Joe Bauer

Marina was a special and interesting young woman to Ruth.

Ruth wanted to learn the Russian language and had studied it years before she met Marina.

Here Ruth had the opportunity to have someone directly in her life who spoke perfect Russian. Marina was vulnerable and needed major help in so many ways. Ruth offered this help and probably felt it would be a doubly good thing to have Marina and child move in with her not just to help them but for the conversational Russian.  And Ruth was lonely herself as well. 

Marina being a ravishing radiating blue-eyed young beauty also probably made it a bit more attractive situation for Ruth versus taking in some other Russian speaking woman who looked like a typical cold war era US propaganda picture of a huge boned, thick ankles and forearms with  weather beatened face and wearing a farm dirt covered babushka and pulling a plow.

I understand Ruth was extremely hurt when Marina left her home just days after 11,22,1963 and completely cut her out of her new life.  Hence, it was obvious Ruth Paine had developed feelings of affection for Marina during their time together.

If I may, you know what made the entire Lee Oswald story (including the Ruth Paine part) 10X more interesting leading up to the JFK event and after?

Marina Prusakova.

The first nationally televised interview I ever saw of Marina weeks after the JFK event was the "Marina, what do you do all day?" one?

Honestly, I was so smitten I was mesmerized. There was something so ..." intriguingly attractive ?" about her.

Her natural beauty, her innocence and vulnerability. Her eyes were wide, feminine and intelligent. She also looked like someone who was keeping some very deep thoughts, feelings and secrets inside. Very careful and reticent about every word she spoke.

I was just a young adolescent...but I instantly ached for this beautiful young Russian woman.

I think Ruth Paine saw these same qualities in Marina. 

Marina had become an attractive overnight celebrity ( albeit a dark and tragic story one ) after that interview. Yes, it was all under dark and tragic circumstances but that first nationally broadcast interview of her still captured millions of Americans like it did me. 

Even lothario Norman Mailer gushed over her after he met her in person. He said on a national TV talk show..." her eyes shone like diamonds."

Yes, beautiful young Marina Prusakova made the whole Oswald and even Ruth Paine story something much bigger, more attractive and much more interesting and intriguing than they would have been had Oswald returned from Russia with a bride who looked like say ... Ruth Buzzi?

Ruth Paine hated Lee Harvey Oswald. 

When asked by the famous attorney Gerry Spence "Mrs. Paine, you didn't like Lee Oswald very well, isn't that right?"

She responded (under oath)  "No, I did not like him very well."

Lee was very hard to like by most people he encountered and interacted with for many well documented reasons.

Buell Frazier was an exception. He didn't mind Lee's almost extreme anti-social lack of verbal engagement.

He simply described Lee as "a quiet feller."  and "He liked chilren and they liked him."

Even so, my guess is that penny pinching Lee never once offered even a nickel to Frazier to help with gas costs despite Frazier so often taking him back to Ruth Paine's home after work? Yet, big hearted Buell never once complained or said this bothered him. In public anyway.

Getting back to RP and her dislike of Lee, I sense that it was so deep that she eventually despised him.

I think she may have even seen Oswald's arrest as a big relief for Marina in finally being rid of him.

Despite her immense dislike of Lee, Ruth Paine still helped Lee personally from time to time. Letting him drive her car to maybe help him get a driver's license? She helped find him employment. She let him visit and even spend the night in her home while visiting Marina and Junie. And, I've never once read that she ever dinged Lee to reimburse her "something" in regards to the expenses she took on in housing, feeding and in other ways caring for his wife and child, and even himself.

Maybe some of this tolerance of Lee was born out of her Quaker moral teaching mindset?

Yet, what struck me about Ruth's "true" deep despising feelings toward Lee back in 1963 though was how palpable Ruth Paine's dislike for Lee was publicly expressed even so many years later.

She didn't hold back in her court room testimony during the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" when asked by Gerry Spence how much she felt this toward Lee back in those days when she was involved with Marina and Lee.

At one point in her testimony during this "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" she really lost it in saying how offended she was with Lee Oswald using her personal typewriter without her knowledge or permission! "that offended me very much!"

The gall! The absolute GALL! Her facial expression while saying this as freshly angered and agitated as if it happened a week before!

Ruth held that particular incident resentment toward Lee for decades. Probably still seethes about it even 59 years later!

My point is ( I guess ) is that Ruth Paine had to really fight and push herself to do anything for Lee's personal benefit while he was alive. If it wasn't for her wanting to bring Marina into her life she would have did her best to keep that boorish, wife beating low life Lee Oswald as far away from her as possible.

When it came to all the post 11/22/1963 agencies asking her about Lee and anything that may have incriminated him or not, one would assume she wasn't his biggest defender. Same with her husband Michael.

21 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hi,

Two or three hours ago, I made a lengthy post to the “Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?” thread started by Steve Thomas.  My post seems to have disappeared, along with posts by John Butler and, I think, Denny Zartman.

I worked for over an hour on this material, and I neither mentioned nor attacked any other forum member.  Anyone know why these posts disappeared?  Sadly, I didn’t make a copy of my work and I don’t think I broke any forum rules.

New posts can take a while to appear, but the time here seems excessive.
 

One of my posts was recently "disappeared" also.

I trust whatever moderator did this, did so for a rational "best for the forum" reason. 

I'm not even going to ask why.

The forum has been run so well the last few years I just trust our moderators judgments in these matters.

I can live with a few of my postings being deleted.

Heck, sometimes even I look back and wonder how I could have posted certain thread response commentaries that upon later reflection make me say "ouch." Many times I have gone back and deleted the worst ones myself!

On 4/26/2022 at 8:07 PM, W. Niederhut said:

         Toxic disinformation is a very serious, even deadly, problem for humanity.  The examples are legion.

         Who among us advocates false advertising?  Toxic snake oil sales?

         Can we rely on self-interested capitalist profiteers to adequately police it?  The concept is laughable.  Look at Rupert Murdoch, Robert Mercer, Phil Anschutz, et.al.

         Industrial and media tycoons have never been motivated chiefly by concern for the public welfare.  They want profits, low tax rates, and government de-regulation of fraudulence, pollution, etc.

         How many times must we re-experience the societal destruction of Gilded Age Robber Baron-ism before we finally acknowledge that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism-- in any business, including media-- can potentially damage the public welfare?

        Only constructive governance-- in the public interest-- can protect the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls.

        Some Republicans have been outraged recently about the belated, feeble attempts by a few social media corporations to protect the American public from toxic disinformation-- e.g., false information undermining public health interventions during the deadly COVID pandemic, and Trump's dishonest rabble-rousing after losing the 2020 election.

       Let's recall that Trump was only kicked off of Twitter after he incited his delusional fans to attack the U.S. Congress on January 6th, to "Stop the Steal."  The man told 30,000 documented lies during his White House tenure.

       If I understand it correctly, Elon Musk was kicked off of Twitter for posting misleading information to defraud investors. 

      Tucker Carlson was kicked off of Twitter for publicly attacking a transgender public official.

       Is for-profit fraudulence, hate speech, and incitement of violence supposed to be protected?

Exactly WN. 

How can anyone still "not" believe Bolden's detailed story of the Chicago plot?

If these people do not believe Bolden's Chicago plot story, what explanation do they have or even speculate as to why he made this story up? And has steadfastly maintained ( with no detail changes at all ) for the last 59 years?

Do they think that the witnesses in Bolden's trial ( even if just one main one ) who confessed to lying about Bolden's guilt, did not exist? That their confessions didn't exist?

It sounds to me like one of the most personally dedicated and committed JFK protective SS agents in the WH detail was Abraham Bolden.

It would make sense.

Here is a black man who understood that JFK did something so incredibly unpopular, politically and socially incorrect and even personally risky in giving him ( a black American ) an opportunity of a lifetime at a time when there was just naked hate against blacks and resistance against doing things like this in the highest ranks of police/security organizations like his very own SS.

Of course Bolden was at times treated badly by others in that detail. Of course he was at times called the worst names right to his face. From what Vince Palamara has told us, the all white SS was generally as black hating as most other police organizations were back then.  A "Good Ole Boy" mentality with at least some of the members for sure.

Of course they resented JFK's order placing Bolden in their midst. Some maybe even hating JFK for doing so.

I believe Bolden felt the deepest and maybe even over protective sense of duty to protect and watch out for the greatest and most courageous black American defending white man he probably ever came across in his life and who did something for him personally that he equated as heroic. That he owed JFK his protective duty devotion to a blindly loyal 120% degree level including personally maintaining the highest duty standards physically, mentally and socially 24 hours a day. 

I could also understand someone like Bolden (with a totally naive outsider mind set) probably imagining that the closest Presidential security would be made up of the most personal character straight arrow men who were exactly also of this highest standard duty mind set.

It was probably a shock to Bolden to see any number of agents being as lax as he has described. We know for a fact that several JFK motorcade duty agents did go the topless Dallas club ( the Cellar?) the very night before their highest importance duty call the very next morning. Staying up late, some drinking.

Considering what happened the very next day at 12:30 PM in Dealey plaza...and the only JFK protection SS agent ( Clint Hill ) acting even remotely quickly in running to JFK's limo after two loud shot sounds were already heard, you have to consider this late night irresponsible duty neglecting bar carousing of those agents with the same logical concern that Bolden expressed back then. At least imo anyway.

Did Bolden ever get any pension monies?

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Doug was there.  I'm not him.  But Liddy does seem pretty nutty in the first episode.  Like he'd do whatever it takes to win, he roughs a guy up.  

Regarding S.T. Patrick on Mo and John Dean, it's not a love fest, yet at least though they are featured.  No Heidi or the others, yet, again. 

McCord is a dark shadowy background character thus far.

I think it's worth watching as a funny at times maybe semi historical somewhat factual first episode.

You can always stop after 5-10-15 minutes if you disagree.

Comments welcome from those who do watch it.

I'll be watching the second episode.

We will be watching the second episode as well.

22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

David, asking you for your evidence justifying a claim you make is not me lacking ability to do research. It is asking you for your reasons or evidence. I am familiar with the flawed Hewett article.

You answer that Oswald had a known history of photography such as his work at Jaggers, all true. That it would be plausible that Oswald would like to work with a Minox if he had one is not contested. But It is implausible that Oswald could afford one, or afford all of the Minox accoutrements (whereas cost of such a high-end camera was no obstacle to Michael). Oswald shows no ownership of expensive equipment in any other case.

But when you go to say "no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography", that is not in agreement with the record. The FBI interviewed Michael and Michael told the FBI how he bought his Minox camera, gave details, told of his use of it. Michael identified the photos developed from the Minox film as his photos. (So have most other researchers.) It is true that Michael's interest in photography as told to the FBI was just normal/personal/recreational kind of picture-taking. But to say there is no indication Michael had any interest in a Minox camera when there are FBI interviews clearly saying he did, and then to cite the opposite of what the documents say as your evidence that he therefore could not have had a Minox camera that he said he did have, does not strike me as logical.

The costliness of that Minox equipment is consistent with Michael ownership. The claim of identification of it from Michael, and FBI accepting that Michael's claim was correct, is consistent with Michael ownership. Ruth saying it was Michael's is consistent with Michael ownership. The "Michael Paine" nametags taken by police from the same drawer as that Minox accessory equipment, all Michael Paine belongings in that drawer, is consistent with Michael ownership. The Minox photos developed being Michael's photos are consistent with Michael ownership. And against that there is just nothing, in any evidence, that is not consistent with Michael ownership of that Minox camera equipment, the light meter, the self-timer et al.

But maybe the story of Oswald with a Minox is just too good of a story to need any evidence? 🙂

 

What percentage of photography interested persons bought and used Minox cameras back then?

Is it a camera a normal family man would want over so many other larger cameras that would be easier to use?

A dinky little spy camera for what - family photos, kids, Ruth, camping?

How many people in the JFK Dallas motorcade crowd took pictures of JFK passing by using a Minox?

Wouldn't the ownership of such an unusually specific type and use camera beg a lot of questions?

Michael Paine always begged a lot of questions imo. His family political background. His interests in other people's political views more than normal. His own attendance at political gatherings? Maybe he was taking pictures of people at these gatherings with his Minox? A camera not easily noticed or seen by others being photographed due to it's unusually small size?

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

His attorney just called me and thanked me profusely..

Seriously?   Wow, right on Jim!

Disagree about Liddy. He doesn't deserve "any" praise in my opinion.

Do agree with the rest of your post.

I do wonder how much more of the true McCord story we don't know.

Could there ever be a major film produced centered around Bolden? Or a TV docu series like the new "Gas Lit?"

Me thinks...never.

The dark side truth of our highest government forces since JFK in their decades of unbelievably unjust punishment of Bolden would be too much for the masses to consume. It would shake our already fragile trust/ mistrust of our government since JFK, even more.

We watched this first episode as well.

First let me share that Sean Penn's John Mitchell transformation was so remarkably good, I had to keep reminding myself that it really was Sean Penn in that role. Best make up transformation job I can ever recall in a major film.

What a contrast to the laughably stiff plaster cast mask make up job on Woody Harrelson as LBJ.

Most reviews I've read have praised Julia Roberts in her Martha Mitchell portrayal.

Let's admit it...Roberts truly is a great actress.

Once again she tackles the tough acting job of re-enacting a real life character and doing so with such thoughtful and intelligently subtle control that you find yourself not just believing she IS that person, but finding her character even more interesting and watchable than the real life one! 

Shades of Robert's Erin Brockovich as a beloved icon of all time favorite female lead movie characters.

Dan Steven's John Dean really hasn't grabbed me ... yet. However, Betty Gilpen's Maureen Dean ? WOW! Give me more!

All I remember of "Mo" Dean back in the Watergate hearing days was her incredibly cool, collected and almost stoic expression throughout her entire husband's testimony. Along with her eye catching classy dress, hair and beautifully smooth skin.

In this first series episode Gilpen's Mo Dean is shown to be much more than simply the beautiful high class Saks 5th Avenue store front window mannequin look-alike we saw during the nationally televised Watergate hearings.

Surprisingly, she is instead revealed to be a women of remarkable personal character strength, confidence, intelligence, deep thought and surprisingly liberal moral convictions. And so subtly sexy no wonder John Dean lost his Nixon ambition fixation for one of her. If the script is honest, Mo Dean sounds as if she became John Dean's moral conscience mentor more than anyone knew at the time.  Giving Gilpen's Maureen Dean's character role this much showcasing (in the first episode anyway) really added to the entire story line in a worthy value way imo.

To be honest though, the John Dean and Mo Dean characters kind of stole some of the scenes in this first episode. A little easier to watch an attractive and interesting young couple versus an older and much less attractive couple yelling at and arguing with each other most of the time.

Shea Whigham's G. Gordon Liddy is at times pretty interesting...however, in such a scarily portrayed  dangerous nut case way you wonder if he actually was as extreme fanatic crazy as he is depicted.

Penn's Mitchell has to be good imo as again, I am believing his character without hardly any distracted thought that it is really Sean Penn behind that gad awful ugly big nosed double chinned face of Mitchell. Penn also has that highest level in born actor talent gift of intelligent subtlety in portraying a well known real life character.

Still, I am always conscious of the higher importance meaning of the Martha Mitchell story.

How in her eccentric but honest values way, she helped expose that huge snake pit den of corruption of Nixon and his entire team which had highjacked our highest executive branch of government and if not caught, would have continued their total constitution and democracy violating crimes.

If so ... WOW!

Just a common sense thought contemplation here?

Isn't it possible that the highest anxiety alert Dallas policemen who rushed into the theater and who were told to look for a younger aged slight build white male may have been so hyper-vigilant reactive that any white male of that age and build group ( and especially sitting alone! ) in that  theater would have caused them to grab them for at least a closer look over and questioning than just leaving them sit?

Whoever the Dallas PD wrangled out of the back of the theater in the alley was obviously someone who fit that general young white male slight build description. And their sitting by themselves without a date or buddy companion might have fed the Dallas police suspicion even more?

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I sense you thinks this Ruth was from some Greek Isle. 

?????

The Paines (both Ruth and her estranged husband Michael) were a tough couple to get a true understanding take on.

Sometimes, I feel Ruth was simply a truly well meaning Quaker humanitarian type who really just wanted to help Marina and her children through extremely financially stressed times. Coupled with the fact of Marina's Russian birth and life background which intrigued and even attracted Ruth to her.

Just as Ruth Paine has so often explained in interview after interview over decades.

Her first meeting Marina and Lee may honestly have been innocently happenstance. Ruth was always interested in the Russian language and people and had been active in a moral mission to try to do "something" in her small way to improve the heightened tensions between our two countries. She knew some of the White Russians in the Dallas area due to her making contact with them in her Russian language learning efforts.

Interesting to me that these two couples ( Paines and the DeMohrenschildts ) who are often suspected of being intelligence connected with nefarious agendas regarding the Oswalds, seemed to be the only persons in Lee and Marinas world who did more to help them through their poverty stressed struggles than anyone by far.

What Ruth did for Marina and her two children was truly extraordinary when you consider her housing, feeding, driving, moving, medical help securing, and everything else...over a period of months! If Ruth was a spy, she sure was a super kind and generous one for Marina when Marina really needed help on that level.

The DeMohrenschildt's also did a lot for Marina and Lee.

Even today, very few " non-family" people reach out and directly help young couples who are as stressed as Marina and Lee were financially on the level that Ruth and The DeM's did.

I always contemplated that if Lee was on some intelligence agency payroll, or even a paid FBI informant, his compensation must have been so low it couldn't keep them in even rundown apartments for more than a few months at a time.

I could see such a person wanting to keep a low profile with maybe even a cover of poverty to keep up the ruse...but not to the degree of the Oswald's. Cock roach filled apartment in New Orleans. Having to use an open suitcase as a crib for baby June. Letting Marina's painful tooth decay problem go untreated until Ruth Paine as well as proper pre-natal care for Marina with Ruth Paine's help.

Never a car. Always having to get around by city or Greyhound bus. Dependent on others for moving, housing, clothes and food, baby items, etc?

If Oswald was humiliated by having to accept so much outside help for his wife and children's basic needs, you would think he may have demanded his possible nefarious employers pay him more than the pittance amount that couldn't even pay the rent on a decent apartment?

Michael Paine. The spoiled kid from a wealthy politically involved family.

Intriguing family political activities all while he was growing up. If you read his father bio it is an amazing life long engagement with socialist types and groups.

His interaction with Lee Oswald was one where he wanted to know Lee's political views more than any other subject.

Michael Paine was quite engaged politically himself in his normal personal life. He attended at least one or two political group meetings of so-called radical groups. He liked to engage young college age people in political discussions in at least one local coffee shop where these college kids hung out?

M. Paine seems more suspect in any political intrigue talk than Ruth imo. Even his job of "Model Plane designer" for a major "sensitive work" contractor Bell Helicopter corporation which needed clearance raises an eye brow...no?

Just some thoughts on this intriguing couple.

20 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Just to note, first of all, if the Paines thought it was right wing radicals who killed JFK, they wouldn’t have said “we know who did it,” which is cryptic and somewhat anonymous, and not how people talk unless they are trying to avoid saying something specific.

Second of all I find that post above about Marina, portrayed as sexually wanton, as some kind of stereotypical tramp who, god forbid, smoked cigarettes, to be extremely sexist and offensive. It is one thing to simply be citing old-style mores; but another to use that kind of tone. I find that post to be very troubling.

I see your point regards my somewhat immature tone and take on Marina and I apologize. 

However, citing Marina's own words to Jeannie DeMohrenschildt the truth was that she "was" sexually unsatisfied with Lee.

Didn't mean she was sexually wanton of course.

Smoking was the norm for half the adult population in the US back then it seems. So, Marina liked to occasionally light up. No problem there. It didn't mean anything regards her personal character and I shouldn't have even half way inferred such if I did.

I have edited out one paragraph in my last post regards Marina. Childish of me to have even postulated it's content. 

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jim - do you think it possible that it was Mamet’s support of Trump that caused funding to be pulled? Btw I don’t believe in cancelling people so that’s not the point of my question. As miserable and crooked a wretch as our former president is, I liked his foreign initiatives better than recent Democratic presidents. 
As an aside, a few months ago I was having dinner at a posh SF restaurant when I realized that Oliver Stone and David Talbot were dining two tables away. I wanted so much to have a moment with them, but just thought it was too pushy a thing to do, so I stayed put. 

Wow! Another amazing  pairing!

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Marina was extremely opinionated and critical of Lee. In the eyes of good Quakers, she was not the po' lil' mouse abused by da big bad evil husband those blaming Lee would choose to pretend she was. She was not subservient. She was verbally abusive, perhaps at times physically abusive. She would denigrate his manhood in front of others. It's not fair, but the thinking at that time--and perhaps even at this time--was that a disobedient and nagging wife can drive a man to madness. (I think I got some of this from DeMohrenschildt's book.) 

Yes, Jeannie DeMohrenschildt did say many of the things Marina would do to insult Lee as you mentioned.

"look at this idiot" Marina blurted out when she and Jeannie saw Lee's rifle in the closet.

 She openly stated that Lee didn't satisfy her sexually. He would too often rather read a book than have sex.

Jeannie thought Marina sharing this very personal and private personal relationship problem between her and Lee with others was abhorrent.

Lee didn't allow Marina to smoke but after Jeanny DeM gave him a blunt European mother tongue lashing he relented somewhat.

Marina simply was not attracted to Lee and his mannerisms, his interests, his low sex drive anymore.

And after seeing these fairly well off White Russians, Lee seemed like a loser to her financially I would think.

I think both Lee and Marina were abusive toward each other. Both very frustrated with each other.

Although I think Lee still loved her in the end. And always much more than she loved him.

And he was always physically attracted to this sparkling blue eyed beauty.

When you read a little more of Marina's personal make up through the testimony of many who knew her 1 on 1 she comes off as a surprisingly aggressive young woman ( a proper mores defying cigarette smoking one at that) and more status craving than what Lee could ever provide. And a woman who's sexual needs and cravings were way beyond anything poor Lee could meet and satisfy. 

Nonetheless, Lee and Marina were history by 11,22,1963 and Lee knew it.

 

5:03

12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Because knowing Oswald as they did, it all made sense.

Why didn't the Paines try to help Oswald get a lawyer?

Well, first off, they both disliked Lee Oswald.

Ruth to a despising degree. 

Michael in his spoiled wealthy upbringing and intellectually arrogant way to a disdainful even pity feeling degree.

Why should they help this boorish, self-centered, uneducated, Marina mistreating and unappreciative miscreant?

If they believed he may have killed a president they liked and admired, I could see them feeling ... good riddance!

Yet, with Ruth's Christian/Quaker moral imbuing she at least gave some thought to Lee ( husband of Marina and father to two young infants ) needing "some" legal help. And knowing of his poverty of course she thought of court appointed help in this regards. I could see her mentioning this type of assistance to Lee.

16 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

It seems to me that the difference between yourself and millions just like you assuming it was some rabid right winger was the fact that the Paines were in a position to know, since they were in such close contact with the accused assassin and allegedly had the accused assassins rifle under their roof.

If the Paines genuinely suspected some right winger with an easily comprehensible motive was responsible, then why didn't they help Oswald get a lawyer? They knew Oswald was no right winger and had expressed no antipathy towards JFK.

Denny, true.

I guess the most important question is when did this "we both know who's responsible" Ruth/Michael phone call conversation take place?

If it did before there was any mention of the Texas School Book Depository in the news, then one can reasonably assume that both Ruth and Michael didn't even think of Oswald as a suspect at that point. Hence, the sharing of the general and widespread knowledge that Dallas was known as a center of the most extreme JFK hatred minded groups and individuals hence a logical suspicion of someone of that ilk being responsible.

If this alleged shared comment came "after" Ruth and Michael knew of Oswald's arrest and his being named a prime suspect, then obviously you have some dark and damning implications on their part.

It sounds like Ruth Paine never clearly denied the "we both know who was responsible" part of her telephone conversation with Michael.

Where Ruth is rock hard sure about so many aspects of her words, actions and thoughts in her recounting of her whole Marina and Lee experience, she seems to equivocate somewhat when asked about the exact content of her conversation with husband Michael that day.

Didn't she infer that if she and Michael did say anything like that, that they would have been referring to the rabid JFK hating types in Dallas ( that spat upon Adlai Stevenson ) and the far right extremists wealth groups such as the JBS and Minute Men who everybody knew also hated JFK to a treasonous minded degree?

Not an illogical or suspiciously unusual train of thought imo.

Heck, millions like me just assumed Dallas was full of JFK hating extremists and segregationists. That it made sense that JFK was killed in a JFK hating city like Dallas.

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are my favorite Mamet films that he either wrote or directed or both. (I have not seen everything he has done.)

 

The Verdict

The Untouchables

House of Games

Wag the Dog

Spartan

The three we talked about the most were The Verdict, Wag the Dog and Spartan.  I told him how I thought the last was really underrated. 

The Verdict is one of my top ten films of all time. Watched it again just last week.

It just grips me every time.

The story line about the human condition of struggle, failure, lost hope then faith and redemption and finally sweet justice.

Casting was perfect. Newman had to say so much...without words. And did this so well, better than almost any actor I have seen.

In fact, all the other cast had to do the same thing, and did so wonderfully.

Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, Lindsay Crouse ( The Arrival ) ... and where did they find Joe Seneca? Loved his role!

Joe Seneca; member of the Three Riffs singing group. Writer of many songs including the classic "Talk To Me" by Little Willie John!

Mason. What can one say? The classic eloquent bad guy as he was in other films such as North By Northwest.

This film inspires me.  Newman inspires me.

Mamet inspires me. 

Yes, "Wag The Dog" was great. Another classic with great dialogue and meaning in our world of media corruption.

GlenGarry Glen Ross?  What a cast. What great lines and performances.

Desperately ruthless, back stabbing and pitifully morally bankrupt real estate salesmen fun!

" you owe me a $6,000 car...what are you gonna do about it ... a$$hole?"

"Let me buy you a pack of gum and show you how to chew it."

Mamet is ... well what can one say? I am sure Stone admires his talent and work tremendously.

Jim Di ... Do you think Mamet's "Blackbird" film project is history?

jukejointjohnny48

It was to be titled "Black Bird."

I followed that project obsessively.

Mamet writing? Cate Blanchette starring? Fascinating plot line?

I couldn't wait. Until finally I read in ( Variety? ) that the project was dead.

Felt sick about it. Really I did. Blanchette had accepted the role...right?

How much would Mamet need to get that project back on? 20 Mil.?

No problem. I'll cut a check tomorrow!

I also read that Mamet felt the whole JFK conspiracy story was a crock. ???

Wow, what a lucky man you are Jim Di.

To sit with Mamet and Stone and be a part of that meet up discourse?

You are in the A list loop now my man.

Next time I'm down your way how about we have lunch at the Beverly Hills Hotel Polo Lounge?

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

But the cover up was also posthumous.  In fact, it's still happening.

Also, Joe, didn't LBJ tell people other than Cronkite that he was skeptical about the WCR conclusions?  (Possibly Richard Russell?)

If so this LBJ WC finding skepticism has never made it out or been reported on except for a handful of obscure alternate history forums.

The sanctioned curriculum history books?  Ha...never.

The Cronkite interview is all there is in this regards and the Richard Russell account is even more obscure.

I think LBJ was wracked with life review guilt in his last two to three years. To the degree of unstable thoughts. Combine that with drinking and ...

No wonder he was under 24 hour "guard?" in his last days.