Joe Bauer

Thank you David VP for posting the Dealey Plaza video.

I have never been there and this video gave me a close up look at it from every angle possible. Very clear. Very steady and calmly presented. No distracting narration.  

If I were to visit the Plaza I would also want to walk all through and around it by myself to be able to peacefully think and reflect on it's historical importance and the solemn spirit, energy and karma it surely has.

Did Shelley actually testify that he was on the steps during the crucial time period?

Very interesting questions here.

If Oswald actually told Fritz and whoever else was present during his DPD interrogations that he was with or near or at least even in a position where he was able to "see" Shelley at the specific Houston Street entrance location during or right before the shooting, it does beg one to consider that Oswald was taking a very risky and hard to defend personal location position by throwing out this specific well known TSBD person's name in that specific location.

Oswald must have known that Shelley could be asked if Oswald's claim were true and if Oswald was lying about this, he would have known that Shelley could have blown his location story away.

Oswald didn't trip up much in his hours and hours of DPD interrogations ( remarkable under those stressful and exhausting conditions )  according to those who actually questioned him.. If he did with his noonish location claim, it would have been out of his reported interrogation demeanor.

Was Oswald told that Shelley was at the Houston Street entrance during the motorcade time before or during his interrogations? If not, Oswald brings up this fact on his own and one has to ask how he knew Shelley was where he claimed and was proven to be at that time.

Yes, Oswald may have seen Shelley at the Houston Street entrance before JFK's arrival, but it couldn't have been too long before JFK's motorcade passed.

And Oswald would have then had to run up 5 flights of stairs or take the elevator to do his alleged deed after he saw Shelley at the entrance. How much time would it have taken Oswald to get up to the 6th floor and then make his hidden perch with several stacked book containing boxes and get settled in to perform that amazingly fast and accurate pressure packed 3 shot feat?  All that doable in that time frame? Serious questions there.

But, Oswald's knowing exactly where Shelley was right before and during the shooting surely forces one to wonder how he knew this without being close enough to see this ... or told this by someone else before his interrogation. Which is very unlikely.

Shelley also states in his testimony that he was actually up on the sixth floor doing floor repair work in the morning hours before the shooting! Was he there until the 11:00 am hour? So, Oswald's supposed "snipers lair" was built up right after Shelley left the 6th floor to come down and have lunch?

Well someone was in that window according to street eyewitnesses Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan and Carolyn Walther. But was it Oswald?

And Shelley being right on the same floor as the snipers lair right up until the 11:00 am hour ( in my mind ) sure makes him out to be a very suspicious person in the whole affair.

In the mid-2000's I was a concierge at a hotel here in Carmel, California.

I noticed in my room and guest printout one day the name "Capone."

This turned out to be a group of women from Florida ( Miami area I assume )  having a California vacation get-together.

In my concierge dealings with the woman who seemed to be in charge of this group, I happened to joke whether they were related to Capone himself.

She casually affirmed that they were!

Nothing more said.

This Capone woman was in her late thirties to early forties I would say. Very attractive and nice. Dark hair and dark toned skin.

Regards the Mafia and their place in our 20th century history; They had much, much more influence, wealth and power than the average American can even imagine.

One of America's greatest legacies in this century was the high level of organized crime corruption thru every level of business, government and our elected officials all the way to the presidency and the head of our FBI.  And they were married to the CIA since WWII as well.

This is a historical reality that we haven't even come close to responsibly acknowledging in our MSM history text and discourse.

"We had inside people in the Warren Report. Gerald Ford was reporting to us, and, uh, Russell ...they had three of them."

James Hosty to Eric Bushman in a November 21st, 2010 interview ( at the 16:23 mark) regarding Hosty's book "Assignment: Oswald " on radio station KMBZ in Kansas City, Missouri.

Sorry, will do.

Could someone provide me with a link to an appropriate thread title regards this subject and these two witnesses?

Thanks.

There is an excellent review of the film under the "Roger Ebert" website.

The writer gives the film 3 stars.

The critics  "2 films in one" analysis is really a very perceptive one IMHO.

Search Results

Deleted

I saw "Jackie" today also.

Mr. Zartman, you really nailed much of the key points about the film and the actors involved.

I also thought Sarsgaard was a poor Robert Kennedy.  You are right, he has lifeless, tired eyes.

I think having " just a touch"  of that Kennedy Bostonian accent might have made Sarsgaard's RFK a little more...acceptable?

Portman did capture Jackie's affected speech and traumatized shock and sadness very well.  

And as well Jackie K's  deeply shaken fragility and doubt yet at the same time her defiant strength to stand up to those who were trying to control her and her decisions at the time.

I didn't have a problem with the back and forth time sequence structure.

Perhaps because I have spent so much time and reading effort on this period of JFK/Jackie history.

I was surprised at how much the film centered on not just Jackie, but the Assassination itself. And it didn't hold back on the horrendous brutality of the actual JFK shooting.

I was also surprised the film was being shown only at our smaller independent film theater versus the huge general release one.

Again, as always, I feel as if America's young people will not see this film. If they did, you would hope that it would spark in them at least some interest and awareness of the JFK event history and story.

The Jack Valenti character came across as a real dick in the movie.  I am not an expert on the guy...but from what I've read about Valenti and LBJ...this wasn't far from the truth.

And they didn't show the Albert Thomas character giving LBJ that "YEAH BABY" celebratory wink and smile right after LBJ was sworn in on Air Force 1.  Too bad...because it really happened.

And did you see the expression of offended disdain on the LBJ character's face when Sarsgaard's Robert Kennedy "ordered" everyone ( including Johnson ) to sit down and not mention Oswald's killing, which had just been reported on the TV in the room where Jackie had not yet entered?

And Sarsgaard's dismissive comment about caring less what LBJ wanted when he and Jackie left Air Force 1 after it landed in Washington?

Many not-too-subtle lines and scenes in the film about the cold dislike between LBJ and RFK.

JIm D.

Sorry, but the article you linked me to does not change my view that LBJ was privy to the assassination before it happened.

The whole article feels "dirty" to me. Like something Posner himself would have written.

Dismissing out-of-hand people like Barr McClellan with negative image one word labels.

And I always have a gut feeling about those who try to dismiss Madeline Brown and May Newman and other "little people" witnesses..

These critics go on and on about discrepancies in their stories. Some so minor and subjective that they seem to be used only to paint these types of witnesses as less honest or mentally sharp than the average person. The effort to find and write about these discrepancies ( which could just as logically be explained as innocent versus contrived )  buzz my "other agenda" suspicion antenna.

May Newman and Madeline Brown are clearly not sophisticated liars. Their tales ring truer to me than not because of this ... well... innocence if you will.

And they are not bad character people...so unlike the main characters in the JFK story like LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Nixon, etc.  Now THERE are some bad and ruthless and lying people. I'll believe people like Brown and Newman much more than those who defend these super corrupted politicians.

And I do not say LBJ "Masterminded" the JFK murder.  Only that he had foreknowledge of it. I believe that the heads of our military had to know of and approve of a coup like this. The planning and implementing of an operation like this and it's massive cover-up, took someone with more power than simply LBJ and Cord Meyer alone.

Albert Thomas's sick , smiling almost celebratory "wink" to LBJ right after he was sworn in on Air Force one kind of sums up my feelings about the whole affair.

" WE WON!"

Incredibly informative, coherent and enlightening critique of the Coral Gables debate and it's two participants.

DiEugenio and his essays are so well researched, documented and presented ( enhanced even more with his sharp wit humor - ala J. Garrison in his "On The Trail Of The Assassins" )  they are some of my absolute favorite JFK assassination event and cover-up story readings.

I wish J. D. could have been a third participant on that stage. Now THAT would have been something much more worthy.

I watched the debate.  Seemed to me also that Stone lost an opportunity to dismantle Posner due to a lack of Posner credibility issues background info preparedness.  

Totally agree with DiEugenio's take on Posner,  He even "looks" like a plagiarizing, weak character weasel.

Stone?  An enigma that baffles me in a somewhat uneasy gut feeling way.

I do disagree about LBJ's involvement with the JFK coup. Nothing this big and benefiting to LBJ could have been done without his foreknowledge in my opinion.

And I simply believe Madeline Brown's " After tomorrow those Irish Mafia " LBJ quote tale.

Chris, regards to the "Undeveloped Leads" report you posted above;

Hosty and Brown are discussing Lee Harvey Oswald with Inspector Kelly ( please explain who Kelly is ) and Forrest Sorrels?

Sorrels himself hears about Oswald weeks before the assassination?

Oswald was known and important enough to be discussed with these guys that long before 11,22,1963?

Seems Oswald was better known and watched before 11,22,1963 by our most important security people more than is generally known.

Or was this meeting with Hosty and Kelly and Sorrels "after" the assassination. 

Thanks, JB

My thoughts exactly Douglas.

Trump's personal and political actions in so many ways since he won the electoral college vote ( and lost the popular vote by 2,850,000 ) are irresponsibly and immaturely outrageous to a mind boggling degree.

Speaking for tens of millions of Americans ( and surely the same number of people in other countries ) I have a sick apprehensive feeling in my gut about Trump.

The kind of feeling I had watching on live TV back on 11,24,1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald was paraded through that crowded Dallas Police Department basement escorted by "only two" security guards not just at his side, but even slightly behind him and then "BOOM!"

When Oswald should have been surrounded by a cordon of police officers three men thick....at night...with no public announcement of his transfer.

Trump has stirred up more upsetting national and international controversy ( before he has even taken office ! ) than any president ( in my 65 years of observations) has even come close to in their entire first year of serving.

During the presidential campaign and the debates with Hillary, Donald Trump always danced around questions about his relations with and feelings toward the Russians.

When confronted with this line of questioning Trump would stumble and mumble but then finally say " I've made a lot of money selling properties to Russians."

It was so obvious why he wouldn't say much about the bad side of one of his biggest customers.

Trump and his Russia comments remind one of a casino owner protecting, indulging and heaping false praise on one of his biggest gambling "Whales." And not caring or wanting to know if his whale is dropping huge amounts of money that may have been acquired through nefarious means.

It's so disturbing to see this new president's stances for or against other countries and their regimes and leaders  (no matter how corrupt and human rights abusing they may be) based upon a highest priority of where they figure in regards to his never satisfied obsession for personal gain wealth.

Back to Hunt.  A man of secrets and deception. I believe him about the "Big Event" yet at the same time I feel a sense of needing to hold back a full acceptance of his most intriguing revelations

The Alien Presence.

If there is one...then yes, it is the most important secret ever.

And if true, it is so important to those who hold and control the complete folder, they have determined that even our presidents must be kept away from knowing this secret.

Like I have said...those who know and control our deepest most important secrets, have a higher authority (self-determined)  than any of our elected officials.

This Alien Presence subject is potentially so life changing for the entire world's human population and all of it's cultures and societies that it has been separated into a secret realm unlike anything before it.  And one can imagine the measures that have been taken to keep this super controlled subject secret.

Again I state what I heard ( although admittedly 6th hand and totally unverifiable ) that a person in high security supposedly once said ( in the last 10 to 15 years? ) to another unknown person: 

" If the average person knew HALF of what was really going on in the world... they would go into their backyards and kill themselves."

I personally think that 99.99999 % of all us humans...are being kept in a blissful bubble of ignorance about what is really going on in this world of ours.

The National Enquirer purposely publishes true stories along with fabricated ones.

It seems there is a well thought out agenda with the intermingling of both.

That's an interesting story unto itself.

Over the years however, they have had real scoops.

Gary Hart, John Edwards, O.J. Simpson and his Bruno Magli shoes, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods and Monica Lewinski, etc.

Their serious investigation efforts yielded such good info over many years ... almost all of the main stream media ( which doesn't fund serious investigations anymore )  could only "re-report" much of what they had uncovered.

Speaking of "Wag The Dog" media reporting...I remember when Howard Dean just won the Iowa Caucus's in 2004 and was gaining support and looking like he could be the Democratic candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

Within one week...Newsweek and Time both published Howard Dean hit pieces with extremely negative slants on Dean on their front covers.  

One had a large and kind of scary headline that said "Doubts About Dean" with a picture of his face fractured like loose pieces of a crossword puzzle.

I instinctively linked Dean's rise in the polls to these two magazines instigating an instant Howard Dean destabilizing campaign.

My theory is that certain national magazines are used for propaganda purposes and agendas like this - such as Time and Newsweek.  

That negative even scary Newsweek front page article about Dean being somehow a dangerous person ( mainly ) because he let out a tired midnight campaign yell that was hoarse sounding ( which they equated and exaggerated into a maniacal scream ) was such an obvious example of this "Wag The Dog" propaganda machine at work.

And know this....tens of millions of Americans "see the covers" of magazines like this while they stand in grocery store check out lines even though maybe only 1 or 2 out of a hundred actually buy these. The publishers of these know this. But I think they know that "the front page covers" of their publications will be seen even though so few buy and read these magazines and tabloids.  Those magazine covers are like propaganda posters.

All millions of Americans had to see was that Newsweek cover "Doubts About Dean" and Newsweek has done it's job. That cover would put in just enough suspicion and doubt about Dean in the minds of millions, because they think that somehow magazines like this must know more about such things than them.

Looks like it was a successful conference.

What did Judyth V B say about Raphael Cruz Sr.?

I watched video of two or three of Vary Baker's New Orlean's witnesses.  One lived in the same apartment house as Mary Sherman and next door to the strange "Juan."

She claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald knocked on her door one day and asked if they knew where this Juan was and also asked them to give a package to this Juan when he returned.

The witness seemed credible sounding to me.

Another was the daughter of a New Orleans judge?  An Italian American woman who made it a point to state that her father was of "Northern Italian" descent and that it was Southern and Sicilian ones that were Mafia.

The sound on this particular video however, was so weak and bad I missed much of the discussion by these witnesses.

But, I wish I could have been there. Many interesting people and stories.

I even like St.John Hunt's music in the slide show presentation Doug Caddy just posted above.

If Oswald did travel all the way down to Mexico City and met with Kostikov himself, doesn't it say more than what we are debating?

I mean, here is a minimum wage, job skipping fellow who can't afford a car or take financial care of his wife and baby who are living with others and being helped by others and can barely make enough himself to stay in cheap rooms, yet he manages to travel to MC and garner a one-on-one meeting with one of the highest ranking members of the Russian spy network in the Western Hemisphere?

This incongruous inter-action with very high intrigue level people who should normally be keeping extremely poor and socially dysfunctional folk like Oswald well outside their gates just doesn't make sense!  If Oswald truly had this Kostikov's one-on-one ear and attention, then this elevates Oswald to much more than a simple, barely employed minimum wage earning ..."Lone Nut."

The equivalent would be Winston Scott taking an appointment with Boris Bushkin, an unemployed former radio assembly worker from Kiev who just arrived on a Greyhound bus with one change of ordinary clothes in a rag tag suitcase and just enough pocket change to eat at road side taco stands.

So much of what Oswald reportedly did in the last year of his life didn't make sense, unless he was much more than a frustrated, financially dysfunctional loner. 

I may have missed any postings about this, but has anyone written about Judyth Vary Baker's presentation at this conference?

She did speak, correct?

I have read an assessment of Roger Stone and his talk.

Same with James Fetzer.  Both quite negative.

But, what about Baker?  I would love to read takes on her appearance.

If she did speak, did she come off as shamelessly self-promoting as so many here describe her and her story?

Pamela, yes, I can believe so much that you felt a tragic shock and sadness experience connection to Jackie Kennedy and what she must have felt on 11,22,1963 with your own personal loss.

What a powerfully sad story.

My empathy to you.

I am older.  If you make it to your mid-sixties, you can expect to live through things both incredibly sad and hard and incredibly fulfilling and loving and joyous.

Life is definitely a journey through it all.  

Take care, take heart in the goodness of people. 

Thank you for all your years of JFK truth seeking effort.

Joe B.

Just listened to an interview of Hosty on a Kansas City radio station talk show after his book " Assignment Oswald" was published..

One of the things stated by Hosty in this interview was that ...

"we had people on the inside" regards the Warren Commission.

"Representative Ford was giving us information and Russell and a third person."

Something all serious JFK researchers knew forever, yet it was never acknowledged or reported much by the main stream media.

So much for an "unbiased"  investigation on the part of the Warren Commission without outside political influence.

Hosty just happens to be meeting with an Army Intelligence Officer ( ? ) for two hours right up to and just before stepping outside on Main street to view the President going by, then as soon as the motorcade passes he casually walks to a cafe to have lunch?

So much for the security of JFK having high priority with all the Government agencies in that area at that time.

Hosty claimed in his Warren Commission testimony that he didn't know the presidential motorcade route until " the day before" 11,22,1963 !

Hosty says the SS didn't share such things with his people.

Yet, the morning of 11,22,1963, his Agent In Charge holds a meeting with Hosty and 40 other agents where the main subject was security for the president and vice president.?   And Hosty didn't even know the parade route until the day before?

Hosty's biggest threat concern were the "Wanted For Treason" flyers being passed around Dallas prior to JFK's arrival?

Hosty was informed that Oswald had visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City from Washington "a month before" 11,22,1963...and this didn't separate Oswald into any more serious minded category of concern when JFK comes to Dallas especially since Oswald worked right on the motorcade route?

Hosty claims again and again he thought Sylvia Odio ( and her sister ) just had a case of mistaken identity in regards to her claim that Oswald and two other men visited her apartment in Sept. of 1963. He explains that this happens frequently with witnesses claiming this or that.  

The Dallas Mercury dealership car salesman ( Albert Bogard ) who says Oswald visited his sales lot and test drove a car also experienced this "mistaken identity" syndrome? Even though he wrote the man's name "Lee Oswald " down on his dealership business card and had even introduced this visiting car test driving customer to his boss ( Mr. Pizzo )who verified this encounter?

Ms. Odio stated she remembered not just someone who "looked like" Oswald, but that his name was also spoken to her in the evening visit by Leopoldo and the third man.

Odio's sister also claimed she saw Oswald that evening although she doesn't remember hearing his name spoken.  

And it was just two months later that the real Lee Harvey Oswald was shown on TV and Ms. Odio and her sister both became quite scared recounting this was one of the men who visited their apartment in September. 

That is not a long period of time in regards to remembering faces and names and countenances in an encounter that was so unsettling to Ms. Odio, she felt compelled to write concernedly to her imprisoned father about it.

Hosty burned and flushed down a toilet "a note" from Oswald right after he was killed. As Mark Lane said, this was willful and purposeful destruction of very relevant recorded evidence in regards to Lee Harvey Oswald.

I wonder if it was just this "note" that Hosty destroyed. And not more than that in their Lee Harvey Oswald "File."

And lastly, if our top intelligence and military and government people truly believed Oswald was operating under the orders of the Soviets to kill JFK ( either consciously or unconsciously as some type of "Manchurian Candidate") do you really think our power structure wouldn't have retaliated in some very, very serious way as a response? Or that they would just do nothing out of fear of a wider conflict developing?

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Joe - That's why it bothers me so much that when RFK Jr. did an interview with Charlie Rose in Dallas a few years ago and said that his father suspected 'rogue CIA' in JFK's death, that interview was never aired.  

Now THAT's a perfect example of the kind of main stream media censoring ( and controlling ) of the JFK story except for the WC Lone Nut one. Still doing this after 50 years! 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Steve:

I get it ... careless was perhaps a poor choice of words.  What I meant was that the name is so phony, so contrived, that its beyond believable (in retrospect, knowing all that we now know).    In other words, its an obvious setup.

Gene

PS. Your comments about the other things done resonates with me.  A few years back, when I confronted a knowledgeable person (one in the know, an individual involved with HSCA) and asked him the classic questions of who did it, why, and how come its not revealed today, his answer was : "what makes you think that was the worst thing they ever did?"  

There is a recorded conversation available of Chuck Colson talking with Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell while they were about to be indicted.

At some point,  Mitchell says something about other nefarious things that have taken place besides Watergate.

Like Watergate was the proverbial "tip of the iceberg"?

We all know that Nixon and probably Johnson ( with the help of his little buddy J. Edgar Hoover)  pulled so many underhanded things the general public would be sickened to know of them all.

I read that when Jackie Kennedy was asked what was the biggest challenge in her life after JFK's head exploding slaughter within inches of her face, she responded ( paraphrasing) ... just keeping myself together.

The woman had serious Post Traumatic Stress from that experience and probably had this the rest of her life.

Can you imagine the awful dreams she must have had stemming from that real life horror movie ordeal?

I was such a huge fan of Jackie Kennedy and read every article about her that came my way and a couple of books on her life.

I noticed something about her immediately following JFK's murder.

Her facial expression changed. Her eyes, they didn't look right. No longer relaxed. They seemed so much more sad and serious and even a tinge of fear and you could almost still see the look of shock, even years later. 

Life was far from safe and secure and innocent for her starting on 11,22,1963.

And then when Bobby was murdered in L.A. in June of 1968, you could tell that was it for her as far as trusting anything in the good ole U.S.A.

I always get an unsettled feeling when I think of Agent James Hosty.

He took an oath before testifying to the Warren Commission to tell " the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth."

Well, we all know now that James Hosty chose not to adhere to the "WHOLE truth" part of that oath to that "august body" of unbiased against JFK truth seekers.

When James Hosty was asked years later why he didn't mention to the Warren Commission his ordered destruction of contents from Oswald's local Dallas FBI file immediately after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby he said  ... "They didn't ask."

They didn't ask.   They didn't ask?

Didn't the "oath" he took clearly ask for the "whole" truth? 

Hosty didn't understand that part of his oath?

That preposterous even offensive answer and excuse is about as rational as a witness to a deadly car accident not telling the investigative police that the driver who caused the accident ran a red light...simply because they "didn't ask" about it?

Does anyone here realize what Hosty telling the Oswald file destroying truth to the Warren Commission would have meant to the rest of JFK truth seeking history?

And what his withholding meant in this same context? 

If I could have personally interviewed Mr. Hosty I would have asked him these questions:

Mr. Hosty, you do realize that the Warren Commission's whole creation and purpose was to find out the truth ( the whole truth) about what happened to our beloved president JFK in Dallas, Texas on 11,22,1963 ?  Our entire nation wanted to know the truth of perhaps the greatest crime in our history ( along with Abe Lincoln's murder ) and the only way they could have any chance of knowing this was supposedly through this LBJ appointed commission?

Yet Mr. Hosty, you took that entire oath before testifying and you knowingly violated the "Whole Truth" part of it?

And I am not sure but was the traditional "So Help You God" addendum also part of this oath? 

Being an Irish Catholic, you would think that part of this oath would make it even more sacred and honorable to you personally.

So, for what reason Mr. Hosty ... what reason could you give for not keeping the "Whole Truth" part of your oath?

What could possibly be a higher calling for you ( someone who wept at JFK's funeral ) than to help find out the "whole truth" about JFK'S  murder and the main suspect Oswald as you knew it to be but then withheld from this commission?

You say that something in this folder would have caused an embarrassment to your employer? So, your loyalty to your employer is ( was) more important to you than helping the world know the whole truth about JFK's supposed, alleged killer? Your employers embarrassment is more important than trying to find the truth regards our presidents brutal slaughter right in your own home town? Under your protection?

Your loyalty to your employer, and your protection of your career standing with them ( including your pension)  obviously took priority in your chance to tell the world everything you knew of Lee Harvey Oswald.

You placed your employment agency and your own career ahead of the truth America and the world was so desperately seeking and needing.

In so doing you have helped to keep the majority of Americans mistrusting of their own government starting with that November day In Dallas, Texas 1963.

Thank you Mr..Hosty.

And since you admitted purposely withholding important information on Oswald to the highest investigative body in the land with the highest truth seeking purpose, what else did you hold back in this matter? Your credibility for total truth telling was lost on that day you were interviewed by the Warren Commission and refused to bring up what you fully knew and had on Lee Harvey Oswald before 11,22,1963.

And you "dare" to complain in your memoirs that important truth information about Oswald was withheld from "you" for many years? And how this offended you?

Now you know how your fellow Americans and especially us JFK truth seekers feel about you,after you admitted withholding Lee Harvey Oswald information from the Warren Commission and the American public, even and especially after you took "an oath"  to tell the "whole truth" as you knew it.

And your casual lunch break right at the time that JFK was traveling through your JFK and Adlai Stevenson extreme hating city ( which you knew it to be ) with it's threats against him blatantly expressed in the newspaper and on car windshields  ) belies your professed love of JFK and concern for his safety which should have been logically much, much more attentive in that super far right, JFK threatening dangerous city.