The Patsy

 Posted by on November 2, 2009 at 3:33 pm  Season 3
Nov 022009
 

OswaldThe question of how Mad Men would depict the Kennedy assassination (if at all) was finally answered in the The Grown-ups. While I was only two in 1963, from what my parents have related to me over the years, the episode really captured the feel of those few dramatic days in November. 

The scene where Don and Betty watch Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on live television struck a particular cord with me. When my father saw it happen, he called out “They shot him!” to my mother who was in the kitchen (the revese of Don and Betty). According to my mother, the exact quote was “They shot the son-of-a-bitch” (but that’s a minor point).

Pete Campbell’s reaction to the event is quite interesting. By remarking to Trudy such things as “Why even have a trial?” or “Just throw him over to the mob,” Pete seems to empathize with Oswald. In fact, I detected a deliberate effort in The Grown-ups to link Pete Campbell’s story with that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

When Pete is first shown, he’s sleeping on his office couch. Because the heat isn’t working, Pete (whose eyes are closed) is cold and clutches at the front of his overcoat in a posture that mimics Oswald’s from the famous still photo of the shooting. More significantly, his rifle (Meditations in an Emergency) is prominently placed in the background during the exchange with his secretary. Pete angrily points out to her that the hot cocoa she’s brought him is made with water rather than milk. This sort of distinction is echoed later when an anchorman from a real period news clip repeats Oswald’s vehement claims that a Marxist is totally different than a Communist.

Just before Pete has his fateful meeting with Pryce, there’s a shot of a man entering the office wearing a red plaid hunting cap. This man carries packages into the office. On the day of the assassination, Oswald entered the Texas School Book Depository carrying a package that he told co-workers contained “curtain rods.”  The man with the red hat can clearly be seen behind Pete as he makes his way to Pryce’s office.

Although Pete and Trudy decide to skip the wedding, many of the other Sterling Cooper staff members attend. From the reception hall’s kitchen, they watch a news report of Oswald being led into the Dallas police station. If one accepts that Pete is a stand-in for Oswald, he certainly couldn’t be in both places at once. Oswald has clearly been smacked around by the police. This is not unlike Pete’s perception of his treatment at the hands of Sterling Cooper management. Among the chatter of wedding guests at their tables can distinctly be heard the comment “He wanted attention, he didn’t fit in.” This ostensibly refers to Oswald but could just as easily apply to Pete.

We last see Pete and Trudy in their apartment. Pete is wearing a turtle neck very similar to the one Duck wore during their brief lunch meeting from The Fog. This suggests that a bitter Pete has decided to join Duck. Also, after a news commentator has declared “Oswald dead,” Trudy suggests that Pete should gather his clients and take them to the new agency. Pete’s potential salvo against Sterling Cooper portends further disruptions in the Mad Men universe.

FacebookGoogle+RedditShare

  115 Responses to “The Patsy”

  1. It's so interesting to see Trudy's about face from counseling Pete to be a company man to leaving the company & gathering his clients. Pete convinces her by speaking of his associates' coldness about the assassination vs. his disgust at losing out on the promotion.

    Pete also notes the lack of security at the time of Oswald's shooting and makes the 'handing him over to the Mob' comment. He is the only character hinting at some conspiracy (however faint at this point), another instance of Pete being at the vanguard of the times. I mentioned on another thread that Pete & Trudy used the 4 Days to lick wounds, but they were also laying the foundation for changing their destiny.

  2. Very interesting…I need to chew on this a while. VERY interesting.

  3. Great eye on the chest-clutching similarities between Pete and Oswald. I had noticed the rifle proped up in the corner of Pete's office too. I noticed the package-carrying man and briefly wondered at his prominance, while mentally noting that it was too early for Christmas packages. Good call.

    More possibe analogies: Marina Oswald married Lee Harvey Oswald (probably) because he was her ticket out of the Soviet Union to the U.S. (Pete is definitely Trudy's ticket to some life/position/social status she covets). Marina, like Trudy, was attractive and, well-mannered; Marina (like Trudy) always appeared like the calm, steady, reasonable one up against a hair-triggered, emotionally volatile spouse.

    Oswald and Pete both have strong feelings about what "should" be. Oswald was reputed to be above average intelligence; certainly true of Pete.

    Was Oswald "used" by or a "pawn of" dark, powerful forces as has been speculated over the years?

    Wil Pete be?

  4. reposting this from another thread where i replied to anne b's analysis, as i think it belongs better here:

    …the kennedy visuals were not confined to gene’s car, either. don was dressed in oswald’s shot-in-the gut outfit — how appropriate. first don/kennedy dies by assassination (of character), then dick/oswald dies a little as he is told he isn’t loved.

  5. Thanks, Matt, for pointing out the significance of the delivery man with the red hunting cap. When I saw him taking up air time I thought immediately of Holden Caulfield but did not connect the dots that this was yet another hint of what was to come (you'd think the rifle in Pete's office would have clued me in!).

    I heard the “Why even have a trial?” or “Just throw him over to the mob” comments as Pete's reflection of his own situation rather than empathy.

    I saw Trudy's changed advise as an illustration of how a person's world view is changed by a historical event and directly impacts his/her personal life. Of course, I can't wait for the consequences of her advise! Interesting connection, #3 Scott.

    Thanks also to those who pointed out (elsewhere) the parallels in Pete's & Betty's stories.

    What I took away from this ep was how this event brought some couples closer together and others farther apart.

    Unnerved to think of the assassination of the President…

  6. @ 1 Jen- I thought me meant mob as in angry people with pitchforks, not Mob as in Al Capone, Sam Giancana, and that crowd.

  7. Despite Trudy's advice, Pete wouldn't be able to just walk off with SC clients. Not only does he likely have some form of a non-compete clause in whatever sort of working contract he has, but the clients have contracts with SC.

  8. Interesting take… funny because I kept looking at Pete's .22 cal rifle next to the couch in the hot chocolate scenes…. pominantly displayed even.

  9. Interesting post. I really loved Pete in this episode.

    If SC gets sold, then Ken's "victory" may well prove to be completely hollow. P

  10. Wow, Matt, great post! I had noticed the rifle in Pete's office, but wasn't sure of it's significance. And with MM, it all seems to have significance.

    I also noticed hints at Pete's anger: Pryce commenting Pete on "how well he's taking the news", Pete's icy stare at Ken and the creepy accompanying music as Pete was walking back to his office, and Trudy asking Pete if he lost his temper when he heard the news.

    It makes me wonder if anything else is in the offing in the future. It seems too heavy handed for MM to have Pete literally going postal, but I think he will exact revenge.

    @ #4 cub – don't forget about all the pillbox hats just like Jacquie wore that day. At at least 3 of them (Trudy, Jane, Margaret) appeared before the news bulliten.

  11. At the beginning of the season, when the Pete/Ken competition was set up, I thought it was a fraud – some attempt by the new owners to either play with their new toys in the New York office or a way to get Cosgrove into the role without totally severing the relationship with Pete and his old-money contacts. That makes Pete a season-long patsy and Pryce, not surprisingly, as the Ruby who takes him out. Pete once tried to end Don Draper's power at SC, one wonders what damage he might do to SC before he leaves.

    Despite Trudy’s advice, Pete wouldn’t be able to just walk off with SC clients. Not only does he likely have some form of a non-compete clause in whatever sort of working contract he has, but the clients have contracts with SC.

    Well, we know that clients can fire SC whenever they want (and vice versa), so I am guessing the client's contracts with SC are pretty flexible. In addition, Trudy was recommending Pete be very shrewd about potential client-stealing – Don't run off in a huff, rather go into work as if everything were normal and then begin the process of wooing existing clients. It's underhanded, but if done via the telephone, there is no paper trail and it would be hard for SC to prove, much less go after Pete for doing it.

  12. Also, @7, because Pete was a relatively low-ranking member of the Accounts team, rather than creative, there is every reason to believe he does not have a non-compete clause like Don does now. Don's skills as a creative force are harder to duplicate and can cause more damage if he leaves. He is a reason why clients come to SC, so they need to hold on to him – the non-compete clause does that. Pete is an account manager – his skills are about good hotels, hot hookers and drinking with clients, easily replicable. I have no doubt he has a clause preventing him from actively stealing clients, hence Trudy's advice to be underhanded, but neither Peggy nor Pete mentioned there would be contractual difficulties following Duck.

  13. I hate to be unimaginative, but interesting take!

    I recently watched a special on The History Channel called "Three Shots that Changed the World", and it was a 4-hour documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was fascinating in that it was entirely made up of news footage from the three days in Dallas and then subsequent conspiracy theories. There was no voiceover, all we heard was what the news reporters were saying on the screen. I had never seen most of the footage, some of which was from local Dallas TV. What struck me was how poorly Oswald was treated. I don't want to go so far as to sympathize with Oswald, because I am sure he played a prominent role in the assassination. However, they kept this man in a holding cell in the Dallas police HQ from the time they captured him late on the 22nd until he was killed on the 24th. He had no lawyer, and was treated very shabbily. They paraded him between the holding cell to the interrogation room in a very public area, allowing dozens of reporters and cameramen to document his every move and shout questions at him along the way. They even had him do a press conference! Can you imagine that happening today? Bottom line, this man's rights were completely disregarded. I found myself becoming angered at the way he was treated. This is America, where a man is supposedly presumed innocent. He should have at least had a lawyer.

    That is a very roundabout way of saying that I loved Pete's comment "why even have a trial." Was Oswald likely guilty? Obviously. I don't think he acted alone, but perhaps that's a discussion for a different time (I've done research, though, and there's no way he was the only shooter! It's physically impossible!) Anyway, I thought it was an interesting statement from an unlikely character, but in the context you presented, Matt, it's very interesting. Thanks!

  14. # 4 cub: Don's Oswald like outfit… I must say I didn't notice that one. But, since I argued that there was more than one hobo in the Gypsy and the Hobo, cross referencing Don with Lee makes perfect sense given Bettys' actions.

    # 7 Aran: Pete non-compete clause. I'd 2nd CPT_Doom on this. Pete could still bring his Rolodex with him and have Duck (or someone else) make the actual calls. And the client's contracts with S-C probably wouldn't prevent them from doing business with Gray. Of course, this assumes that Pete's clients love him (which isn't necessarily true).

  15. #6 Retrogirl – good point about the Mob vs a mob. I think the writers left it deliberately vague, given Ruby's affiliation with the Mafia (which the tv audience would know, but Pete might not at that time). Pete still called into question the unsafeness of the Oswald transport, which has been a key argument of some conspiracy theorists who thought the police helped set the stage for Oswald's hit.

  16. Aran (#7) I agree that Pete couldn't just "take" his clients with him if he leaves SC…he would have to woo them to his new firm after their contracts with SC have expired. And the reason that he lost out to Ken in the first place is that he wasn't doing as good of a job at keeping clients happy. I feel that it would be pretty rash of him to leave in a huff.

    I was 15 at the time of the JFK murder and was one of millions who saw Oswald shot by Ruby on live TV. Our family was visiting friends of our parents that Sat. evening and the TV was on in the backround…I remember it as clear as day.

  17. I thought the more important point was that Pete identified with Kennedy, which is not a new thing. Pete has represented Kennedy on the show since S1. Pete was the only one at Sterling Cooper who was positive about Kennedy's political campaign. Then in the election episode 1×12 Pete played Kennedy to Don's Nixon. In this episode Pete rages about how Kennedy was bringing change to America, just like Pete would have brought change to Sterling Cooper if they had ever listened to any of his ahead-of-the-curve ideas.

    I see the Oswald parallel too, especially thinking of that shot of Pete at the end of 2×13, the lone gunman in the building. I think it is possible for Pete to be emblematic of Kennedy and Oswald at the same time. But I think what Pete will come to represent in the future is the big change that was born out of Oswald killing Kennedy.

  18. At this point, Pete wasn't a low ranking member of Accounts. He was co-Head of Accounts and in charge of 50% of the SC client list. As such he would have set the advertising direction of his accounts including the marketing plan, media and creative and he would have been in possession of a lot of proprietary information on all of his clients. But anything he created, belongs to SC and the client.

    Would this prevent him from taking his Rolodex and contacts and going to Grey? No. But, if the account were up for renew, and the non-compete had expired, Pete would be free to go after it.

    Granted, I'm not familiar with 1963 contracts, but generally a client can't just fire the agency in the midst of a contract. The client would have to have just cause for terminating the agreement and possibly would have to payout the terms of the monthly retainer fee.

  19. #17, yes! Didn't Pete say that Kennedy was the new Elvis? And Pete's last scene in this ep was in a Beatle-like turtleneck (The new Elvis coming soon!). Sorry, can't Help! myself.

    But back to my #5 Holden Caulfield post. Disaffected young male…

  20. patroadtrip when I think of turtlenecks and the Invasion I think Dave Clark Five before Beatles:0)

  21. Hmm, this is an interesting theory. I'm sort of on the fence on this one. though, My biggest point of reservation is that we still don't know if Oswald was just a patsy for real or if he was a lone gunman. We know Oswald claimed to be a patsy, but he was a pretty unhinged individual and a known liar so I have no reason to believe what he says. There is also a big difference between your bosses playing you a bit and sort of giving you a promotion, but not giving you one at the same time and yanking it out from under you to being involved in a conspiracy or directly and individually causing the assasination of a world leader. No matter what the man was no choir boy. I've read a few books and things about him and if IIRC he was physically and mentally abusive to his wife, had delusions of grandeur, some intelligence but an inability to really deeply grasp the Marxism he claimed to espouse and he was a misfit, he went to Russia b/c he didn't fit in here and when he didn't fit there he came back here. He was an odd duck. Pete is no choir boy and he may be a little bit of a misfit and a bit abusive at times mostly verbally (Gudrun situation aside) and sometimes he is a louse and sometimes he's not so bad but I don't know how comfortable I feel comparing him to Oswald. He was a psychopath, Pete is screwed up but I doubt he would go anywhere near Oswald territory. I understand that isn't what you are implying just comparing Oswald being shot with Pete being wounded by the higher-ups and Pete possibly identifying with being "set-up" like Oswald claimed he was but still.

    @13, As for the treatment Oswald received, people get treated just as bad if not worse by cops every single day, so I'm not sheding any tears for that rat-bastard. He is lucky he didn't get more of a beating by the cops, especially since he allegedly killed a cop in his get-away and you know cops don't take kindly to cop-killers. Then again, I don't take to kindly to ANYONE who takes a shot at ANY President so I had a fit when Fromme who tried to kill Ford got out of jail and have a bigger fit everytime they report on Hinkley, who tried to kill Reagan, getting more visitation rights to his family from the hospital he is in, like there aren't plenty of mentally ill people in jail who didn't try to kill a President but since he's rich he gets kid-gloves, so unfair. But that is another topic.

  22. Would Pete shoot Duck if he knew of Peggy's trysts?

  23. I'm in pieces, bits and pieces, Lawnmowerman!

  24. # 4 cub Says:
    November 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    don was dressed in oswald’s shot-in-the gut outfit — how appropriate. first don/kennedy dies by assassination (of character), then dick/oswald dies a little as he is told he isn’t loved

    ****

    Cub, I though this was so interesting — someone brought this up in one of the other threads — that Don was wearing the same outfit at home (dark sweater over white button-down shirt) as Oswald when he was shot.
    I and a few others had noticed that something was odd about the way Don was dressed – not his usual style at all. But I completely missed that this mirrored Oswald's clothing. Your take on the meaning sounds right to me.

  25. # 15 Jen Says:
    November 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    #6 Retrogirl – good point about the Mob vs a mob. I think the writers left it deliberately vague, given Ruby’s affiliation with the Mafia (which the tv audience would know, but Pete might not at that time).

    ***

    Definitely agree on this one; the writers choose their words so carefully on this show. Kind of a double entendre for the audience.

  26. @#21, I guess I was just struck by the access the press had to this man while he didn't even have a lawyer and hadn't been charged with anything. He didn't even know what they were holding him for until the press told him. It was shoddy treatment. "Sympathy" might be too strong of a word, but it just wasn't right. I didn't really think about it that way until I saw that documentary. Like I said, I think — rather, I know– he was involved and would have deserved whatever punishment he would have gotten had he lived. Damn Jack Ruby for never letting us get to the bottom of what really happened, and damn the Dallas authorities for transferring such a high-risk prisoner in such a ridiculously public way, where anyone who pretended to be a member of the media (which Ruby did) could just stand there and watch him being walked to the paddy wagon. (He was to be transferred to a more secure Dallas prison cell when he was murdered.)

  27. "pat", you know your stuff! There is a great website for pre and early Invasion music that can take up way too much time outta your day but…
    http://www.forgottenhits.com/home

  28. Great8 this all happened waaay before Miranda. It was SOP in those days.

    BTW, I used to be a pretty firm believer in conspiracy stuff but over a lot of years I've completely changed my mind…Oswald deffinately acted alone.
    There is a program that still runs on either Hist., Disc, or Nat Geo that answered all of my questions for good. I believe it's called "Beyond Conspiracy"

  29. Hey Great8, not to pile on, but Ruby didn't pretend to be a member of the media. As a local business owner (and a man convinced of his own importance), he hung around that particular police station a lot well before the assassination. The police knew who he was and just (incorrectly) assumed him to be harmless.

  30. Thanks # 28 Lawnmowerman!

    I laughed when Pete dismissed Marketing as part of Research, when he's "the one" who has shown aptitude in this area. Also chuckled when Pryce complimented Pete on taking it so well, as it was reminiscent of how Pryce has been treated by his higher ups.

    Did we review weather/climate as it appeared in the past two eps? Wasn't it raining at some point last ep? And too hot/too cold in this ep.

  31. #30 – I think you're on to something about the too hot/too cold reference. I think there's gotta be some sort of symbolism, metaphor or foreshadowing with the building not having any heat or too much. I don't know have any guesses as to what, but it seems too prominent to be random.

  32. @ hell's belle, @matt maul, @madnesse–
    i apologize if i was repeating, as i admitted it was a repost from the recap thread, and i got too sleepy last night reading the open thread, but this is a good time to bring it back around.

    perhaps both pete and don have their own internal kennedys/oswalds, in that they are both in some ways privileged and in some ways marginalized. at first, i just saw don/dick this way, but of course pete was born with privilege and his insecure shadow-self threatens to undermine that privilege on a daily basis.

    i'll explore this to further depths in my upcoming book, "Shooting Your Inner Oswald," due out later this jutember.

  33. LOL @ cub: "i’ll explore this to further depths in my upcoming book, “Shooting Your Inner Oswald,” due out later this jutember."

    Love it. Just keep those insightful comments coming!

  34. @33 Madnesse– back'atcha :)

  35. The face of the policeman in the photo you have posted has been Photoshopped into Bob Jackson's original Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of Oswald being shot.

    What possible reason could you have for doing that?
    http://www.iphotocentral.com/Photos/VintageWorks_

  36. I don't think that Photoshop was done by anyone here. I suspect it was probably just the first image that came up in the google search, and just happened to be one someone, somewhere, had altered for some reason, and teh poster just didn't notice it.

  37. On the cover of their first American album, "Meet The Beatles", all four are wearing dark turtleneck tops. The better to offset their famous mop tops.

  38. @35 SmilerG –whoa– that's freaky!

    and on a side note, confession time: when i was little, i used to think oswald was cute based on this very photo, as i thought he resembled bobby darin in mid-song. splish-splash, indeed! (–or, mack the knife, indeed! how many song titles would work here?)

  39. # 35 SmilerG Says:
    November 2nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    The face of the policeman in the photo you have posted has been Photoshopped into Bob Jackson’s original Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of Oswald being shot.

    What possible reason could you have for doing that?
    http://www.iphotocentral.com/Photos/VintageWorks_

    ***

    Ooh…it's all part of the conspiracy!

  40. # 36 – "I don’t think that Photoshop was done by anyone here. I suspect it was probably just the first image that came up in the google search, and just happened to be one someone, somewhere, had altered for some reason, and teh poster just didn’t notice it"

    I would be astounded if this isn't a deliberate case of photo manipulation.

  41. # 39 – "Ooh…it’s all part of the conspiracy!"

    But Matt Maul has stated before that he doesn't believe in a conspiracy.

    Also, if you go to Google Images and Google "Oswald Shot," quite a few images of the actual photo come up — any of which could have been used by the author of this thread — but weren't.

    This tends to eliminate the "honest mistake" theory …

  42. Conspiracy. Conspiracy? "I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent. "

  43. @#29 Matt — I suppose that could be true, but according to the documentary I saw (which again was all news footage from that time), Ruby was posing as a newspaper reporter at the Oswald press conference in police HQ, and even asked him a question.

    As far as that being SOP before the days of the Miranda rights — I guess I'm looking at the situation through modern eyes, but it didn't seem right to me. And again, this is someone who I think was 100% guilty. Something about not giving this man his due process just seems wrong.

    I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but I've done plenty of research on this (wrote a paper in college), and there is just no way Oswald acted alone. The fatal head shot had to come from in front of the vehicle, for one thing. The Texas School Book Depository, from which Oswald fired, was behind the car by that point. The "single bullet" that was supposed to have hit JFK in the back of the neck, traveled through his throat, into Connelly's shoulder and through his chest, then curved in mid-air to hit his wrist — which is an absurd theory in its own right — was "found" in the back seat of the car, in completely pristine condition. Subsequent ballistics tests determined that a bullet that went through all of that flesh and bone — assuming one bullet could do all that damage — would be squashed on the tip at the very least. There are just too many inconsistencies for this to have not been a cover-up. Compare the autopsy diagrams to the actual wounds on the President. The diagram's wound markings are off by several inches in order to back up the single-bullet theory.

    Do I believe that it was a cover-up to mask the involvement of the CIA or the Cubans? Nope. I believe that the Warren Commission was tasked with finding out what happened in the quickest possible manner in order to put a shaken nation at ease, and with Oswald dead, it was much easier and cleaner to blame him. Dead men don't talk.

    Anyway! Sorry to go off on a tangent.

  44. # 48 – "Subsequent ballistics tests determined that a bullet that went through all of that flesh and bone — assuming one bullet could do all that damage — would be squashed on the tip at the very least."

    Yes! And, there's also the matter of the "magic bullet" leaving more lead fragments in Gov. Connally than are actually missing from the bullet itself. http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

  45. Brilliant post.

    Here's another 'angle', which I'm not sure if it's been commented on yet, haven't had time to read all the responses here.

    When Pete is walking back to his office, with the man in the red hunting hat behind him, he sees Cosgrove, down on the floor fixing one of the sec's heaters.

    The same view/angle Oswald would have had of JFK.

    Will we see Pete go after Kenny in a later episode? 'Go after' being just a paradoxical reference, not to actually put physical harm towards Kenny.

  46. $16: Oswald was killed on Sunday a.m. that weekend.

  47. Anyone else notice the use of the color blue in this episode? Esp. in light of the title…made me think of the blue outfits worn by Caroline and JFK jr for the funeral…Who are the grown-ups? Who are the children?

  48. @ 45 Great8-I find it hard to believe Ruby would pose as a reporter. The nightclub he owned, the Carousel Club, was frequented by some members of the Dallas police force. Someone would have recognized him.

  49. Ruby wasn't so much "posing" as he was trying to "blend in" in the crowd.

    Yes, a number of Dallas policemen (and local reporters) recognized Ruby in the police headquarters from Friday night on, through that weekend. You could say that he was a "fixture" around there – or at the very least, a known "hanger-on".

    One thing that has been a source of puzzlement over the years, is something that happened at the midnight (Friday going into Saturday) press conference.

    District Attorney, Henry Wade, was speaking about Oswald's involvement in New Orleans, with a Cuba-related organization, the name of which he could not recall.

    From the back of the room, Ruby spoke right up, providing the name of the organization, the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee". http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/w
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuudRsNewsM

  50. @ 49 SmilerG- Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard the story about Ruby at the press conference. That's kind of creepy.

  51. Matt — very entertainng post. I agree Pete is a wild card who may jam up the SC sale perhaps. Hopefully there won't be gunplay. Ha.

    With the whirlwind of the two shootings, I feel compelled to make this general statement again. (I tried a minute ago but it probably was blocked by the spam filter due to too many links. I'm going to break up the comment to get them thru)

    I’m not stating that conspiracies should be dismissed out of hand without investigation. There has been almost forty-seven years of such investigation though.

    There is credible computer animation based on sound geometry and analysis that demonstrates the single bullet theory is a completely possible, and very highly probable, valid explanation.

    These two links get you to the animator Dale K.Myers’ website and blog for further reading. http://www.jfkfiles.com/index.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/

    Here’s an explanation and walk through of the evidence to support the single bullet theory: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Single_bu

    {Part two in a sec}

  52. RetroGirl, in 1993, for the 30th anniversary of JFK's assassination, a number of local Dallas journalists & national journalists participated in a panel, to recall the events of that weekend.

    I think you'll find it quite informative and enlightening, to hear their descriptions of what they saw and heard.

    Here's the link to the presentation, as seen on C-SPAN … http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52504-1

  53. # 39 Madnesse and 40 SmilerG

    It was a mistake on my part. I was looking in Google for that famous picture which was the right size and not too fuzzy or dark. That was the best one But I was so focused on Oswald that I honestly missed the photoshoped cop in the background. My bad. I can't edit published posts. Otherwise, I'd replace the image. Apologies all around.

  54. it looks like there is a problem with my post, maybe too many links to get by the spam filter so I apologize for trying again.

    Matt — very entertainng post. I agree Pete is a wild card who may jam up the SC sale perhaps. Hopefully there won’t be gunplay. Ha.

    In the whirlwind of the two shootings I'm compelled to make this general statement again.

    I’m not stating that conspiracies should be dismissed out of hand without investigation. There has been almost forty-seven years of such investigation though.

    There is credible computer animation based on sound geometry and analysis that demonstrates the single bullet theory is a completely possible, and very highly probable, valid explanation.

    These two links get you to the animator Dale K. Myers’ website and blog for further reading. http://www.jfkfiles.com/index.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/

    {part two to follow}

  55. trying this another way.

    There's a thorough explanation and walk through the evidence to support the single bullet theory at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Single_bullet_th... (cut and paste into your browser, links are clean.)

    Here's a website- http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/Assassination...

    that summarizes some major conspiracy points as presented by the ABC documentary, The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy and offers the explanations for such.

    And The Discovery Channel produced a show Unsolved History: JFK-Beyond the Magic Bullet, that recreates the single bullet shot, using the verifiable geometry and metrics, an actual human sniper, live ammunition and ballistic gel human replicas, ala Mythbusters. It’s very entertaining and compelling.

    Amazon.com has those two DVD's for purchase.

    Admittedly nothing above is incontrovertible proof of Oswald being the lone gunman.
    But after almost fifty years there is also no incontrovertible proof that he wasn’t.

    I don’t post this to argue, only to counterbalance; we will believe what we will believe, I guess.

    Again to paraphrase Occam’s razor , I’ll stick with the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

    Life need not be unduly complicated. Thank you.

  56. I have been censored methinks.

    • Less of me: Urls tend to land you in the automatic spam queue. Sometimes people land in the automatic spam queue for reasons we do not understand. We get THOUSANDS of spam comments a week. Thousands. We each check the spam queue several times a day and rescue lost comments. Pasting the same comment over and over just lands many of them in the spam queue for us to manually rescue.

      Try to keep it to no more than 2 urls per comment. It doesn't matter if you link them up; the comment software hyperlinks them automatically.

      If you are having trouble with a comment, feel free to email us for a rescue attempt, but please be patient. We are on east coast time, your comments were stuck overnight.

  57. Will we see Pete go after Kenny in a later episode? ‘Go after’ being just a paradoxical reference, not to actually put physical harm towards Kenny.

    I don't think Pete is especially angry at Kenny. Pete resents that Kenny and his haircut have a "rare gift" that he doesn't, but Pete and Kenny are friends. They are peers. Pete is far more angry at his bosses of Sterling Cooper, just like he is angry at the authorities dealing with the assassination.

    But I don't think Pete wants to "go after" anyone. I think Pete wants revolution, not revenge – both in America and his career.

  58. A vast conspiracy involving WordPress and spam filter and Bell Helicopter are keeping me from finishing my point.

    Here it is without the linky goodness.

    Here’s an explanation and walk through of the evidence to support the single bullet theory:

    absoluteastronomy.com (gazoogle it, it's worth the time)

    Here’s a website – thevoiceofreason.com

    that summarizes some major conspiracy points as presented by the ABC documentary, The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy and offers the explanations for such.

    And The Discovery Channel produced a show Unsolved History: JFK-Beyond the Magic Bullet, that recreates the single bullet shot, using the verifiable geometry and metrics, an actual human sniper, live ammunition and ballistic gel human replicas, ala Mythbusters. It’s very entertaining and compelling.

    Amazon.com has the DVDs for purchase.

    Admittedly nothing above is incontrovertible proof of Oswald being the lone gunman.
    But after almost fifty years there is also no incontrovertible proof that he wasn’t.

    I don’t post this to argue, only to counter balance; we will believe what we will believe, I guess.

    Again to paraphrase Occam’s razor , I’ll stick with the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

    Life need not be unduly complicated. Thank you.

  59. Thanks Deborah, I am unschooled in the detailed workings of the spam filter. I knew it was there but got impatient. Sorry for being pesky.

    Anyhow I was able to finish my point by removing the URLs. Those trapped comments are now redundant. If they never show up I won't be sad.

    Couldn't email from work at the moment. Thanks, have a pleasant day!

  60. IMO I think the analysis in this post is forced – I don't see any deliberate effort to compare or link Pete to Oswald. I'm not denying that there are allusions to the impending assassination or the killer in this episode, but I really think you're reading too much into everything (Pete's posture being similar to that of Oswald's in a famous photo?). I also don't think Pete is going to go postal and be shooting people in his office. I recognize that most posters hate Pete, but come on, seriously? Is he jealous of Ken? Sure. Is he mad with Pryce, Cooper & Sterling? Definitely. Haven't any of you been in a situation where you're passed over for a promotion (or something analogous) after working extremely hard (and whatever other criticisms of Pete, I'm confident that he does work harder than Ken based on the few snippets we've seen of them in earlier episodes) and been upset? It's especially hard to lose out to somebody who seems to have a charmed existence, like Ken. I can see why Ken might be a good choice from a personality perspective, but let's face it, the show copped out after the exciting introduction of this competition subplot in episode 1. We barely saw them doing any accounts stuff and from my perspective, they were about even (as Pete noted). The subplot could have been an opportunity to tell us more about Ken (rather than him always serving as a foil for Sal or Pete). I digress, back to the original post…

    Having said all of this, it WILL be interesting if Pete messes with the SC sale in any way, inadvertently or intentionally. We've barely had any scenes between Don and Pete this season (another disappointment to me), but could Don be the one to persuade Pete to stay? If even a few clients threaten to go over with Pete, will Pryce re-think what he's done or does Pryce have some grand master plan that prevents the sale of SC (and him going to India)? Will Pete find out about Duck & Peggy and bail on going to Grey's (and/or rely on his accurate gut feelings about how unreliable Duck is)? These are the questions that interest me after this episode. I never once got the vibe that Pete is going to pull something crazy and actually hurt people in the office.

    Pete actually really impressed me in this episode, and it's interesting that a lot of people seem to think his comments re: his colleagues' reactions to Kennedy's death were hyperbole just to make Trudy sympathize with him. A lot of people WERE happy that Kennedy was killed – he was both loved and reviled. And in fact, Harry's wife (Jennifer) makes a couple of comments at the wedding reception to Don & Betty that suggest that both she and Harry think Kennedy may have been "asking for this." So honestly, Pete's remembrance of what happened at the office is probably accurate – people may have been initially shocked, but not everyone would have been sad about it. Also, Pete handled his demotion fairly well (I really thought he was gonna dump coffee on Ken) – he's allowed to whine to his wife, at least they're having honest conversations (which is more than I can normally say for Don & Betty). To me, Pete's whole reaction to the assassination cemented the fact that he's Sterling Cooper's Kennedy to Don's Nixon (the theme started in season 1 during the election campaign). It'll be interesting to see what his next move is.

  61. #62. Thank you SallyS. I agree that the Oswald comparison is forced and seems designed to put a negative spin on what was a positive development for Pete. I just think this post was missing the point. I don't think Pete saying the police work surrounding Oswald was a farce makes Pete an Oswald sympathiser. Pete is just expressing that the whole thing is fucked up. The people saying Kennedy or Oswald somehow deserved to be murdered on live TV is even more fucked up.

    To me, Pete’s whole reaction to the assassination cemented the fact that he’s Sterling Cooper’s Kennedy to Don’s Nixon (the theme started in season 1 during the election campaign).

    That is exactly what I got from it. And it was awesome that they brought back the Pete = Kennedy theme. I have to disagree with people who have been saying Pete used Kennedy's death as an excuse to get out of the wedding and sulk about his job. After the assassination Pete didn't mention his job problems once. He was completely focused on the event and the social/political fall out. IMO, Pete's response to it was the right response.

    Harry is so right when he says Pete should go into a Research job. Pete's gift is anaylising where society is at and predicting where it is going next. He gets it right every time.

  62. Bottom line is, for every link that claims to prove the single bullet theory, I'm sure I could find one that disproves it. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that Oswald acted alone. And because all the principals are dead, we will never know the truth.

    SmilerG, thanks for the clarification on Ruby. I knew he said something at that press conference!

  63. Given that the assassination is the key turning point in the fate of the characters, and given his upset and anger over JFKs death, I have the keen sense that in the coming years, Pete will shed his patrician suit and tie, grow a beard, master the art of smoking weed (which he struggle with mightily in a recent episode) and become an anti-war, anti-advertising hippie beatnik — like that dude that dismissed Don in season 1.

    Mark my words. Pete will become unrecognizable.

  64. #64 Great8 – my point is this. Those links don't prove the single bullet theory, they only demonstrate it's quite possible; it doesn't need the "magic" people want to cover it in. And that should make the simpler scenario easier to accept.

    And even if LHO was the sole shooter, that doesn't eliminate a conspiracy.

    I agree completely with your last point, that's the winner; it's pretty much pointless to argue.

  65. @63 falafel 62SallyS

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this :)

    I'll only reiterate that having Pete posed in the same manner as Oswald (in what was one of the top five iconic photos surrounding the JFK assassination) in the VERY FIRST shot of the episode (not to mention only seconds before we see his rifle) cannot be accidental in a show so meticulously crafted as Mad Men.

  66. @ 64 Great8 and @ 66 less of me- I couldn't have said it better myself. Let's agree to disagree. Also, (and I'm sorry I'm so cliche heavy,) I love that this is a place we can disagree without being disagreeable.

  67. RetroGirl – As Lane would say, "Huzzah!"

    I personally love a good cliche, usually after dinner with a brandy chaser.
    And I'm with you, I do enjoy the playground the sisters maintain here.

  68. Agreed on all counts!

    Regardless of who did it and how, the fact remains that a vital young President was brought down in the prime of his life, and it was a terrible tragedy for both the country and his family.

  69. Matt, I believe you wrote a post focusing on color a few weeks ago (The Color Blue). Sometimes I feel oblivious to the color usage in some episodes. And then there are episodes like The Grownups were it's the main thing I notice. So much blue for just certain (not all) women in this episode:

    -Roger's daughter Margaret's all blue getup complete with blue hat
    -the blue earrings Jane gave Margaret
    -Trudy's bright blue dress and matching shoes for the wedding
    -Betty's light blue esemble and matching shoes for the wedding
    -Betty's blue scarf which she wore to meet Henry but was most visible when she confessed to Don that she had lost that lovin' feelin'
    -Trudy's blue sweater while she and Pete were watching tv

    I thought the use of blue was very striking in the episode, and I think it was only used on those three women: Margaret, Trudy, and Betty.

  70. @71 Janet… I'm still working on my full write up for The Grown-ups, and I too noticed a striking use of blue in this episode. I've always maintained that blue is Mad Men's color for tradition and green standing for change. So, I felt somewhat vindicated when Margaret basically tells Mona that the earrings Jane got her can't be BOTH her "blue" and "new" wedding items. ;)

    At the end Betty is wearing the blue scarf over a green dress. Right after she tells Don she doesn't love him, she is shown pointedly discarding the blue scarf.

    • Margaret basically tells Mona that the earrings Jane got her can’t be BOTH her “blue” and “new” wedding items.

      Except you misunderstood. Margaret later explains that in the old-new-borrowed-blue schema, it is the job of the bridesmaids to provide something new-blue, so Jane stepped on their toes, and that was why Margaret was mad. (Not that Jane could have done anything right by her.)

  71. I’ve always maintained that blue is Mad Men’s color for tradition

    Really? What you see as blue is NOT what I see as blue.

    Blue is the colour of Newness on Mad Men. Just listen to the commentary for 'The New Girl'. Both Jane and Peggy are dressed in light blue in that episode, because they are two types of New. Jane is literally new to the job while Peggy represents being a "new girl" with her proto-feminism. Joan is also wearing blue in that episode, but it is a darker shade of blue as if her own potential for Newness is falling into shadow. Pete is the only man who wears a bright blue suit and his character is also associated with new ideas and coming social changes. Betty and Trudy wearing blue in this episode where they are both adopting New Outlooks just adds to the Blue = New theme. How do you get that blue represents tradition?

  72. What you see as blue is NOT what I see as blue. LOL!

    However, I'd argue that Pete and Peggy wear blue as part of their attempts to fit into a traditional construct during those early episodes.

    Suzanne is certainly NEVER shown in blue (only green).

    Also, Peggy is wears green in The Grown-ups. And, as I said, it is the BLUE scarf Betty discards at the end after having decided to leave Don. She is left wearing just the green dress.

  73. I may have to post a retraction again today after reevaluating my regard for the lone gunman theory.

    I have discovered dramatic photographic proof of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza.

    His name was Alex Gato Hiddell, and was employed as an Assistant Scratcher in the little known Texas Cat Box Depository just up Houston Street.

    My universe is rocked.

  74. `74– blue is viewed by potential employers as symbolic of loyalty– job-seekers are encouraged to wear blue to be seen as loyal.

    pete and trudy really solidified as a couple in this episode, even adopting a reclining pose as old as an etruscan statue while watching tv on the couch.

    counter that with don alone on his couch, without a woman in blue leaning against his chest.

    betty takes off her blue in front of her (old) man. it's loyalty, baby!

  75. @75 less of me– please note the symbolism of the BLUE star!

  76. LOF'nL

  77. #76 cub – while loyalty is certainly part of it, I'd point out the blue uniforms the stewardesses wore in Out of Town which, like marriage (and old tradition), came with so many restrictions (fidelity being one of them).

    #75 and 77 – :)

  78. so we agree? in part, i mean? i don't think tradition and fidelity are mutually exclusive, and i don't think you are saying that, but the fidelity of a stewardess is to her company, whereas her chastity may be something you're telling me was contractually obligated?

  79. @79 Matt Maul– oops above comment –forgot tag–sorry.

  80. @80 cub… but the fidelity of a stewardess is to her company, whereas her chastity may be something you’re telling me was contractually obligated?

    In the case of Out of Town, that was more or less the case. One of the stewardess said that they're not supposed to drink "while in uniform." To me, that suggests blue being used to symbolize traditions like fidelity and chasity (and many others ingrained in our society) which do indeed prescribe "correct" behavior (and which Don often breaks). Suzanne's character, characterized by green, is anti-establishment and eshews these traditions.

  81. No, I get that in the context of the story, it was Jane's actions that upset Margaret. However, I think calling attention to the blue earrings so pointedly does support it's use as a motif.

  82. #75 – lol!

    this is ot, but here's one for Peggy.

    no blue or green in sight. no lone gunman. no shooter on the grassy knoll. no ruby (who, btw, was a bag man for Carlos Marcello in Cuba in 1959 and who was put on the payroll working for Nixon vis a vis the house of unamerican activities in the 1950s. but I doubt he did any work. I think it was a payoff to the mob, just as Nixon pardoned Hoffa for his mobster buddies who were so very anti-castro. oh, and Oswald's mother connected him with Marcello b/c of her boyfriend. And David Ferrie was also part of that same anti-castro hatin' group.

    but that's just real life, not tv and loose associations don't necessarily add up to a big picture. oh, and the nay sayers like Bugliosi and Posner didn't even know about Johannides, who knowingly hid info. What do you think about Hunt's confession to his son his deathbed? — the one that said the mob and the anti-castro-ites were the ones behind it. Hunt also said Ruby was sent in to finish off Oswald because the police didn't do it like they were supposed to. Hunt's confession appeared in Rolling Stone and is also online, tho not through "reputable sources." btw, Iran-Contra was also a conspiracy theory until a Lebanese newspaper printed the truth.

    but like you and others say, we'll never really know the truth because evidence was destroyed, autopsies were performed w/o knowledge of what the doctors saw and did who were on the scene.. the assassination is a rorschach test.

    Political assassinations didn't stop with the borgias.

    I wonder, even if the single bullet theory works, how that accounts for the bullet that hit concrete that nicked the guy at the underpass and that the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee agreed came before shot in Kennedy's throat that we see in the Zapruder tape (that is before the fatal head shot.)

    Who knows, tho. Maybe Oswald acted alone and all the associations he had with various rightwing haters is just a coincidence.

  83. @85 esme– like i always say, who needs conspiracy when you have conniving?

  84. I thought more about this the last few days than I have in the last 35 years combined. And Anne B reminded me last week how good DeLillo's Libra was at depicting the continuous swirl of chances and circumstances seemingly surrounding LHO.
    And you mentioned a specific point I was just chewing on this am on the walk to work (when I was almost mangled in a crosswalk by a Buick LeSabre) And I had this great revelation. . .

    But I'm out of time and have to go. (I'm a tease.)
    Hope to jack back into the Matrix after dinner.

    One recent mystery solved though.

    Giraffes are cool!

  85. I tend to agree more with the theory that the color blue represents newness and change (sorry, Matt, I know you're big on green being the color of change). In the context of blue representing newness/change, here's what I saw:

    -Margaret in her blue suit went from refusing the wedding to committing to it

    -Trudy in her blue dress (I loved that jewelry she was wearing, btw) went from "we have to show up at this wedding, it's important for your job!" to "you're right, let's not go."

    -Betty in her light blue at the wedding is on the brink of turning away from Don, but isn't quite there yet (hence the light blue?). She goes to the wedding even though she doesn't want to, she kisses Don back, she joins Don's arm on her way out, ignoring Henry.

    -Betty in her brighter blue scarf makes the full change of direction from sticking with the marriage/Don to making the bold statement that she doesn't love him anymore.

    I think the Great Gatsby brainwashed me into believing green represents opportunity, goals, or dreams. Just my opinion. That's the great thing about this site: so many great ideas, many of them conflicting, but still interesting to think about.

  86. @88 Janet

    I hope I don't sound like a broken record in my steadfast refusal to give in on this. I only keep harping on it because this is a forum for that purpose. AND, as you point out at the end, this is a great venue to exchange different ideas. So, I hope I come across as someone you may be talking to in a quiet, outdoor cafe (rather than a ranting lunatic shouting at the top of his lungs ;) )

    Margaret in her blue suit went from refusing the wedding to committing to it

    Again, at this point Margaret feels trapped by having to go to the wedding She only commits reluctantly after Roger's threats. This is consistent with the idea of blue as representing confining institutions, not new ones (marriage being the ultimate confining institution in Mad Men).

    Trudy in her blue dress (I loved that jewelry she was wearing, btw) went from “we have to show up at this wedding, it’s important for your job!” to “you’re right, let’s not go.”

    Again, Trudy is shown in blue when she tries to convince Pete to stay with Sterling Cooper (and go to the wedding). She wants desperately for her world to stay the same. When she does finally tell him to leave, the blueness of the dress is cast in shadow.

    Betty in her light blue at the wedding is on the brink of turning away from Don, but isn’t quite there yet (hence the light blue?).

    Betty is putting on a show of being with Don. She even tests the waters by kissing him. That her dress is a faded blue doesn't support the notion of blue for change (especially as she'll be wearing green at the end).

    Betty in her brighter blue scarf makes the full change of direction from sticking with the marriage/Don to making the bold statement that she doesn’t love him anymore.

    The BIG moment in this scene is when she DISCARDS the scarf and is left wearing only in the green dress.

  87. Yeah, we just see this one differently, no biggie. I appreciate your view, but I disagree. And I hope I don't sound like a lunatic either for bringing up one more point: I don't think Betty's dress (in that last scene where she takes off the scarf) is green. I think it's very grey. And I think her taking off the blue scarf and being left in her grey dress is a symbol of her resignment (grey) to the fact that this change she wants might not happen. Don refuses to hear her, he walks out of the room, and she slumps into the couch looking defeated in her grey dress.

    Just my opinion.

  88. I mostly base my 'blue views' on the 2×5 commentary where the writers kept talking about the "new girl blue" and how they used it for Peggy & Jane's costuming. Maybe it was just New Blue in that episode but other things like Pete's blue suit seem to fit the pattern.

    Going back to the opening shot of 3×12, I still think it's a stretch to say it's an Oswald reference. For a start, one guy is lying down the other is standing up. I thought Pete sleeping in the foetal position and then whining about his cocoa was meant as a childlike image before everyone has to "Grow up". I still say Pete is more connected to Kennedy in this episode. Even Matt Weiner says on Inside 3×12 that it is Kennedy that Pete identifies with.

  89. Leaving aside the blue theme for one moment, did anyone else draw a connection between Betty's fur collar and fur wrap at the wedding and the fact that Don's first gift to her was a fur wrap that she was modeling? Is this to bookend their relationship?

  90. Goosama bin Laden, indeed.

    lessofme, you're a nut. But my favorite kind. You're a macadamia for sure. :)

  91. # 70 – "Regardless of who did it and how, the fact remains that a vital young President was brought down in the prime of his life, and it was a terrible tragedy for both the country and his family."

    What is really sobering (especially to those of us old enough to remember the event) is that, as of 11-22-09, John Kennedy will have been dead for as long as he was alive – 46 years.

    That simply blows me away!

  92. # 85 – "oh, and the nay sayers like Bugliosi and Posner didn’t even know about Johannides, who knowingly hid info."

    - check this out …

    Jefferson Morley’s struggle to find the truth about George Joannides and the CIA’s fight to hide it http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/jeffers

  93. Anne B- I just now learned the macadamia was valued until 2006 when over-production started a price slide in the world markets. The nut is also toxic to canines and the DEA uses chopped macadamias to simulate crack rock for drug sting operations.

    I've always felt I was more of a peanut, but the peanut is actually a legume.
    I have major identity issues.

    lol.

  94. Just following up from yesterday:
    The profound revelation I had was realizing I honestly don’t care one scintilla if there was a conspiracy.
    Elaborate and wide-ranging; small and vengeful; I just don’t care.

    There is nothing in the revelation of a conspiracy that I don’t already know; nothing that I haven’t discovered already. Nothing I’m not experiencing dozens of different ways right now. There’s no news to be found in the hidden details of the JFK assassination.

    The conspiracy would probably primarily expose variations of the following:

    *The military-industrial complex wields vast power and controls large parts of government institutions and agencies.
    *Elected officials can be bribed to obscure the truth and subvert justice.
    *The President of the US is primarily a ceremonial front job, while all the real power is wielded in the backrooms often by unelected and unaccountable persons.
    *The government does business with unsavory criminals and amoral thugs when it feels it needs to.
    *The government employs assassination squads and uses its resources to kill people for less than noble and honorable purposes anytime a preponderance of rich, powerful men feel that their wealth and power is threatened.
    *The rich and powerful and connected are Rollo Tomasi; they are the guys that get away with it.

    Is any of that news to me? Has it ever been any different?
    The conspiracy adds nothing to my knowledge of America or the way it works. (I honestly know watching MM is more illuminating in that regard, and I am not joking.) The minutiae of a conspiracy won't enhance my understanding of the way the world turns. There is no light to be found there.

    Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it is.

    (That said, if the details would implicate the participation of alien life-forms or a time-space wormhole from the future, that would be news I'd turn a ear for.)

  95. @ 94 SmilerG-What made me take a step back was when I realized that Ted Kennedy had been in the senate longer than his brothers had been alive.

  96. Kaiser Soze, less of me.

    And yes, nothing changes. Only our understanding of it changes a little as we get older.

  97. Gesundheit, gypsy! (hee.)

    I was thinking of a different movie but Kaiser gets away with stuff too for sure.

  98. Though interestingly enough, Kevin Spacey is connected to both, indifferent ways.

  99. I agree about 11/23; I have my own opinion, and I don't care about anyone else's, but prior to the assassination AND the double whammy of a live death (?) on TV, not many would have suspected a conspiracy of any kind. The way that many more people since are prepared to believe the most evil deeds of their own government shows just what a mass trauma that event was. I also can't believe that MM, given its apparent history-recap agenda, won't now refer to the Martin Luther King assassination and subsequent riots. In season 4, anyway.

  100. I agree it was a traumatic series of events, and also very eye-opening.

    I originally thought Weiner would time-jump again but '64 is a big year with the Beatles, Muhammad Ali, the World's Fair and the pope cursing birth control; major Peggy moments there.

  101. There would have to be a five year jump to covering the King assassination in season 4. I think they will cover it, but I don't think they're going to do a five year jump. It's just too big. My money is on season 4 starting in 65 or 66.

  102. # 102 – "I have my own opinion, and I don’t care about anyone else’s, but prior to the assassination AND the double whammy of a live death (?) on TV, not many would have suspected a conspiracy of any kind. The way that many more people since are prepared to believe the most evil deeds of their own government shows just what a mass trauma that event was."

    You've stated that you don't care about anyone else's opinion, but perhaps a fact might interest you.

    The original complaint that the police department filed on Oswald, around midnight on the 22nd of November, states that Lee Oswald did, "in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy, assassinate President John F. Kennedy."

    Now there's no way that LBJ was going to let that take on things gain any traction!

    Even with Oswald dead, the authorities in Texas wanted to investigate the whole mess and the U.S. Congress was looking at doing investigations of their own. Any of these held the prospect of riding off in all directions – which LBJ surely didn't want.

    So, he cajoled Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren to head a Commission to conduct a Federal investigation. They began with the premise that Oswald did it and then set about to prove the conclusion they had already reached. Assisting in the process, was J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

    Well, we all know how well THAT worked out for everybody!

  103. Hi–I'm watching "The Grown Ups" with my sister (who's visiting from Arizona!!) We have a question — what is the significance of the delivery guy wearing a red plaid hat? He's carrying boxes, not a package that resembles curtain rods or a rifle. Why point him out at all? Did Oswald wear a hunting hat into the book depository the day of the shooting? We just can't make a connection. Probably because we are shopping too much! 4 hours at IKEA will fry your brain. :)

  104. re: Oswald and international conspiracy – some people who worked in intel at the time thought that there was a benign cover-up – i.e. those in positions of power did not want the assassination to become the catalyst for an invasion of, say, Cuba.

    This is where the question of Operation Northwoods comes into play.

    …because some people would have loved an excuse to invade Cuba to get rid of Castro and make Cuba safe for the mafia. of course, we'd never have powerful people who would lie about the threat of the enemy du jour in order to overthrow a govt… or let those who lied get away with it. both the far right and far left had reasons to want Kennedy dead.

    When people were interviewed on site, the guy with his son, Jean Hill, Mary Moreman, many, many others all stated a shot came from the front of Kennedy.

    Jim Lehrer, from McNeil-Lehrer on PBS, was on site at the time and ran over to the grassy knoll to see if they caught the person firing from that angle (he's also on film doing that very thing at the scene.)

    Kennedy's acting press secretary is on camera (a shot that was excluded from the "beyond conspiracy" documentary, btw – cut before that moment) pointing to his right temple to indicate that Kennedy was killed by a shot to the head. He didn't point to the back of his head. He pointed to the front of his head.

    Doctors on the scene performed a trach that obscured the ENTRY wound the DOCTORS claimed was in the front of Kennedy's throat (the shot where Kennedy's arms fly up to his neck, before the fatal headshot.)

    No one has been able to examine Kennedy's brain because it is missing.

    Hoover knew about Oswald before that day, as was shown by his handwritten notes about the same BEFORE the assassination. Why would the FBI let a known nutcase who they had been tracking work in a building along the presidential motorcade.

    a guy in Miami talked to an undercover cop about the plans to kill Kennedy there (in Miami) before Dallas. because of Kennedy's refusal to go the bay of pigs route any further. Rich and connected right wingers then, (H.L. Hunt) like now, called for the death of the sitting president.

    too many things unknown for any conclusions without speculation becoming part of the conclusion.

    personally, in the dollhouse of my ibsen-waits skull, I think Tippet was supposed to kill Oswald but got shot himself, instead. maybe that's when Oswald figured out he was a patsy.

    or maybe he acted alone.

  105. LOM's conspiracy haiku

    Sniper or patsy?
    Neither tempers the weather.
    To each her passions.

    And for me (and Suzanne) the only Patsy that still matters.

  106. @106 Mama Louise

    He’s carrying boxes, not a package that resembles curtain rods or a rifle. Why point him out at all? Did Oswald wear a hunting hat into the book depository the day of the shooting?

    Well no. But it does have to be a literal recreation to work. IF you accept that Pete and Oswald are being linked at that moment, placing a character wearing a hunting cap behind Pete as he glances over at Ken ("with his haircut") is notable. The packages just struck me as consistent with the famous accounts of Oswald being observed entering work carrying a package HE claimed were curtain rods.

  107. …oops, I meant it But it DOESN'T have to be a literal recreation to work.

  108. soooo,
    my take…

    Don is Oswald. He is dressed like Oswald at the same time Oswald gets shot, right? And, to Betty, he did assassinate Betty’s perfect world.

    Don is a patsy. Betty’s world is rocked, and while Don is responsible for a whole lot of it, Betty’s responsible too. And Betty blames Don for everything. He alone is convicted by Betty’s Dallas police for the furtherance of a duplicative and philandering conspiracy to assassinate Betty’s Perfect World. Did Don act alone? Is it really ALL his fault? Don is the patsy, taking the fall for an immature, doomed marriage.

    Betty is Ruby. And, as #24 pointed out, she takes matters into her own hands and kills Don with her .38 caliber Colt “I don’t love you” to the gut.

  109. All the Basketcases, of course, are familiar with Saint John Powell.

    May I now introduce you to another Saint John — Saint John Hunt.

    He is the son of the late E. Howard Hunt, who was one of the Watergate burglars and before that, he had worked for the CIA, from 1949 until 1970.

    Prior to the his death in 2007, Hunt provided his son with an audio tape, describing some of the circumstances of "The Big Event" (a code name for the JFK assassination).

    You can listen to a portion of Hunt's tape and an interview with Saint John Hunt.

    If you have Real Player, open the application and under "File," use the pull down menu for the "Open Location" feature and paste-in this web address: http://www.blackopradio.com/black331a.ram

    There's also an in-depth article from "Rolling Stone" in April, 2007, which you can read, here … http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/138931

    Given his lifelong profession as a spy, who knows if the so-called "deathbed confession" is the truth, or if it's just a last bit of CIA disinformation or misdirection about the JFK case.

    Whatever it is, it's quite fascinating!

  110. The Warren Commission report settled all open questions regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. An exhaustive investigation and report was prepared and may be viewed at the following link: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commi

    Key excerpts follow:
    "This Commission was created on November 29, 1963, in recognition of the right of people everywhere to full and truthful knowledge concerning these events."

    "The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository."

    " There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location."

    "The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired."

    "The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy. "

    Assassination conspiracy theories continue for the best of all possible reasons, it is impossible to prove a negative. As a once formidable character said “I hate to break it to you but there is no big lie. There is no system. The universe is indifferent.”

  111. Anyone who relies upon the Warren Report as the definitive authority on the JFK assassination, is (at best) under-informed, or (at worst) a complete fool.

    Last year, a book was published called “JFK & The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters”.

    The author of the book, Jim Douglass, was interviewed by Len Osanic on the Black-Op Radio webcast, over the course of several weeks.

    These interviews are well worth the time of anyone who is interested in looking more closely at the “whys” behind the JFK assassination.

    Douglass lays out the journey that led JFK in the course of three years from his position as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to break with the logic of the Cold War and lead the world in an entirely different direction. This sequence of steps led his adversaries in the military and intelligence establishment to view him as a virtual traitor who had to be eliminated.

    I can’t recommend these interview segments (or his book) highly enough. You can get it from Amazon for less than $20.00 and after listening to these conversations with Jim Douglass, you’ll definitely want to add this volume to your library!

    - this link provides the entire six-part series of interviews … http://funnygurusdca.livejournal.com/1528068.html

  112. okay–
    remember back at #4, re. john hamm dressed as oswald? well i was re-viewing his first appearance on 30rock, "generalissimo." when liz knocks on his door, a man named OSWALD answers it before 'dr. drew' can.

    this layer of the mad men onion smells like deeeep conspiracy…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

css.php