David Andrews

If, indeed, he went home and got a gun: He may have been told to dump everything and prepare to leave town, and been assigned a rendezvous point at Texas Theater (nothing new here). He may have been told by the plotters, or by another organization he thought was protecting him from the plotters. Or: He understood that events had gone differently from what he had been told to expect, and gone to a pre-arranged catastrophe rendezvous point to meet people he didn't completely trust, but opted to rely on. He may have known that Texas Theater was a place of dubious safety for him - public, all right, but dark and secluded, with a film-distracted audience. At this point in the day, who could LHO trust? It seems to have gone differently than he expected. Spending the night at the Paines', LHO showed up for work unshaven, arguably unwashed, and in what appears to have been yesterday's T-shirt - the ultimate casual Friday. One of his first complaints at DPD was that he wasn't allowed to shower. Wouldn't you schedule that in the morning, if you knew you wouldn't be sleeping at home that night, or ever again? Yet he may have anticipated danger and possible exile, hence the unusual Thursday night sleepover with family.

...A demonstration by a man with an umbrella and a "Cuban" pumping his fist? A minimal cast gathered by the Stemmons sign to keep the patsy relaxed, should he look down the street? What they call today "crisis actors," told by radio how demonstrative to act? Plan B: Umbrella Man, approached by cops, claims he's FPCC?

This, I would say, stretches to delusion on MM's part. However, people often pile delusive attributes on others they distrust, and Lawford may have displayed a ruthless side toward women.

Jim, Lawford has a notoriously sleazy rep in Hollywood memory, and it worsened after MM as his film career declined. To have a notoriously sleazy rep for that long in Hollywood is really saying something. Didn't he wrangle girls for the senator when he went west? I've seen as many Lawford films as anybody here, down to his co-starring role with Lassie. He always seems to have deserved more acclaim, but been denied the vehicle to achieve it. His favor-currying and personal dissoluteness seem like two sides of compensating for his career.

So...Lawford still not a pimp?

For a long time, it was common to enhance newspaper photos by tracing the outlines of persons or objects who might appear indistinct once the photo was printed. You can see that with other objects in the MM house photo, and in other 20th-century crime scene photos that made the papers. It always looked bad, a little childish. I've handled news archive photos where the compositor highlighted a figure by brushing on Wite-Out.

The movie omits the most sensational part of the book story, the ending, where an assassin dispatched by the White House murders Monroe.

Pat Speer quoted here in the Morrow Connally materials, on what points Connally insisted on: 1. Connally's initial belief was that the first two shots--the ones he was later told were fired by Oswald using a bolt-action rifle--were extremely close together--and were fired by an automatic weapon. Interesting, considering the Z-film suggests that there was enough time to cycle and aim a bolt-action rifle between the two shots Connally describes (the neck wound and the Connally torso hit).

Did Northwoods never go into action because the plan was too complicated and wordy? Wow.

I can't be blamed for bad style.

Nice try, but you can see above the puppet the navy pocket stripe that otherwise might be mistaken for Lambchop's eye slits.

That form-fitting pink wool Chanel number couldn't migrate over to the seat between them unless it were unbuttoned.

Nah, it's Lambchop, not part of the bouquet as seen at Love Field. Notice the "little dog" is between them, as Jean said.

The Umbrella Man filmmakers did the best they could with the budget and support they had, including in the casting. I liked the film, though it takes a sense of humor about researchers. It even presents a theory about a particular frame of the Z-film where JFK is wounded. Follow link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0h-oO1DZXA It speaks to the subject matter to know that these guys never made another film, try as hard as they did to establish themselves here.

From 08:50 forward in this clip, some unusual JFK, Oswald and Ruby items, authenticity nonspecific:

Audio (and some video) of Garrison's appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson:

What's the beef with the Adams book? Slavery?

It was American neocolonialism, and America supporting the neocolonialism of its allies, such as Belgium and anti-Gaulleist France, as Michael says. That, cloaked in the guise of Christian "improvement" of native cultures, was what was missing in the "Christian background" elision by the interview subject, Mr. Griffith. As the film shows in other ways, it was what JFK and Gullion opposed.

...And they're going to convince Time Life, which acquired the film, to surrender it, losing newsstand sales and ad revenues? There was a budget to compensate Henry Luce for that? Seems a naive, and monolithic, view of the culture of the times. The stills were used to bolster the shot-from-behind story; the film (whatever you believe it to be) did not emerge to be argued over for another dozen years.

I'm thinking the involvement of Time Life, a major corp, propaganda outlet, and otherwise CIA cooperator, meant they had to be paid off with Zapruder frame stills. It wasn't until 1975 that the powers had to contend with a release of the altered original.

I don't doubt, but that's the third Agency-connected figure to undermine Trump in media in as many days. How many have gone uncounted? Maybe it's like being tailed: the fact that you're seeing them at all is meant to send a message.

More hate for Trump from CIA mouthpieces on TV: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-cia-agent-says-fallout-over-raid-on-trump-s-mar-a-lago-resembles-the-lead-up-to-the-january-6-capitol-attack-and-predicts-there-will-be-another-catastrophic-event/ar-AA10F251?cvid=a58b554a86aa479f9dac0450d69a2dce [EDIT: Sorry - Ron B beat me to the story, above.]

CIA drops teases about Trump's execution, and not just through Hayden: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/msnbc-s-beschloss-former-cia-director-hayden-suggest-trump-be-executed-for-having-nuclear-documents/ar-AA10B0ob?cvid=8b829c203bf842f9a3b10f99665dabb2

A historical first. Not even our beloved Nixon had his house raided. How did the Secret Service react?

Not to cross swords with you, Pat - but was/is Trump actually for or against anything? His rank opportunism always seems to deny a belief system. What he "supports" is in the interest of acquiring political capital among voters. We'd merely chide a less obvious climber - and a less dangerous one - for being a politician.