Joe Bauer

If you think these films bombed...have you ever seen the tickets sales numbers of Tom Hank's JFK film "Parkland?" I think the term "still born" is appropriate in describing "Parkland's" almost record breaking ticket sales failure. That film died in the womb. And it was as gross to see this dead fetus of a film displayed on the big screen. Hank's film folly had no tickets sales "at all" for several of it's showings at our local theater from what I was told. It was pulled after 3 days! The counter person my wife and I bought our tickets from seemed excited that two people actually came to the most popular time slot viewing and must have been even more elated when a third person came in after us. And as I have mentioned before, this third person was a disheveled, bearded and hairy person wearing a very soiled T-shirt that didn't cover his big protruding belly. He ended up falling asleep and snoring so loudly after 20 minutes into the film it was hard for my wife and I to hear the dialogue the rest of the film. My wife was cringing the entire showing and afterwards confessed to me the only reason she didn't walk out of the film before it was half over was because she knew how obsessed I am about JFK and the truth of his demise. Obviously the key to books on JFK making any real money and exposure is famous name recognition and heavy promotion by their publishers. Bill O'Reilly's sold what...a million copies? Even though it was a ridiculous superficial take. Steven King's large book sales numbers, Bugliosi, maybe even Roger Stone's same thing. I sense that book sales numbers of many controversial subject efforts ( especially political ones ) are often artificially manufactured. Some political hack who represents the interests of a very wealthy group has 500,000 copies of their books bought up in advance by these groups to get them on "best seller" lists and they probably even reimburse the publishers for the huge advances paid to these figures for their often "Ghost" written tomes.

What an amazingly extensive list. Much of the entire JFK assassination research brain trust. P.S. There was an ironic twist to Rob's rant. He said how great it was to meet Tink Thompson. Well, for some, that would be worth the trip. From attending conferences, I have been able to meet and discuss the case--sometimes quite briefly, and sometimes quite extensively---with the likes of Robert Groden, Jim Marrs, Larry Hancock, William Turner, Sherry Fiester, Jim DiEugenio, Cyril Wecht, Tink Thompson, John Judge, Mark Lane, Walt Brown, Max Holland, John McAdams, Gary Aguilar, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Hoch, Jefferson Morley, David Talbot, and Bill Simpich, along with relative youths like Alan Dale, Robert Wagner, David Josephs and Matt Douthit. For me, it's been worth it.

I have been going through earlier posts looking for information regarding this letter from a lady in New York. I can't find the original one. Could someone re-post the story of the letter and it's contents again?

Could someone here please share their take on how they think Judyth Vary Baker has gotten so much media coverage mileage ( for years ) out of what the majority of JFK truth seekers in the research community deem as a totally non-credible, mostly made up story about her and Lee Oswald? TV and radio show appearances, book deals, conferences, meetings with Oliver Stone ... it's a remarkable marketing achievement for someone who is constantly trashed by many credible JFK researchers as a self-promoting nut case. What is the key to so-called nut case Baker's success in her fairly long term media coverage durability? Does Judyth Vary Baker have some big bucks backer and maybe her own marketing team and a publicist?

If I ever get to Dealey Plaza, I would also like to position myself exactly where Arnold Rowland and Carolyn Walther were standing on Houston Street just after noon on 11,22,1963 when they claimed they saw a man with a rifle ( Walther says she saw two men with rifles ) standing in and clearly visible to them through a window or windows on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building or, as Walthers mentioned, the third or fourth floor. I want to see how close the distance was between these two eye witnesses and the windows in the Depository where they testified under oath they viewed a rifle holding man or two men. My guess ( because I reenacted this distance in my own home town with windows in a 6 or 7 story building like the TXSBD one) is that the view of a person standing just inside such windows is closer than most would assume from the stated distance from this that Rowland and Walthers testified they were. Also, the noon time sun shining directly on the TXSBD on 11,22,1963 was very brightly illuminating the entire Houston/Elm side of the TXSBD, which made it easier to see details of anyone in those windows versus a non-sun facing - in the shade building and it's windows imo. I think this was why both Arnold Rowland and Carolyn Walthers were able to describe what they saw with such details as skin tone, hair color, shirt and coat colors, etc. The entire Elm street side of the TXSBD building at noon on 11,22,1963 could not have been illuminated any better than if they had a major Hollywood film premier search light shining on it. I have always believed the testimony of these two Depository rifleman spotting witnesses. Even though I think Walther's got the exact floor number wrong. And as I have mentioned many times, to think that multiple bystanders in Dealey Plaza that day see a rifle bearing man or men in the windows of the TXSBD just minutes before JFK's arrival there, and not one security person sees this, turns your stomach. Rowland and Walthers, and who knows what other bystanders who saw a rifle bearing man or men in the TXSBD that day, were not looking for this, they weren't trained or ordered to look for this and yet they all saw the gunmen without the enhanced aid of binoculars! Couldn't have some part of JFK's security that day in Dallas thought of posting at least a few higher window parade route watchers with binoculars as JFK passed underneath? Or positioned even one man to be on the rooftops of most of those multi-storied buildings along the route? Of course not. Too easy to do.

Interesting.

The film "The Godfather" was a great film. In every film production context. My feeling is also that in it's telling the genesis story of a Sicilian born man and his family's rise to unfathomable wealth and highest office influence power through brutal corruption after arriving in this better opportunity country as poor immigrants is so important in it's historical context. How did Sicilian organized crime become as powerful as almost a "co-equal" branch of our own federal and state government structure? The film "The Godfather" definitely shed some meaningful and honest light on this historical reality. There had never been a Mafia film that so many Americans paid money to see. And I believe that for most of the audience that viewed the film ( and many times after) it educated them as American citizens at how powerful and influencing this particular organized crime group truly was in their lifetimes. Being able to tell major film studios who they should place in starring roles in major films, owning stars such as Sinatra, Monroe and others. Same with our massive music production industry and our professional sports world. What Al Pacino's Michael Corleone character tells his film wife Kay ( Diane Keaton ) in the Godfather was very telling of this massive power corruption truth. When Kay says she can't believe a sitting U.S. senator could be corrupted by the Mafia ... Pacino tells her..."Now whose being naive Kay?" If anyone believed that line in the Godfather script, they finally had to acknowledge how wealthy, powerful and influencing organized crime and specifically the Mafia had become in the middle to later part of our 20th century America. Yes, they owned senators, congress persons, governors, mayors, judges, police departments and chiefs, probably even one or more Presidents and Hoover too. The "Godfather" ( more than any other single film by far ) awakened a society wide awareness of the reality of just how powerful organized crime had become in this country and for most of the 20th century. The fact that the film was so superbly put together made it's influence as great as it was and still is. We as a nation and society no longer live in a bubble of downplaying ignorance about U.S. organized crime and how much this has effected us and negatively so.

Real life and IHYPH movie Frank Sheeran is not a sympathetic character. Especially because even until his dying day apparently, he never expresses remorse for all the nefarious mob related activities he chose to be a part of. No other character in this film is either. Sheeran's career as big beefy Jimmy Hoffa's body guard is also not something that garners inspiration in story re-telling. Nothing I saw in The Irishman gave my anything worth praising or reconsidering as more informatively worthy regards the main characters. I suppose that Sheeran's confessing to murdering Jimmy Hoffa has some historical truth value. Thank him for that. The JFK assassination part of this script is so limited it is hard to say if it has any truth revealing value. Now, a film about Dorothy Killgallen would have a bonafide, even super star famous sympathetic hero as it's main subject. Kilgallen was killed in the middle of her brave yet most extremely dangerous quest to find out the truth regards JFK in Dallas on 11,22,1963. How we get a film about Frank Sheeran and not one of Dorothy Kilgallen is beyond illogical. Obviously major movie producers feel violent Mafia films with plenty of funny named and accent speaking tough guys, explosions, brutal hits and Sicilian/Italian food eating scenes is a guaranteed money maker. And with De Niro, Pacino and Pesci in these even more guaranteed as such. But I am done with that genre. I don't get moved by the formula anymore. The introduction of foreign organized criminal culture in our country since the early 1900's was a true cancer that spread throughout every aspect of our society all the way up to our presidential level, and this corruption cancer damaged us even more than we have ever acknowledged officially and unofficially. When I see these major production Mafia films ( The Godfather series was the Apex) I am actually upset that the perpetrators of all this massive century long criminal corruption are looked upon in any sympathetic light. The damage to our democratic system has been far too great for anything but a realistic acceptance that these people have been and still are serious enemies of our democracy. Could anyone imagine the fair, just and good virtue value common man defending heroes/ framers of our constitution being able to see the future times of this democracy and see how much this corruption in the 20th century corrupted even our highest governmental offices and weakened the mortar holding the the entire foundation together? Here Mr Jay, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington. Let us take you into the future to 1963 and through the 1970's. See how even our Presidents are effected by the mob. And other corrupt power groups such as the super wealthy ( Texas oil? ) See Hoover in his manic surveillance state period and his Mafia protection through denial period. Wonder what our "Magnificent Seven" forefathers would have thought about about all that, Al Capone, Mafia in every large city and corrupting police forces, judges, elective office holders,. Wonder what they would have made of Dwight Eisenhower's end of term "Military,Industrial Congressional conglomerate of power warning speech? And how about the CIA and other multiple major power branches of our government that operate in secret?

However, is it possible to inject or feed someone something "that would lower their immune system" to very low degrees that would make them much more vulnerable to viruses ( cancer being one ) and or infections like pneumonia and fighting them off? Just curious. How do scientist infect rats with harmful and damaging agents?

My wife had to leave her seat for a bathroom break and there was no intermission. My wife generally likes to discuss her thoughts on films we see together as we drive home after. She just had hardly anything to say about "The Irishman." I think she shared something about how she just didn't get or feel a connection to the film story line, including the script and the main characters. My main image flashbacks of this film are ones of Di Nero's silent facial shots mixed with bloody shootings, bombings, garroting and Al Pacino's highly animated ice cream sundae eating.

Saw "The Irishman" this past Sunday. Since I am not academically educated in any of the important aspects of film history and production, I will leave such deeper and more thoughtful evaluation and critiquing of this movie to our esteemed film experts like Joseph McBride. With that credibility disclaimer I would however still like to throw out my "Man On The Street" take. I sure didn't think this film was a masterpiece. Just some light observations that really distracted me in watching this overly LONG film. The audience at our local art film theater for this showing was 95% older than 60. Being that the film was almost twice as long as a typical movie, there seemed to be a steady stream of urgent bathroom needing audience members making their way through tight seating rows and grasping other aisle seat patrons on their arms and heads to brace themselves going up through the extremely poorly lighted exit path. The reaction of the audience patrons throughout the film was mostly very quiet, very subdued and I am guessing even bored at times. I didn't hear hardly any laughing at certain supposedly funny scenes. Watching someone get their head blown off several times in the film makes it hard to switch to a more lighthearted take on other scenes in between, imo. I was gradually aware that the film was as formulaic as it was in it's Italian mob depiction like so many other Mafia films of the last 30 years. You have to see the typical cars and boats being blown up, hit victims heads exploding with blood squirting out, brutal garroting of an unsuspecting dupe in the front seat of a moving car by his hit man killer in the back seat, ironic murderous Godfather attended baptisms of an innocent child in a Catholic/Christian Church, schmaltzy ballad Italian/American singer weddings, big black cars and black clothing funerals with duplicitous glances, ominous big boss meetings in old fashioned Italian restaurants, kind of ditzy big haired mob wives and big burley body guard goons standing behind their bosses with surly looks on their faces. We also see the typical brutal rage filled kicking beating of some poor guy who offended the main characters like the one where Di Nero's Sheeran gives a local market owner a pummeling that looked just like the one Sonny Corleone gave his brother -in-law in the Godfather film in retribution for the brother-in-law's abuse towards his wife...Sonny Corleone's sister. Or the beating/kicking Joe Pesci gives Billy Batts in Goodfellas. These scenes seem too typical for the genre any more and after years of seeing them in so many other organized crime films they seem to run together in one's film memories. And there is even the typical Italian bond/obsession with food as always. Watching Russell Buffalinno's salad making with comments of how it's properly done and how much good bread is important etc. Again ... just another tired Italian American cultural cliche thing with these types of films. Di Nero's Sheeran's quiet staring with apprehension and/or maybe sadness and regret over and over is also overdone imo. We must have had a full 1/2 hour of those no dialogue stares and having to just look at DiNero's confused and maybe pained and regretful expressions and figure out on our own what he was thinking...other than how the hell did he ever end up in such a sordid and fragile mix of dangerous crime figures and an ego maniac boss in Hoffa? Other things to share but I'll end my admittedly very negative Man On The Street assessment of "The Irishman" with another criticism...what was the point of having that old doo-wop tune "In The Still Of The Night" playing over and over again during key scenes in the film? I just did not see or feel the musical score enhancing connection of this tune with the films characters and story line. The main characters in the film were from the World War Two generation and probably not into the doo-wop rock and roll music of the late 50's and early 60's. Much of the background music fit the times, culture and characters okay but much didn't and was again, a curious distraction. Even the casting pairing of Di Nero, Pacino and Pesci is getting kind of tired and over-done imo. How many Mafia films can you keep making with this same cast? And Di Nero looks as much like an Irishman as Clint Eastwood looks Italian. And I'm still pondering the film's references to the JFK assassination. Now the make up job on David Ferry DID make me laugh. Sorry for the really negative take. Maybe someone else can see this all in a different light. And lastly, after hearing what an epic film and achievement "The Irishman" was ( it should have kept it's book title - "I Hear You Paint Houses" ) I couldn't help comparing it to Oliver Stone's "JFK." I am still moved by Stone's film and watch it twice a year. "JFK" has elements of it's structure and pacing and casting and story line that truly fits the "Epic" description, much more legitimately that "The Irishman." IMO + Kudo's however to the make up job on Joe Pesci's Buffalino character when he was old and in prison. How did they make Pesci's scrunched up face and tooth loss jaw character look that real?

My wife and I bought our theater tickets in advance last week for a 12:pm showing tomorrow. Looks like the theater is now "sold out" for this showing. Doug, you knew Howard Hunt personally and well. I am sure way, way more than the writer of the book " I Heard You Paint Houses" Charles Brandt or anyone involved with the script and film. It must be frustrating to see a depiction of him that isn't close to his real character. But still I find it disconcerting to read of Hunt's "charming, mannered and witty" personae in a positive and admiring light. The underhanded, illegal and constitution violating things that Hunt did to undermine people like JFK ( and other good people ) along with other like minded law breaking characters such as G.Gordon Liddy makes his charming, mannered and witty public/or private demeanor disingenuously meaningless imo. I say this however with the deepest admiration and respect for your own opinions and the extensive and valiant efforts and contributions you have made in so many important areas of truth searching and revealing concern in our American society lives. I will of course report my "Irishman" take after I see the film. S.F. Chronicle film critic Mick LaSalle raves about it. Review: Scorsese's 'Irishman' a masterpiece, end of an era for ... https://datebook.sfchronicle.com › movies-tv › review-scorseses-irishman-i... The Irishman” is as good a film as Martin Scorsese… ... Mick LaSalle November 3, 2019 Updated: November 7, 2019, 1:18 pm. Robert De Niro (left) and Joe ...

Just listened to your interview on the Jim Engster radio talk show. Several questions. Do you think you could post something about your 1961 article regarding predicting a possible attempt on JFK's life? Maybe a summary with a few key points? You mentioned coming to the consideration of L.B.J.'s involvement in the JFK assassination. Would that include J.E. Hoover who was told by LBJ right after the assassination that he ( Hoover ) and LBJ were like brothers and how close they were over the years...including being actual neighbors? Can you share some of your most concerned Warren Commission testimony transgressions as related in Sylvia Meagher's compilations? One of the most attractive areas of study of the JFK event for me is also the Warren Commission testimonial record. I read many of them when I can and have done so for years. The contradictions in these regards Oswald and Marina and Jack Ruby and so many other main connected characters ( including those in New Orleans ) are so stark and yet so frustratingly not followed up on by the WC to a extremely disturbing and truth seeking illogical degree. In your class at S.F. state you offer near every JFK assassination anniversary, how many students attend? And what kind of interest and knowledge do they show on the subject - and what are some of the more interesting questions they ask? I feel that the purposeful obscuring and burying of the "real and full" truth regarding L.B.J.'s corrupt activities his entire personal ( child bearing affairs ) business and political lives in our main stream biographical/historical record of him is one of the most egregious acts of truth denial and pollution ever and that has damaged and weakened us as a society to degrees we haven't understood, including the truth about the JFK assassination. Same goes for J.Edgar Hoover. And same goes for Nixon. I believe all 3 were seriously compromised by organized crime while in office. And I believe all three authorized murders at various times. LBJ was under psychiatric guard at the very end of his life - why? We know why. Could you imagine if he gave an end of life confessional that told the truth about his most nefarious doings?

They don't mention the names of any interview participants in their pre-show notice. Maybe this will be a JFK assassination anniversary show without well known researcher's input? Will tonight's host ask for random phone call input from the listening audience? I've only contacted C2C during a live broadcast once in my life when David Talbot of Salon.com was being interviewed about his JFK book "Brothers." I sent an e-mail which host Ian Punnet actually read on-air in it's entirety and which even elicited a thoughtful response from David Talbot. I may do the same tonight. I've thought about mentioning a very basic and easy to contemplate and understand observation regards considering the improbability of Oswald's ease of firing three or more super loud shots at JFK with his rifle barrel sticking out of the Texas School Book Depository 6th floor window and this action and his presence in the window being observed by up to 5 clueless bystanders on the street below him and yet ... not one trained and responsible security person? And asking listeners to consider the added improbability of someone blowing JFK's head apart, multi-wounding John Connally's body, descending 5 floors right after in a crazy high energy building where he is personally confronted by a police officer and after nonchalantly finishing a Doctor Pepper soda pop, then casually walking away from the scene, catching a bus three blocks away, within minutes then departing the bus, signaling a local cab but gives this up to a desperate woman out of Southern male chivalry and then getting into another cab where he goes to his rooming house where his landlady sees a police car pull up to the front of the rooming house and "tit-tit"ing their horn twice then slowly pulling away while Oswald is right inside changing clothes. Lowest minimum wage earning Lee Harvey Oswald, who needs another minimum wage co-worker to drive him to work in a rickety car with his rifle broken down in parts and wrapped in parchment paper held together with tape, then walks into his busy TXSBD workplace with this odd looking package and saunters up to the 6th floor to hide this until he needs it at the just the right time and place to defeat an army of security forces just feet below him including his casual walking away after doing this loud, 6 seconds long, perfect bulls-eye small and moving target shooting in front of hundreds of eye-witnesses and in broad daylight? All this with no timing planning or escape planning and just winging the whole thing with just a few bucks in his pocket and no one else involved to help him? And all through this JFK assassination action ( supposedly being carried out spontaneously out Lee Harvey Oswald ) "Assignment Oswald" book writing FBI agent James Hosty is having lunch in a downtown Dallas diner? Oh Please!

Yup. No JFK "do you believe the Warren Commission finding of Oswald's single gunman guilt or a conspiracy" polls this year. That part of the JFK event anniversary reporting has gone to the winds of forgotten times. JFK and MLK and RFK were such huge inspiring parts of our boomer generation childhood and young adult lives. They were heroes to tens of millions of young people back in their day. And JFK and his wife Jackie were personally the most attractive and celebrity glamorous President and first lady in history. They were way bigger than any movie star or other celebrity in their time. Internationally perhaps even more than nationally. They will be remembered iconically as long as America is intact as a constitutional democracy nation and society. Even now, when I see pictures of a smiling JFK and the beautiful Jackie I re-feel the dynamic, attractive and inspiring energy they personified. When I see pictures of LBJ and Nixon. I re-feel their corrupt energy.

The above video is becoming more intriguing as I review and study it. I made the point that the blue suit man deliberately moves his body to the left "after" the tan jacket man has already turned backwards and only when TJM begins to approach him. Their closeness in the entire scene indicates the BSM leftward movement began and happened within a short two or three second time frame. And the blue suit man does this leftward movement to a point that he actually gets in front of the tan jacket man's way. With his left arm and shoulder blocking the tan man's left side and shoulder to a degree that initiates physical contact with each other. The BSM clearly sees TJM coming towards him before he initiates this impeding action. Normally wouldn't a person seeing another person walking toward them move to give this person room to not have this contact? Especially if there is lots of room to do so? BSM wasn't "crowd pushed" into TJM. And to highlight the BSM's movement left we have a great point of reference. First, whoever is filming this scene doesn't move while filming. Second, the white sweater - red skirt woman in the immediate foreground above BSM and TJM is standing almost totally still during this entire scene. Look at how much the BSM moves left by his relative position with the white sweater-red skirt woman in the above foreground. Also, I have studied the afternoon sun shadow dynamics of the video and how this changed as certain people moved amongst and past each other in this. While TJM is standing still and facing away from the filmer and before he turns and walks back toward the camera man, you can see his figure casting a shadow on the white sweater-red skirt woman close to him on his right. As the TJM turns and walks backward, his almost full body length shadow on the sweater woman disappears. And then I noticed what I initially thought was another new smaller, oblong shaped shadow being cast that appears in front of the woman's red skirt and is protruding out horizontally from the left side of the TJM. I now see that this new dark shadow seen in front of the white sweater woman's red skirt is not a shadow but actually TJM's left forearm. And it is protruding out farther than if he had his left forearm and hand in his jacket pocket as his right hand clearly is. Clearly, the TJM has his left hand extended outward versus being in his left jacket pocket beginning a split second before bumping into the blue suit man. Then, after this TJM/BSM contact, TJM moves his left sleeved forearm back closer to his midsection. Also BSM instantly makes a deliberate move back to his right again ( use the white sweater-red skirt woman as a background reference ) which seems odd. His left/right back and forth movement in the sequence doesn't seem to have any logical purpose other than to get in the way of the TJM passing next to him and then to get back right to his original standing location. FWIW.

Just a little layman's observation ( subjective of course ) of this slow motion video above. When it begins the tan jacket man and the blue jacket man have a 2 to 3 foot space distance between them left to right and three feet away straight ahead. By the time the tan jacket man turns and walks the three feet straight back toward and then next to the blue jacket man, this left to right space has been closed to actual contact. This initial left to right space gap was closed by the blue jacket man. Not the tan jacket man. The blue jacket man moves his body to the left to close this gap and even gets his body in front of the tan jacket man's left side as the tan jacket man reaches him. And the blue jacket man did this while looking right at the tan jacket man's face. Then after the contact, the blue jacket man moves his body to the right again, if only a foot. The tan jacket man does look right at the blue jacket man's face for a split second just as he begins his body turn to the right and then walks backwards. But then he immediately drops his gaze noticeably downward to avoid looking at the blue jacket man's face or anybody elses. Some may surmise that the tan jacket man's pronounced downward gaze is a hiding one? Also, I "think" I see the left side coat sleeve on the blue jacket man change folds as he and the tan jacket man touch bodies. In a way that looks like the blue jacket man lifted his left arm upward slightly when it brushed the tan jacket man's side. Just some thoughts.

So far the appropriate take on Ambassador Yankovitch's testimony has to be a devastating one regards Trump/Guiliani and their shadow diplomacy scheme in Ukraine and their nefarious efforts in getting Yankovitch removed and her reputation slandered. It all sounds so thuggish, especially Trump's phone call statement "well, she's going to go through some things." which Yankovitch said made her feel "threatened." Her testimony paints the worst possible view of this Trump/Guiliani campaign of undermining of her personally and our normal state department Ukraine policy in general. Guiliani and his sleazy Ukraine Yankovitch hit team including his two Russian mob looking cohorts reminds one of Nixon's covert dirty deed performing "Plumbers" unit. Yankovitch is coming across as highly professional, composed and credible and her testimony today will dominate the entire MSM news coverage throughout the weekend. No wonder Trump couldn't contain his desperation and attacked Yankovitch and her reputation even while she is speaking and before she is barely through just the beginning stages of her testimony! Even Republicans are expressing being appalled at Trump's disparaging remarks toward Yankovitch while she is testifying! Trump's incredibly desperate behavior and actions in this personal public attacking of Yankovitch before she is even questioned by the committee members themselves is mind boggling inappropriate and clearly reveals someone who is emotionally insecure and compulsively out of control to an unfit for Presidential office degree...IMO.

I was 12 when JFK was taken out. And in the following 5 to 6 years after 11,22,1963 there was so much coverage of the assassination and those of MLK and RFK as well. Their deaths overshadowed every other news story in the 60's outside of the moon landing and the Viet Nam war. These assassinations really shook up our idealistic baby boomer generation in regards to trust of our own government and what they were aggressively promoting as the truth in the who and why areas of these society changing events no matter how improbable. To have the 3 top and most dynamic, inspiring and influential progressive leaders in this country all taken out by assassin's bullets in just a 5 year time span (and which literally effectively deflated this movement by leaving it leaderless ) you'd have to be ignorant to not sense that these events were more than highly improbable coincidences where 3 raging hate filled nut cases on their own without outside help just happened to get lucky and successfully catch our most society important targets in their most unprotected time of vulnerability. Talking about these society changing killings in even casual settings was not considered conspiracy obsessed wacky at that time. As well as sharing feelings of mistrust about our own government regards the suspiciously too coincidental close together killings of these 3 men who clearly had captured the trust and moral sentiments of a growing majority of Americans and who were all taken out by supposed single minded nutcases who just got lucky in defeating large security measures and efforts. This mind set was bolstered by the nation wrenching Viet Nam war and Watergate which resulted in unprecedented mass demonstrations and the exposing of just about the entire Nixon White House staff as bald ass crooks and the jailing of 25! Nixon's own VP ( Spiro Agnew ) was run off because of corruption and Nixon was just lucky to have avoided prison time himself. What rational American with half a brain and at least a passing interest in government doings wouldn't have their trust shaken by these events? But, new generation history innocence and ignorance is bliss in some ways. Why would us JFK time old fogies expect kids born after the late 60's and early 70's to bear the heavy weight of personal sadness, loss and mistrust that so many of us carried living through all that killing of our most beloved leaders and complete corruption of our executive branch under Nixon? I couldn't even bring up these historical subjects of great society changing concern from the 60's to my own kids born in the eighties, who just roll their eyes in boring discomfort when I do. Wondering about the consequences of forgotten history with younger generations has always been a repeating thought of mine from time to time. How does this natural tendency effect their lives and their children's lives and the society they are born into? It's easy to see why the survivors of the Hitler holocaust and descendants of American slavery make sure there are major production films about these devastating events produced and widely distributed on an almost yearly basis. It's obvious they are meant to imbue future generations with historical knowledge and lessons to keep them at least somewhat informed and aware of the real danger that such crimes against humanity could happen again without this warning knowledge. The JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations ( and the truths about their implementations ) are truly as important events in this same vein. However, their warning importance is lost more and more through natural generational detachment to our living witness concern. This is one reason why I am still interested to know if polls still reflect at least a decently close awareness and sentiment to what so many of us JFK, MLK and RFK boomer generation felt when those trust shaking tragedies occurred right around us in real time.

Curious about your response JP. If you consider my current JFK event interest post inane...why even waste any of your time responding to it?

In 8 days it will be 56 years since the JFK event. The majority of American citizens weren't even born when JFK was gunned down in Dallas on 11,22,1963. The last two generations probably haven't thought enough to even care about the assassination and who may have been the guilty parties. Still I am curious what these newer generations think about whether JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy or just the desperate for attention actions of a lone gunman who just got incredibly lucky with his place of employment providing him with a turkey shoot location to gain his glory. You would "expect" most American's to not care about this debate enough to give it much serious thought and contemplation. Some things that happen before you are born are ancient history to most. Wonder if a poll will even be taken this year.

I just viewed the Marina, LaFontaine interview by Oprah video. I have seen this before. I noticed that this version only has 1,000 views. Could you imagine if 5 million American citizens who actually care about our history and the truths of such major and effecting events as JFK's slaughter could see this video, what it would do to the annual polls asking Americans if they believed the Warren Report conclusion of a lone assassin and no conspiracy? Regards the gun running story as reported by Ms. LaFontaine and even reported in the newspaper, we do have corroborating testimony that Jack Ruby was indeed involved in this. Nancy Hamilton, who used to work for Jack Ruby, stated she saw Ruby at a gun running meet up where he was identified as the "money man" in this operation, at least for this one meeting.

I like first hand accounts of the reality of Ukraine life in the context of Bob's posting above. His wife and her children's experiences right there in the now holds rational weight imo.

Watched some Fox news coverage of the hearing with Laura Ingraham last night. There were permanent subtitles shown with her reporting that proclaimed the Democrats and their charges "Collapsed" and "Witness Burnout" in the hearing and other hyperbolic and completely biased screen scrolls. I hardly ever watch Fox news, but their coverage of the hearing was so alternate reality biased I realized it truly is the epitome of a "Wag The Dog" propaganda machine. The Fox News hearing coverage presentation was so far out of "Fair & Balanced" reporting context it is truly disturbing. Carl Bernstein said recently that he believes we are in a "cold civil war" sparked by the creation and wide spread societal influence of Fox News. Watching them last night regards the Congressional impeachment hearings, I saw this in spades first hand.

During the hearing today the time line of when the military aid funds to Ukraine were reinstated was discussed. The Republican questioner was trying to establish the Trump defense that the aid was reinstated before Zelensky actually did anything that Trump had supposedly asked him to do earlier before Zelensky could get these funds. So, in this time frame scenario, there was no extortion/bribery because Zelensky didn't start a Hunter Biden corruption investigation and publicly announce this on CNN before the funds flowed. AH HA ! But it was established that Trump's team reinstated the funds soon and only after the whistleblower outed the scheme and just two days after Congress had actually begun the Ukraine investigation. These two facts explain the true reason Trump's people finally ( after a 55 day hold ) released the funds. The extortion intent of this shadow diplomacy scheme was not excused because Zelensky didn't get to doing what Trump wanted. However, Zelensky "had agreed" to do this. The circle of the extortion action was legally complete once Zelensky simply "agreed" to his extortionist's demands. A democratic Congressman asked Taylor and Kent if "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" were crimes. They both deferred not saying either way. However, if you look up the legal definition of attempted crimes versus fully enacted ones ( regards extortion and bribery ) there are interpretations of both beings crimes with some exceptions regarding attempted actions. The Repub defense of saying since Zelensky didn't actually go through with the Biden corruption investigation quid pro quo demand before he got the military aid funds there was no crime, is ridiculous. This shadow diplomacy action by Trump/Guiliani of by passing our constitutional bound state department protocols is so dangerous on it's face in undermining established American diplomatic authority and credibility and is a clear and dangerous abuse of power. The best questioning with the best presentation was from Washington State Representative Denny Heck imo.