A chat box question suggestion:

Was Lee Harvey Oswald a "Patsy" as he publicly claimed to the world press?

“I want to tell you something. If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, we would’ve been armed,” she said of the Jan. 6, 2021, attempt by supporters of then-President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the New York Post.

Un-be-lievable!

Jaw dropping?

This latest Marjorie Taylor Greene statement is so outrageous, it's "beyond" jaw dropping!

The woman should be formally censured immediately.

The woman and her seditious violent government actions defending and promoting public proclamations are simply...crazy!

She must be totally ignorant of the meaning of her taking office oath to "Protect and defend the constitution of the United States ... against all enemies foreign and domestic ... so help me God."

This is one dangerous lady!

She's more publicly open and encouraging of violent action against our duly elected government than the most well known extremist outlaw groups like the Proud Boys etc.!

Talk about a fire breathing dragon lady.

Was viewing a years ago Richard Belzer talk appearance video recently and he made a statement regarding the question of who killed JFK that was catching imo.

He said maybe the question should be..."who didn't kill Kennedy?"

And he listed the huge list of powerful individual and group JFK haters that would want him dead.

Big Oil. Segregationists. The Mafia. Right wing extremists. Cuban exiles. Rogue intelligence agents. Hard line military leaders and other individual people in high positions whom we all know.

Take your pick!

One can be sure they all celebrated JFK's killing.

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Even accepting Gregory's deeply jaundiced view of LHO (which I do not)---really, if true, then LHO was not subject to blandishments of co-conspirators, such as money or career advancement, or flattery and relocation to a new and better life? How does Gregory know all that on Nov. 22?

Exactly.

I recently viewed your interview on the Patrick Bet-David podcast.

It seemed to me that Paul Gregory's take on Oswald was extremely limited to primarily his own personal interactions with him and Marina.

I haven't read his book so I can't say for sure how much Gregery researched Oswald's life, actions and words to come to his conclusions about Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination.

This stark research difference between Gregory and you Jim D. kind of said it all in my mind.

Jim, you stated that Oswald was a very complicated person. Especially considering his young age and how many intriguing actions he partook in including world travel.

Oswald's life in New Orleans is such a major aspect of his last year secret life that to not study this even to a minor degree versus your extensive study, just relegates Gregory's Oswald knowledge credibility to extremely limited imo.

If Gregory's two month interaction with Lee and Marina is most all he has to base his "Oswald did it" finding proposition, his book is not worth reading imo.

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And why would a shooter take a third shot after his second shot successfully hits JFK in the head which he would have clearly seen?---JB

Well, easy, more than one gunman. The additional shot came in rapid succession from a gunman already in the act of shooting. Adrenaline pumping etc. 

I differ a bit from Pat Speer's excellent analysis.

I deduce JBC is shot ~Z295, when he is again in position to receive a shot in the back from the TSBD or Dal-Tex building (after having made a 180-degree turn in his seat to try and catch a glimpse of JFK). Another missile may have (in fact likely) struck the dorsal side of JBC's wrist. 

The shots "on top of each other" would describe a shot at Z295, or a little after, and then another shot at Z313. 

There could have been another subsequent shot, in very rapid succession. 

Sound travels at 1,125 feet per second. If there are truly three rapid gunshots from different locations in Dealey Plaza (after the first JFK back-neck shot), some witnesses might accurately hear three and others might hear two shots. That is, shots that would not actually fired simultaneously would be heard simultaneously, due to the speed of sound. 

Additionally, there could be the use of silencers, or even pneumatic guns.

On top of all that, witness statements are inherently iffy. 

That's my story and I am sticking with it. 

 

 

 

Sounds reasonable.

Just watched the Zapruder film video I posted above 20 times over.

It was supposedly shown in real time. Not slowed down nor speeded up.

Count the seconds between the micro-second JFK is hit behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and when he is hit in the head.

I count at least 4 seconds.

And I am always amazed with the actual JFK head shot.

The shooter had to have been an extremely expert marksman in the least.

JFK's head is an 8 inch to 10 inch wide and 6 to 7 inch high target.

It is 265 feet away from the shooter and constantly moving not just down and away at 11 MPH from the shooter but also sideways left, two to three feet from JFK's original sitting position.

The shooter obviously has to constantly adjust and move his gun and scope in those 4 seconds to match this target movement.

Then the JFK limo slows almost to a stop. The shooter must then adjust his gun site aim to do the same...then fire.

Anything but a bullseye hit could have easily hit Jackie as her own head and face was maybe just 5 to 6 inches away from her husbands? The shooter was willing to risk blowing Jackie away as well?

And this remarkable moving target bullseye shot is made with probably the cheapest and most inaccurate type rifle left over from WWII 20 years previous? 

Again, at nearly a football field length distance away?

Sorry, that bullseye scenario just doesn't work.

And why would a shooter take a third shot after his second shot successfully hits JFK in the head which he would have clearly seen?

antdavisonNZ

Silencers were certainly in use for many years before 1963.

Yes, accuracy could be effected.

Kellerman was sure more than 3 bullets were fired.

He described the shots coming in as a "flurry."

The time it took JFK to be shot with the first shot and then with a second was certainly more that 2 seconds. More like 4?

Just watch the Zapruder film again. 

When hit with the first shot, JFK's body straightens up and his clenched into fists hands go up to his throat.

He looked like he was gasping for breath ( perhaps with blood filling his throat ) and he then glances over toward Jackie and he then turns his head back again.

Jackie sees JFK in distress. She reaches out to him. While doing so she even glances toward John Connolly seeing he is in distress too.

She then grabs JFK and starts pulling him toward her.

JFK is leaning close in toward Jackie at that point and then we see JFK's head explode.

The amount of time between the first shot and second is clearly about 4 seconds ( if not 5 ) at least in my view.

This would clearly match the shot time sequences so many ear witnesses described. 

"BANG" ... ( pause 3 to 5 seconds ) then "BANG" "BANG" again.

For those who say the third bang was an echo...how do they explain the first shot not creating an echo when it was supposedly fired from the same location as the 2nd and third shot?

Notice too how Nellie Connally throws herself onto her seat so animatedly when JFK's head is exploded, the huge bouquet of roses she had on her seat flew over her?

Searingly painful?

The bullying Spielberg endured in high school was bad. More than most bullied kids for sure.

His first love but flaky girlfriend leaving him was kind of painful too, I guess.

His parent's divorce ( like most all divorces ) hits home in the painful department if you've ever gone through this as a child. Especially with his mother leaving his beloved father for another man.

Still, just didn't feel the pain on the level you describe. 

Maybe coming from a much rougher childhood myself has jaded me?

However, I assume your point is as much about Spielberg's incredible talent and skill in capturing this pain so poignantly in telling this or his other stories on film? 

Just viewed the Spielberg/Grazer/Howard interview on You Tube.

Spielberg describes his John Ford meeting exactly as he filmed it.

31 minutes into your podcast talk JM and must take a break.

Just wanted to ask you if you caught the teenage Steven Spielberg/John Ford meet up scene in the just released Spielberg film "The Fablemans?"

I assume Spielberg portrayed this meet up scene with Ford as word for word close to it's reality? A quite powerful effect one on Spielberg despite it's super brief eccentric gruffness on Ford's part.

This highly sentimentalized biographical look back by Spielberg onto his early childhood years didn't grab my film buff wife. Me either, although my wife has much more film studies background knowledge to convey her feelings coherently on the subject.

The high school Spielberg attended was Saratoga High. Not far from you and ourselves here in Monterey. I believe Spielberg's family lived in Los Gatos at the time.

I always cringe when LBJ is portrayed in his legacy image as a sentimentalized "master politician" more than any other single characterization.

IMO, the guy was a classic Machiavellian monster. Ruthless in his power seeking to degrees well beyond blackmail. 

He and Hoover were a supremely corrupted self-serving team. We're "Like Brothers" LBJ is heard telling Hoover on one tape.

Although the Pod Cast young fellow seems a little naive in some aspects of JFK/LBJ/Oswald event story imo, I am really impressed at how much he DOES know about so many related aspects, especially considering he is only 24 years old.

His sincere and fully committed caring interest in the subject is inspiring.

At his age I was just trying to get my first apartment and taking care of my most basic needs on a dishwasher's salary. 

Just watched Jim D's interview on the Patrick Bet-David podcast show. The latest one that included Paul Gregory and Ernst Titovets.

You both have been getting significant air time on large audience number radio and internet interview venues.

On 12/6/2022 at 3:45 PM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

In short that's about it, how is that defending Fascists ?

I quote myself :  "the Germans unfortunately had supporters pretty much in every country on this globe" (emphasise added).

And I really don't want to get started on the misery that National Socialistsm and fascism have caused to my family during WWII.  If there is one thing on this planet I am proud of : what my ancestors have done during WW II on pretty much ALL levels of what they could do (from being on the frontline in Normandy, to hiding Jewish children, and a bunch of stuff in between).   

You can call me anything, but if you think I am defending Fascists ...  really ?

Yes, every occupied country had N... collaborators. Many of whom committed unspeakable atrocities against their own countrymen.

Do we judge their relative blame and culpability simply by using a numbers game?

Even in the death camps some prisoners broke in their moral fiber and brought death and suffering to their fellow prisoners.

3 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

If the January 6th panel recommends his wife for indictment in its pending Justice Department referral, this could lead to the end of Justice Thomas being on the court.

Actually, the court is rigged 6 to 3. Justice Roberts is one of them.

Yes Doug. If Jenny Thomas is named in such a recommendation by the Jan 6th committee, it may be enough to at least spark a serious movement.

And again, you are right. It is a 6/3 Republican favoring court now.

The evidence from and testimony by so many highly educated, achieving and credible "eye witnesses" to the JFK back of the head wound is so overwhelmingly one sided and proving of this gaping hole description, it is a waste of any rational person's time to even listen to any other scenario.

What was Bethesda Dr. James Humes's written official take on this?

Did he say the massive gaping wound in the back of the head wasn't there?

Humes did testify that he doesn't know why JFK's removed brain wasn't weighed for several days after the autopsy but couldn't explain why.

Sounds like there wasn't much to weigh and/or JFK's brain matter was so eviscerated it would be like trying to weigh jello?

Here are just some of the testimonies ( again by eye witnesses) which state how much of JFK's brains left his skull cavity.

One nurse who accompanied the stretcher carrying JFK's body from the limo to the ER room said some of JFK's brain matter had fallen out onto the stretcher. Another nurse said brain matter was oozing out from the massive back of head wound while JFK was on the ER table. At least one attending doctor said brain matter was falling out at this time and falling into a bucket. Another nurse ( or doctor? ) stated Jackie handed her or him a chunk of JFK's brain that Jackie had grabbed in the limo and had held in her hand until she handed it to them.

SS agent Clint Hill said upon being on the top of JFK and Jackie, he got a good look at the back of JFK's head and that there was a big hole there with nothing in it.

JFK brain matter sprayed the two motorcycle policemen directly behind JFK's limo when the head shot occurred.

Pictures of the back seat of the presidential limo taken after the shooting show chunks of JFK brain matter on the seat. JFK brain matter flew throughout the interior of the limo and was on the inside of the doors, etc.

This is all proven evidence and testimony.

The official records stating anything different about the back of the head wound and what was left of JFK's brain than DL's findings and conclusions is simply child's play irritating.

52 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Clarence Thomas Might Have Just Broken the Law in the Supreme Court (msn.com)

Until there is widespread demand of his removal by thousands of highest achieving academics in all the MSM continuously for months or even years, it won't happen.

The court is too compromised politically toward the republicans with a 5 to 4 majority to ever even consider censuring Thomas.

Thomas is protected in this way. 

27 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Yes, it is.

Expect all of Trump's sycophants and 99% of the Republicans who defended and enabled Trump these last 6 years to start claiming they "weren't really" Trump supporters.

Cowards all.

The Dems needed Warnock's senate seat to negate Joe Manchin.

Machin is in reality a Republican. 

NOW...they've got the real majority.

Georgia Senate Election Called!

Warnock/Democrats WIN!

Walker/Trump/Repubs LOSE!

1 minute ago, Douglas Caddy said:

From the NY Times:

 

Trump Organization Found Guilty in Tax Fraud Scheme

The former president’s company had been accused of providing off-the-book benefits to executives. The testimony of its former chief financial officer proved crucial to the case.

 

RIGHT ON !!!

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Whoa Joe, you look like the same person!

You haven't lost it at all!

Kind of a flashback from the past!

You remind me of 70's AM Talk show host, Gary Collins!

Gosh Kirk...you make me blush.

One time back in 2012 I walked into a crowded Subway sandwich shop for a lunch snack and some crazy hat, colorful neck scarf and hugely oversized frumpy coat wearing lady sitting by herself yelled out really loudly..."HEY...IT'S MITT ROMNEY" upon seeing me.

Everybody turned toward me and I was frozen with a dumb "duh" look on my face.

I went home later and after studying my reflection in the mirror for an hour I finally decided there was maybe some resemblance, however, I would never again allow anyone to say I looked like a Republican without a middle finger salute back in response.

I dunno.  Because I never knew who my real father was as my mother would never discuss her affair, I used to fantasize that maybe my father was some famous or important person?

Or, seeing my mom conceived me while my birth certificate father was in the Army/Air Force in 1950 and was away in Korea as a navigator on bombers, that maybe some high ranking Air Force officer was my biological father? General Curtis LeMay maybe?

Or maybe Congressman JFK was visiting Fairchild Army Air base in Spokane, Washington around the end of December, 1950 and my very attractive officer club employed mother may have caught his roving eye?

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

You do look like an honest politician.  Glad you didn't leave a few years back.

Mr Ron ... thank you my friend.

I've never committed myself to any social group endeavor for years like I have to this forum in my entire 71 year long life.

Just not a joiner. My jobs were my most engaged social interaction venues. However I did like to hang out at one our local 7-11's at night where I knew the clerk and would initiate customers in conversation if they seemed open to such.

I stumbled upon several JFK forums after I retired. 

This one grabbed me due to it's high level of credentialed posters. Major published book writers. Didn't Mark Lane himself occasionally drop in?

The JFK assassination truth was a great interest of mine, ever since I watched Jack Ruby whack Oswald right inside the Dallas PD building on live national TV.

And it seems to me that "deep" research into the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations has also led to opened dark reality doors into many other areas of our government that revealed secrets we never imagined in the larger scheme of things in the world around us.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Happens to the best of us.

Jim Di.

Just watched JFK Revisited again. A $2.99 rental fee but well worth it.

What a great piece you and Oliver Stone put together.

I feel grounded with a fuller overall picture and context knowledge after watching it.

You cover the subject of MSM compliance so well.

I like that the narration was a mix of others. Donald Sutherland, Whoopie Goldberg, Stone himself. Keeps it's fresh.

The film never loses it's interesting energy and urgency.

Listening to you again on KKUP Cupertino CA. as I type this.

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

You look in good nick, Joe. 

A tip of the Ale to ya Matey.

Thank ye.

On 12/2/2022 at 2:05 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

David Talbot posted this on Facebook today:

 

Triangle of Sadness... In Thursday's New York Times, a writer was bemoaning the death of the independent film because smart moviegoers (like you and me ) have stopped going to theaters and "buzzing" about our favorite new films. Well, I plead guilty, sort of -- I rarely go to theaters these days. BUT I still buzz about the few films that wake me up or make me laugh out loud. Ruben Ostlund's "Triangle of Sadness" (now streaming) did both to me.

The film -- a rollicking, scathing morality tale about the absurd excesses of modern capitalism -- also contains a stunning commentary about the murderousness of The American Empire. Midway through the film, the drunken captain of a super yacht for billionaire clients (Woody Harrelson) gets on the ship's loudspeaker and tells the awful truth to his pampered patrons --about their rampant greed and tax evasion and the suffering of the world's poor.

The captain also tells his stunned passengers that the U.S. government killed JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy -- and violently overthrew democratic leaders in other countries. This is a stunning moment. Yes, Swedish director Ostlund plays it for comedy, like much of the movie. But it's the truth -- and the filmmaker and his audience know it.

A few years ago, a distinguished list of Americans -- including two of the Parkland Hospital surgeons who worked on the mortally wounded President Kennedy and the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations -- signed a statement that said the same thing. That JFK -- as well as his brother Bobby, Malcolm X and MLK -- were killed by the national security state for political reasons. The open letter (which I helped organize) was barely covered by the press, but it was still a landmark event.

In 2020, Bob Dylan, our nation's bard, sang the same thing in his chilling "Murder Most Foul."

Our most astute artists know the truth. As poll after poll shows, the American people suspect the truth. And yet the political and media establishments (hello, New York Times) remain adamantly committed to the coverup.

This establishment duplicity is behind the dangerous erosion of belief in expertise and the rise of the loony right. The corporate media is quick to point fingers at this social madness, but it NEVER admits its own responsibility, NEVER examines why the wild charges of "fake news" often stick to them.

The mainstream media in the U.S. -- I'm talking about the Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News etc -- is essentially a propaganda arm for the national security state. When the U.S. is looking for a war to fight or weapons to pour in, you can count on an army of CIA, NSC, Pentagon veterans to flood the airwaves and the Internet, rattling the sabers and frothing for someone else's blood.

As the wise captain tells his wealthy passengers in "Triangle of Sadness," America is first and foremost a war state, not a democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:50

Triangle of Sadness Trailer #1 (2022)

227.2K views · 3 months ago

 

 

 

Oh, does anyone out there like my new profile picture?

This is the "real time" me.

I figured it was time to get real versus vainly posting my 33 year age picture.

Still have my Kennedyish full head of hair and original teeth!

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Great avatar pic, Joe.

DA

I really think Marjoe Greene would make a great "Loana" in a remake of the film 1 MILLION BC.

She already has that heavy brow/ broad nosed/ small narrow-eyed Cro-Magnon/ Neanderthal look. No need for make up.

Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis could play the two loin cloth wearing cavemen fighting for her affections characters.