis, Cuban anti-Castro exiles, stateless Mafia, stateless soldiers of fortune, Mexican agents of many flags, religious agents who's allegiances were to their religious beliefs over country, freelance intell/soldier of fortune types, but there were also US Military and MI, US CIA, US SS, US FBI, US JCOS, US DOS, some US ultra-right/ultra-rich, US oil barons, US MIC - and the USA 'folks' dominated in number, in power, in direction/control, in planning, in carry it all out, in the deceptions, and in the cover up....which continues.
Mae Brussell's original article 'Nazi Connections to the JFK Assassination' was the first good exposure of the Nazi connections. We know much more now.....and about more Nazis who were involved or US friends of Nazis or were themselves neo-fascists who were....but it doesn't add up to a German Nazi assassination plot. It was a coup d'etat born and given birth and then buried in and primarily by US Citizen-traitors. I am myself working on yet another Nazi connection and know of at least two others not known to more than one or two JFK researchers - but this doesn't change my opinion, outlined above. A complete rebuttal of your 'it was the Nazis who done it' would take hours to write up. I'm not interested at this point to spend my time on that. Yes, they were part of the mix, some even in important positions. Yes, some I call 'USA citizens involved' were actually born in Germany....but it was an American Coup and led by US Citizens using a host of others - but dominated and predominated by US actors....... in sum: fascism, yes; Nazi, no.

James Lateer Wrote:Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.

I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.

Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.

Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.

Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????

Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.

Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.

Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.

And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.

In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.

I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.

James Lateer

Interview is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4

Scott Kaiser Wrote:

James Lateer Wrote:Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.

I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.

Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.

Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.

Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????

Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.

Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.

Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.

And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.

In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.

I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.

James Lateer

Interview is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4

James, I'm no professor, journalist or researcher, I am not an historian, writer, nor do I give speeches, now that we have that out of the way. I have read much criticism about Miss Baker as well as much praise. In my own case I have heard her say many times "Lee told me this", or "Lee told me that", she has also said that aside from meeting Lee, she had met Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and many others through Lee, her memory is remarkably detailed in every aspect, when I think back to when I was a kid I can remember having conversations with my father, I try to remember our conversations as if we had them yesterday, some words I can remember while others are a blur, I do my very best in trying to piece together things we said to one another. On one particular occasion we had a serious conversation, it was unlike your everyday run-of-the-mill conversations you have with your parents, this was on the day my father was killed, I admit that I cannot remember every exact word that was said, perhaps, it's because of the trauma I experienced of just losing my father, or maybe it's age, but one thing I do know is that Miss Baker says she can remember everything that Lee told her, that's not only improbable, but impossible. You're an author, so you know that if information were to be plugged into your book you would want to verify the facts otherwise the book is fiction right? Well, that's what happened to me, someone other than me plugged in Me & Lee with a short paragraph discussing Alex Rourke and Lee Oswald, that information found it's way into my book because my father had Rourke's phone number in my father's address book. When any changes are made to an authors book the author should always be notified before the book is published, I would say that is the right thing to do, so, as a nobody, you can take my information for what it's worth.