Joe Bauer

13 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I wanna be a Marxist, Communist, Racist RINO too.

Is that like a hippy, happy hippopotamus or a zany zebra or something?

Steve Thomas

Mind boggling self-incriminating comments and assertions from Trump.

He frames and presents his election law violating words and actions in such an opposite-of-reality and legal logic way...it is clearly delusional.

Yet, he gets away with law violating acts hundreds of times and has never been held accountable for any of them his entire life!

Not sure which is more disturbing - Trump doing this crazy delusional law violating stuff, or his never being held accountable for doing so.

It makes our entire legal system seem corrupted in favor of the rich as well.

Yes, interesting photo.

The man is certainly not Roger Craig.

Craig stands out as being so thin back then he looked childhood starved emaciated, even skeletal. Clothes just hung off of his boney shoulders.

The man in question here has some meat on his bones.

Those suited men in the lower left corner look like plain clothes cops ( is that a pistol handle in the waist band area of the lowest left hand corner fellow? ) with the dark suited man to his left looking like an executive type with his perfectly folded coat pocket white kerchief.

Lots of suited men. They sure didn't come from the Billy Lovelady, Wesley Frazier, rag tag dressed TXSBD worker crowd.

Notice also how all the black men in this photo stayed among themselves?  

Reflected 1963 Dallas's racial segregation sentiment I would guess.

One small boy right in the thick of the crowd. Bottom of the pic.

What a powerful memory experience for him I would image he shared with his kids and grandkids later on in his adult life.

I always wondered why Jack Ruby reportedly didn't run the few blocks from the Dallas Morning News offices to join the action in the Plaza as soon as he heard JFK had been shot there. Instead he jumps in his car and races in tears back to his club?

Ruby was a man who wanted to be where the action was. He ran right into the Dallas PD building and got right into the Press crowd there Friday night for hours and even perched himself on top of a table and verbally interjected himself with a shout out to Dallas DA Henry Wade during the nationally covered press conference there.

Ruby "did" go to Parkland hospital right after JFK was brought there. Reputable journalist Seth Kantor saw him there and Ruby even engaged Kantor in conversation!

Yet the Warren Commission decided that Kantor was so worked up with excitement during his visit to Parkland that his sworn oath testimony regards seeing and talking to Ruby there was the result of an over-active imagination. A delusion.

Ha! Preposterous!

Instead they believed Ruby's disjointed, meandering, almost incoherent jibberish saying he didn't stop at Parkland that day.

The woman in question in the original post photo doesn't look to me to be anything more than an innocent parade route watcher.

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Glad to see your recovering Joe.

Thank you Ron.

In some ways yes. In some ways no.

I feel I've been knocked down 50%.

My balance is still off. Worry it may be permanent. Still using a walker outside of home.

And my legs are very weak.

Reading all the never ending, supremely outrageous and whacky stories of George Santos ( a new one every day ) has been a nice humorous distraction for me.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

   I thought Senator Kamala Harris was fairly sharp in the 2020 Democratic Primary debates-- a far cry, intellectually, from a Dan Quayle.  

Oh, by leaps and bounds.

KH was a product of the political scene of Northern California. She knew that world well.

I think she may have been kind of one state insecure moving into the much more broad power 50 state and international affairs dealing federal political realm world?

DC is a far cry from San FRANCISCO. In a million different ways. Socially, politically, culturally, weather...

What a head trip

7 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

As of this date, I've yet to see or hear anything from Kamala Harris to suggest she's ready for prime time. IMHO, she's the equivalent of a Dan Quayle, chosen to occupy the VP slot to appeal to a certain voter demographic. 

That deal was made before Super Tuesday. 2020.

When the bright lights shine on Harris, she fails to cast a long shadow. She doesn't appear eloquent, she doesn't appear self-confident.

Well, you never know.

Harry Truman was considered in the same light just as he had to step into the presidency after FDR's death. Ineloquent, pinched little bespectacled face, bad piano playing, Mid-Western Mr. Nobody with a Plain Jane wife and whose claim to fame was running a small unsuccessful haberdashery.

He had to face monumentally tough challenges and decisions ... and he did okay.

If Biden doesn't make it another two years, Momma Kamala may surprise everybody.

I was a Warren candidacy advocate in 2020.

Michael Bloomberg got her and Saunders out by Super Tuesday as well.

Kamala may rise to the task. Her husband is a good and intelligent man and he would be a constant supportive rock for her during a presidential turn imo.

I assume the huge majority of Americans since 1963 are like me.

80% of my time, energy, focus commitment 5 to 7 days a week 52 weeks a year was centered around one main real life goal...making enough income to pay the basic needs of housing, food, transportation, health, clothing, insurance, utilities, etc. etc.

And when I chose to marry and have children, the cost of those needs tripled, and required even more commitment centered around...a job.

Your entire day is structured around this priority reality.

In my case, I always seemed to be just barely making it, to a degree that when I did have some free thought time, I was quite tired usually.

I think the vast majority of American adults have lived this typical structure life.

In my case, it was only when I stopped working full time that I was able to find the time and energy to pursue my passion for the JFK truth ( and to a lesser degree the RFK and MLK ones ) which I felt was the greatest American unsolved crime of the twentieth century and which changed our society in bad ways beyond anything most Americans could fully realize.

Millions of work centered Americans still find time to read and contemplate larger realms of national and world affairs of course. And even develop opinions about them and express concern over ones that involve actions that they may conclude are universally wrong, immoral and hurtful to innocent people everywhere.

Where am I going with this contemplation?

I guess partly to express my take that even our limited efforts by thousands of Americans versus millions who could be labeled apathetic ( wrongly ) should be given the greatest appreciation.  This effort "has" kept this ultimate unsolved crime ( crimes ) alive in our societal consciousness at least to a degree that the perpetrators behind it can never totally escape their fear of exposure?

Most Americans like me have lived to work our entire lives to keep from being homeless and to protect and nurture and provide for our families. This life structure reality often doesn't allow for much extra free thought time to meaningfully study, contemplate and engage in matters outside our immediate family needs world.

Guess it will always be this way regards JFK, RFK and MLK.

Keep up the good fight my fellow truth seeking brethren and sisteren.

7 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Yes, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but this document thing isn't going to remove Uncle Joe from office...

People seem to be forgetting that the reason Trump is in trouble regarding documents is that he lied about having them, and then when he was caught lying, he refused to return them.

 

Exactly.

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

And the Deep State (represented by Johnson's "Wise Men") deposed Johnson in 1968.

From my 2021 book POLITICAL TRUTH: THE MEDIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY:

 

“THE WHOLE BAY OF PIGS THING”

 

The late Carl Oglesby’s The Yankee and Cowboy War goes where Caro and others are afraid to inquire. Fearlessly connecting the dots in his research, Oglesby attempts to put together the pieces of the complex factors surrounding the assassination to explicate its pivotal importance in modern American history. His 1976 book is less known than any of Caro’s but is a thoroughly revisionist, groundbreaking study of the pattern of American history from 1960 through Watergate. Oglesby offers one of the most acute studies of the turbulent political context in which the assassination occurred. He broadens the topic from a study of some aspects of the physical evidence in the case to the struggle for dominance of American politics between the internationalist, old-money Eastern establishment (the “Yankees”) and the new money of the more conservative Southwestern and Western oil and gas men and defense contractors (the “Cowboys”) from the 1950s onward.

 

That political power shift led to the rise not only of Eisenhower and LBJ but also of the Californians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Oglesby studies the assassination as the turning point in a process that had already been underway but was accelerated by Kennedy’s murder. The Yankee and Cowboy War analyzes the tensions among warring American political, intelligence, and business factions over Vietnam and other aspects of foreign policy, including the United States’ combative relationships with the USSR, China, and Cuba. Oglesby’s book is one of the most acute and provocative studies of the political context in which the assassination occurred and that resulting transfer of power, often by clandestine means.

 

Like Scott before and after him, Oglesby draws direct interconnections between American intelligence operatives and Cuban exiles involved in both Dallas and Watergate. Those convulsions have been portrayed in the mainstream media and conventional history books as separate and aberrational rather than central to that period in American history. Oglesby analyzes President Nixon’s use of the suggestive phrase “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” on the 1972 Watergate “smoking gun tape” in terms of Nixon’s guilty knowledge about and/or involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Nixon’s November 21–22 visit to Dallas was for the annual convention of American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, at which Lyndon Johnson had spoken two days before the assassination. Nixon was one of four U.S. presidents in Dallas on the day of the assassination, also including George H. W. Bush as well as Kennedy and Johnson.

 

On the “smoking gun” tape recorded on June 23, 1972, the day after the final Watergate break-in, Nixon committed an obstruction of justice that would eventually lead to his resignation. He ordered his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, to tell CIA director Richard Helms to make the FBI stay out of the Watergate investigation. At the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1962, Helms had been the CIA’s deputy director for plans (i.e., in charge of the Agency’s covert action or “dirty tricks” department). On the tape, Nixon referred to both Helms and Watergate burglar and CIA man E. Howard Hunt, who was blackmailing him:

 

We protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things. . . . Of course, this Hunt, that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there’s a hell of a lot of things, and we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hankypanky that we have nothing to do with ourselves.

 

Later that day, Nixon instructed Haldeman to go tell Helms:

 

Very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, he knows too damned much, if he was involved — you happen to know that if it gets out that this is all involved, the Cuba thing, it would be a fiasco. It would make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it is likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate — both for CIA and for the country, at this time, and for American foreign policy. Just tell him to lay off. . . . the problem is it tracks back to the Bay of Pigs and it tracks back to some other, the leads run out to people who had no involvement in this, except by contracts and connection, but it gets into areas that are liable to be realized.

 

What was Nixon really talking about here? Haldeman wrote in his memoir, The Ends of Power (1978, with Joseph DiMona), that Nixon used “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” as coded language: “It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. . . . After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. . . . In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy’s assassination and the CIA.” Haldeman’s book relates that when he went to see Helms on Nixon’s order, he told the CIA director,

 

The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown. Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, “The Bay of Pigs has nothing to do with this! I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs!” Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms’ violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? Finally I said, “I’m just following my instructions, Dick. That is what the President told me to relay to you.” Helms was settling back. “All right,” he said. But the atmosphere had changed. Now, surprisingly, the two CIA officials [Helms and deputy director General Vernon Walters] expressed no concern about the [impeachable Nixon] request that Walters go see FBI Director L. Patrick Gray.

 

Interpreting the continuing cover-up of Dallas as a principal motive of Nixon’s ordering the CIA to cover up Watergate, the action that led to his impeachment and resignation from office, Oglesby portrays Nixon’s ouster from the presidency not as the result of the bungled “third-rate burglary” portrayed in the press but as a “countercoup” by the CIA against Nixon, stemming from the successful Dallas conspiracy. Nixon’s battle for control with the Agency is also portrayed as the cause of the Watergate affair by revisionist historians Jim Hougan in Secret Agenda; Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin in Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (1991); and Stone in Nixon. Oglesby considers the Watergate break-ins to have been staged and deliberately sabotaged by the CIA to draw Nixon into the series of crimes he predictably committed to cover up the break-ins. That coup enabled a removal of the president without assassination. But it was not a bloodless coup. Oglesby writes in extensive, compelling detail about the 1972 “Watergate plane crash” in Chicago that killed CIA-connected Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt’s wife, Dorothy, herself a CIA veteran, along with CBS News correspondent Michele Clark and forty-three other people, as a means of stopping Hunt’s husband from blackmailing Nixon.

 

Oglesby further interprets an earlier coup, President Johnson’s forced “abdication” in 1968, as the outcome of the internal power struggle between the “Cowboy” faction that LBJ represented and the Eastern “Yankee” elite. Oglesby writes that Johnson’s grudging agreement not to seek another term as president, “as well as his switch to a negotiated settlement line on Vietnam,” was a “bloodless power play.” The North Vietnamese Tet Offensive of January 1968 and the international Gold Crisis that resulted from the weakening of the U.S. economic position by the war caused Johnson to be forced out of power by his “Wise Men,” the group of senior leaders who regularly advised him on policy as a kind of shadow government (the epitome of what’s meant by “deep politics”). Drawn largely from the leadership of the Eastern establishment, they included Clark Clifford, Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge, Douglas Dillon, and George Ball. On March 25, 1968, they told Johnson the war could not be won the way he was pursuing it and that he could not run for another term as president.

 

Johnson surprised the nation by announcing “his” decision on television six days later. He was bitter about it and, according to the chief American correspondent of the Sunday Times of London, Henry Brandon, Johnson told him later that year, “The only difference between Kennedy’s assassination and mine is that mine was a live one, which makes it all a little more torturing.” Oglesby interprets that forced abdication as a Yankee power play by the Wise Men. He writes that they wanted to “break off [from the Cowboys] a war believed to be unwinnable except through an internal police state, both sides fighting for control of the levers of military and state-police power through control of the presidency. Johnson’s Ides of March was a less bloody Dallas, but it was a Dallas just the same: it came of a concerted effort of conspirators to install a new national policy by clandestine means. Its main difference from Dallas is that it finally did not succeed.”

 

That the ouster from office of Kennedy’s successor resulted in America eventually losing the war in Vietnam was another tragic historical irony. After Nixon’s ascension in place of Johnson, the new president wound down the war diplomatically but with excruciating slowness while expanding the war enormously in terms of American firepower. That devastating escalation was partly made possible by Nixon’s canny decision to end the draft, which helped reduce domestic dissent. His maddening gradualism in bringing the war to the conclusion he had promised in his 1968 campaign but did not deliver during his tenure in office was the subject of a question put to a member of his administration at an event I covered at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1972, as a reporter for The Wisconsin State Journal.

 

Henry Kissinger’s deputy William H. Sullivan (who later was serving as the U.S. ambassador to Iran when the hostage crisis erupted in 1979) was asked at that event why the U.S. was still in Vietnam. He answered that it was because the U.S. needed to control the oil in the South China Sea. That kind of candid public revelation about realpolitik and the economic causations of war is most unusual among government officials. What I reported was picked up by the Associated Press and went around the world on its wire, although it was eclipsed by another revelation I reported from the same event, Sullivan’s comment that the Paris peace talks soon would be resuming. Following the stir both statements caused, Sullivan claimed he had not made them. I produced my notes to prove that he had. Then it was claimed that Sullivan’s speech to a university organization had been off-the-record. I produced a letter from that organization inviting our newspaper to cover his appearance on campus. Studies of the Vietnam War rarely discuss the importance of oil in motivating the long U.S. presence there.

 

Revisionist (i.e., truthful) historians such as Oglesby and Scott attempt to make sense of these often-hidden aspects of modern American history. They analyze them as part of the workings of the deep state, a line of inquiry that helps clarify the seemingly mad spectacle of American foreign policy from Watergate and Vietnam and continuing through all the internal battles and external crises that have followed. That history takes us through the terms of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and careens catastrophically from 9/11 to the attempted Trump Coup. The parade of nearly constant destructive upheavals and calamities our country has undergone since the end of World War II demonstrates the continuing validity of Scott’s 1993 thesis about the regularity of “perceived threats” in modern American history and how those threats have been resolved through “collusive secrecy and law-breaking” and how they “deserve to be regarded as periodic readjustments of the open political system in which we live.” Even though the Cold War ended in 1991, such upheavals and readjustments, often carried out by violent means, remain the norm in the conduct of American foreign policy and the central role the military-industrial complex plays in our national life. By studying the functioning of the deep state that way, Scott writes, “we should look within, not outside, the political status quo, if we hope to understand the [Kennedy] assassination.”

 

Beyond the Cold War period, what Chomsky calls a “constant parade of enemies” has been conjured up by the U.S. government and its propaganda apparatus, including the media. They serve as focal points of enmity for rallying the public behind the ongoing interests of the military-industrial complex and the policy of permanent or semi-permanent war (hence 9/11 and the “War on Terror”). And so, despite periodic changes of party control, the country remains largely in the hands of the same deep power structure that killed President Kennedy in 1963. “But what did we all believe in 1964 about the integrity of our upper government?” Oglesby asks. “What did we believe about spies, clandestinism, realpolitik, about intrigue as a method of decision-making and murder as an instrument of policy? In 1964 we could not yet even see through the fraud we call ‘the Gulf of Tonkin incident.’”

 

Yet as a result of that atmosphere of deceit, there burst forth a flood of public distrust that was, perhaps, the beginning of a fresh start for those who could face the harsh new awareness. For as Salandria put it in 1994,

 

Not only did the killing of JFK destroy the American public’s confidence in the presidency but in essentially all aspects of the legitimacy of the government. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and respected members of the Congress and of the American Establishment placed their names on the Warren Report, which the American public considered to be a fraud. The public lost its confidence in the media, which refused to investigate the killing. These changes were significant and important, and they can be traced and are traced by so many of us to the assassination.

 

Thanks for posting this JM.

And this is just one small part of your book? 

It inspires me to buy and read it in it's entirety.

I had a high school friend join the Navy in 1969. He served on the Air Craft Carrier Oriskany.

Pac duty off of Vietnam.

Home ship of John McCain.

Scene of a huge fire with many deaths earlier than 1969.

I still talk to him maybe once a year. He likes to share stories of his time on the carrier.

Just a few months ago he told me that his ship's fighter jet combat action over Vietnam was so hot it was often 24/7.

He marveled at the tonnage of ordinances that his ship's fighters alone dropped on their missions.

The numbers of tonnage was so great, he said the average American probably couldn't fathom it's massiveness.

I once read that we inundated Viet Nam with more bombing power than we dropped in all of WW II?

And yes, Vietnam was indeed a battle over natural resources such as oil and rubber?

Between us and the Soviet Union?

The fairgrounds look remarkably the same as they did in 1967. the main stage pavilion especially.

Did Ruth Paine ever state that the type of paper Oswald allegedly wrapped the rifle in was something she had or could have had in her garage and home anytime before the evening of 11,21,1963?

Otherwise, Oswald must have brought the paper into Ruth's home?

Possibly concealing it folded up inside of his jacket while riding with Frazier to Ruth's home on Thursday afternoon?

Did the DPD or FBI ever establish the provenance of the paper type? And the tape type ( if used ) as well?

Was it a kind used at the Texas School Depository for any reason? Was it from a store of some type that Oswald may have done any business with? Seems like it would not be difficult to establish where that exact kind of paper could be found and where it was manufactured, no?

Was the paper package Oswald carried to Frazier's car and then into the back of the TXSBD building held together just by folding it into itself, or was there tape used in doing so?

Again, if it was taped, did Ruth Paine state the tape was hers? 

Was the paper cut in anyway? Did Ruth Paine have scissors handy that Oswald could have used to cut the paper?

Oswald simply left the gun wrapping paper next to his perch after unwrapping it?

He didn't think of disposing this evidence in anyway?

Like rolling it up into a ball and putting this into a building trash can or tossing it out of another opposite side sixth floor window?

If Oswald did the shooting I have pondered something that puts Oswald into a different category than most everyone including myself has had a hard time accepting.

That underneath his calm public demeanor...he was a psychopathic killer time bomb.

A man so full of murderous rage that blowing JFK's head apart just inches from his wife's face didn't faze him.

That blasting Tippit with "over-kill" shots including a coup de grace one in the head also didn't faze him.

A man so disturbed in this way...that he couldn't conceptualize the reality and understanding that committing these acts would be the most self-destroying ( and his two baby family destroying ) ones imaginable? Totally suicidal.

The kind of actions people do to die ( suicide by cops) when they want to destroy themselves but just can't turn the gun on themselves.

Or, something you could imagine a "Manchurian Candidate" might do?

Unconscious brainwashed order following? With perhaps a code word message used to begin the killing?

Like "Lee...time to listen to your mother." ?

Also, if Lee thought that doing the shooting would be his ticket into Cuba...well, again, that is hard to believe.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Let me get this straight...

Hunter Biden has a fling with a prostitute and she gets pregnant. Biden wants nothing to do with the child and doesn't even know if it is his. DNA tests prove the child is indeed Hunter's and he is ordered to pay child support.

So Hunter pays child support -- as he should -- but wants nothing to do with the child or the mother.

And you think Joe Biden should step around Hunter's wishes and establish his own relationship with the child?

Well that's about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. But I'm not surprised that those on the right would make a big deal about such a thing.

Joe Biden is a class act.

 

Sandy, my brother in JFK sentiment arms...

I respectfully disagree with you on this one point.

I personally would connect with this woman who gave birth to Hunter Biden's child and try to establish some type of relationship to in some way help this child in anyway possible.

Most Americans don't have the financial means to do much more than offer their time and help if needed for this child's needs. Those who do have better standing financially could offer more.

It could be a risky connection. The mother of the child could be someone who might try to take selfish advantage of such help. Maybe keeping any funds sent to the child for her own use? Maybe even a drug abuser?

Or trying to milk the grandparents constantly for more?

Still, I know myself. I would be willing to face those risk scenarios.

I have a deep, deep conviction regards caring about an innocent child born into my family no matter what the unintentional wrong-side-of-the-tracks procreating circumstances.

I've dealt with drug and alcohol addicted persons in or near my family most of my life.

Outside of violent behavior towards others, I have never abandoned them when they ever came to me in need. Their children especially.

I've visited family ( and friends ) in jail. I've helped to bail them out. I've given them my time and companionship and help when I could. I've sent money ( maybe just a couple hundred dollars) to a few friends and family through the mail or those grocery store money grams. I try to be tolerant regards how they got in such binds.

I have this powerful seed of do-gooder sentiment inside of me.

It's just who I am. It's just me.

Guess it stems from my own childhood. Always praying for someone to jump in and help me during the roughest times. No family was there to do this...but by the grace of good, several adult people outside of family did...from time to time anyway.

Can you imagine what it would mean to this child of Hunter Biden's living on the other side of the tracks from his or her father's side, to have the love and support from this side of her paternal family giving her seriously committed acknowledgement, love and support while he or she is growing up?

It would mean ... EVERYTHING!

Very little is more important than such loving effort in my book of life values.

Remarkable that Crosby would inject that into his performance at the Monterey Pop love fest.

Socially conscious even then.

I was at the Monterey Pop.

Unfortunately only hanging around outside of the fairgrounds.

I was just 15 in June of 1967.

Driving around with some friends just crowd watching. Up and down Fairgrounds road. Night and day, there were thousands of young people.

This was a fashion show with beautiful young people. The latest in hippie fashion. Not a cheap rags affair. Seemed it was a middle to upper middle class affair more than a poorer one in this regards from what I remember. Lots of fancy tasseled leather vests, coats, boots. Bell bottoms and crazy different, colorful and funny hats.

If Manson and his merry band of rag tag followers-pranksters were there, they might have seemed a little on the poor dress side I would think.

I can still remember the heavy smell of patchouli oil ( always feminine attractive to me ) constantly in the air.  That and the smell of weed. You could smell this for blocks around the fairgrounds. The mix was seductively intoxicating...to me anyways.

The whole scene and vibe was very attractive and exciting.

The youthful hippy love energy and fragrance smells, the music ( which you could hear for blocks around)  and the sight of so many beautiful young people everywhere. Again, with their free and expressive and colorful fashion.

Even the performers could be seen walking around outside from time to time. Look, there's Hendrix walking into a little open booth flower shop on Fremont street! Hey, isn't that the Mommas and The Papas!  The close by Denny's restaurant of Fremont street was constantly packed. Ummm, they weren't half bad back then. Can't screw up eggs and coffee, right?

The entire days of the event were remarkably easy going. No crazy or violent incidents. Everyone seemed mellow.

It is absolutely true what Eric Burdon wrote in his song "Monterey."

"Even the cops grooved with us" "Can you believe me yeah" "Down in Monterey." The police "were" very calm and accommodating it seemed to me.

Scores of young people had simply slept outside during the three days and nights with sleeping bags in open land areas behind the fairgrounds versus all the motels in front which were full. The police didn't bother them.

I wish I had paid to actually go to the indoor shows. The prices were very affordable. And taken a camera to boot.

But, I was not understanding of the historical magnitude of it all. And I was of a different crowd than the hippie movement.

I hung around other rougher edged kids from families like mine. Old school booze, violence, cursing, cops. Parents Nixon lovers, Kennedy haters. No money.

Many kids from our high school had easily immersed into the more gentle "Peace And Love" music, fashion and lingo identity genre.

 Volkswagon bugs and vans, patchouli oil, Beatles style longer hair and music on their cumbersome 8 track players.

I was an angry, shorter haired, pimply faced kid still wearing 1950's style white T-shirts and Levis and Converse tennis shoes. My music preference was mostly black soul and Motown.

Still, even I was attracted to the gentler and more freely expressive new hippie/free love/marijuana/ patchouli oil sea change with young people all around me on the California Coast. The prettiest girls in school were flocking to Peace And Love message and style.

The Monterey Pop Festival was an amazingly powerful event that celebrated and advertised this new cultural movement in a dramatically iconic way.

Much more I think than even the original creators and organizers of it imagined it would be.

Double-entrendres"

Nixon..."you know LBJ... he never likes to be number 2."

37 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Regarding the security blanket; at which would you say that it becomes analogous to the housewife who is beaten black and blue by her abusive husband on a daily basis but, still fears being alone in the world more, or doesn’t think she can do better? 

My own mother...to a "T."

Another film about JFK?

Where is the film about Dorothy Kilgallen?

Ten years ago an A list mystery film ( supposedly with some tie-in to the JFK assassination ) was just about green lighted starring Kate Blanchette and written by David Mamet!

The title was "BlackBird."

Always felt bad that this project was abandoned.

Blanchett ("The Aviator," "I'm Not There," "Elizabeth," "Notes on a Scandal") will play Janet, who travels to L.A. for the funeral of her grandfather, a Hollywood visual effects artist whose secrets become a threat to her.

Mamet will also direct the film, which is described as a "Hitchcockian nailbiter." "Blackbird" is produced by SBS Prods. and is scheduled to shoot in Sydney.

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Wedding ring on right hand and Marine Corps ring on left.

I thought both men and women wore their wedding ring on their left hand?

You are saying Oswald chose to wear his Marine Ring on his left hand instead?

And switched his marriage ring to his right?

It looks like no ring on his right hand in one photo.

Are you stating that there was a ring on his right hand but it was so small in size you could not see it without a blow up like the ones you have posted?

3 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

Sounds credible does not mean IS credible. Without the opportunity to sit down face to face and go over her story repeatedly looking for changes and inconsistencies are critical. What motivates people to lie is the question.

But there must be "something" in her statements and her claimed connection to the main characters involved through probable verifiable employment  documentation that is motivating you to at least say she sounds credible? And not dismissing her right off the bat...correct?

Seems to me someone with your long career experience in interrogation can make an immediate determination whether a witness is even worth  your valuable time interviewing?

IMO, if I could verify her employment claims for the specific times she states and cross check to see if anyone else knew that Jack Ruby visited her restaurant as well as the officers she mentions and found they did? I would really have wanted to speak to her as you stated ... face to face.

One thing I feel is that she doesn't seem to have some questionable motivation to share her recollections like seeking fame and attention, money, revenge etc.

Stone brought up Jim Garrison and his book "On The Trail Of The Assassins."

Obviously, it had a huge impact on Stone.  

So much so, he frames almost all of his film JFK around Garrison's shared findings in it.

This was my first JFK book reading as well.

It pulled me in totally. A super entertaining and at times even funny tome as well as inspiring in it's righteous indignation regards the JFK truth coverup.

I've watched Stone's film JFK so many times since 1991 ( I also watched it twice when it first came out in theaters ) I can quote almost every line and even decently mimic the characters in their deliveries of them.

My wife long ago tired of being my only audience for my act though. It's a sad thing to accept the reality of such lonely unfulfilled performance urges.

Garrison's book gave the JFK event a life so much more scintillating and expansive than others before it.

Every character in it pulls you in. Their eccentricities only enhance their dramatic attractiveness and story and plot contributions.

I am watching the film in my neurofeedback sessions even today. This involves watching a film while monitoring leads are attached to your scalp.

Something to hopefully aid in long term concussion recovery.

Can't get enough of incredible performances by so many top actors in the film.

John Candy's Dean Andrews is fabulous. Same with Jack Lemmon's Jack Martin, Tommy Lee Jones's Clay Shaw etc. etc.

Jim Di said in the interview above that Stone's JFK should have won so many more Academy Awards than it did. That pressure from sinister outside forces kept it from doing so.

Of course, this is absolutely true.

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Yes, a marvelous interview with the two of you

and the excellent young interviewer. She gives

us hope that the cause will live on. I find my

students are deeply interested in the subject

when I discuss it in my classes.

Stone seemed enthusiastic yet at ease.

The young interviewer ( sincerely enthusiastic and informed herself ) brought the best out of both of you. Great job on her part.

Clearly Stone felt supported with your presence Jim. He often looked to you to help fill in areas of his recollections of different aspects of the film research and editing, knowing and totally trusting your vast JFK research knowledge in so many areas such as JFK's foreign policy challenges.

And thank goodness you have a manner of injecting some light humor in your interviews JD.

Which most often wonderfully exposes the laughable absurdity of the Lone Nut proponents and their arguments as well as pointing out coincidences that are simply too illogical to be blindly dismissed as not importantly suspicious.

Well practiced, polished and not over done.

It keeps your interviews enjoyably balanced versus ones that are overly heavy as the subject matter inherently is unfortunately.

My take anyway.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, I don't know about that, Joe. In the filmed re-enactment (seen below) that Buell Frazier performed for David Wolper's movie cameras (which occurred sometime prior to October of 1964), Buell's ten-year-old Chevrolet sedan seems to be running pretty smoothly and quietly (based on what we can hear during the limited time when the microphone actually picks up the sounds of the car's engine just after Frazier gets in the car and starts it).

But maybe Wolper's film crew just got lucky and the 1954 Chevy* was having a good day when this re-creation scene was filmed.

* The narration in the Wolper film has the wrong model year for Frazier's vehicle. The narrator, Richard Basehart, says it's a 1953 model. But as we can see from Buell's ownership papers, it's actually a '54 model. I've always wondered why that mistake was made by the Wolper crew, especially since they had Buell Frazier right there with them for this re-enactment scene, and Buell should have been able to tell the film crew that his car was a '54 and not a '53. But maybe Buell just plain forgot and told them it was a '53. That's what I think probably happened.

 

Of course I embellished my take on BWF's car being a constantly not starting junk yard special. 

Call it ... occasional comedic compulsion syndrome.

Now and then this dark heavy subject matter needs a little lightening imo.

Actually would love to have a restored 54 Chevy like Frazier's. 4 doors. Lots of room.

Love Frazier's two toned, white topped, "spats" type loafers shown in this reenactment.

Frazier had a little "Elvis" coolness back in the day didn't he?

I just watched JFK Revisited ( third viewing ) two nights ago on my home TV.

I paid $2.99 cents to do so.

I've paid this $2.99 fee all three times.

In my JFK truth seeking obsessed mind it's money well spent.

Just watched the video above.

Much covered in such a short one hour long interview.

One question regards a point in "JFK Revisited."

What was the deal with Oswald wearing a ring on his right hand in one of the backyard photos, and that ring is shown on the other hand in another of the photos?

This was the first time I ever heard about the Oswald back yard photos ring hand switch discrepancy.

8 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

She sounds credible but the key would be to be in the room.

So you would not dismiss her claims out of hand?

What about her makes you say..."She sounds credible." ?

Wesley got ten bucks for the car?

From what he told everybody about that car right after the assassination it wasn't worth that. Battery dying all the time. Missing hub caps. Junk yard special.

I picture Frazier and Oswald constantly big-eyed praying this sputtering, rattling, oil burning and black exhaust spewing rust bucket wouldn't just die on the way to and from work!

Wouldn't be surprised if Oswald was embarrassed to be seen riding in that junker.

Maybe that's why he jumped out of it as soon as they arrived at the lot behind the TXSBD that Friday morning, and leaving his friend Frazier behind to keep revving the engine to keep it's battery from dying and/or make sure the engine actually stopped when he turned off the key?

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Caro did very little with JFK's murder, the Warren Commission, and then gives LBJ credit for keeping Kennedy's advisors on board. 

JFK's murder made LBJ our president.

To leave that massively important part of LBJ's climb to the top out of the story as much as Caro does seems illogically suspicious.

Greer was looking straight back at JFK all during the headshot.

Any driver lets off the accelerator when they turn around 180 degrees behind them while driving.

The Zapruder film clearly shows Greer doing this.

Why Greer lied under oath about his 180 degree turn around to see JFK's head hit is the big question.

And his doing so without more questioning scrutiny just added more mistrust regards the Warren Commission's procedural and purpose integrity.