Thanks for the history lesson. Had no idea that they were that young and resting in Dallas. It’s good to note that the intelligence and reactions on Capitol Hill haven’t changed much.

I don’t mind at all. I’m aware of the classical meaning of ‘begging the question’ from a logic perspective, but I’ve fallen into the habit of using it in the more colloquial way as it really captures the essence of what I’m trying to say.

@ Jamie

Don’t know why the difference in bodies. In fact, I hadn’t really noticed it. If there is one, it’s probably because all those stars smoked constantly and drank like fish, both of which (for various reasons) tend to create a more female-like body habitus in males. Plus, stars of yesteryear didn’t have to remove their clothing as the ones now do, so not having a perfect body probably didn’t matter as much.

@RP

Will do. Haven’t neen in KC in years. Would love to have the tour.

Here is an article from the Bolivar Herald from a few years back that you might find of interest. It’s an interview with the sheriff’s widow about his capture by Floyd and Richetti.

Fuhrman is easy to debunk. He doesn’t have a single study in his long list purporting to ‘prove’ meat eating causes problems that isn’t an observational study, and, as I’ve written, observational studies don’t mean squat.

There was a huge (over half a million subjects) observational study in the European Journal of Nutrition a few years back showing that meat eating didn’t cause any problems and may, in fact, be protective. Why haven’t I ever posted about this? Because it’s an observational study, which means nothing.

If Fuhrman can come up with any kind of controlled study in humans showing that meat consumption is problematic, I’m all ears.

Cool post. I watched Bonnie and Clyde a couple of weeks ago.

I have a somewhat related question/observation (and somewhat not). I’m a big fan of 30s and 40s movies. I’ve noticed that the majority of male stars are shaped differently than men today. These guys were born around the turn of the century, give or take 5 or 10 years. Most of them seem to be barrel-chested and have wider hips than the men today (or even matinee idols starting in the 50s and 60s) – modern men are more of the T or X shape (if they manage not to gain a lot of weight). The movie guys seem to be a bit doughier, or have less muscle mass than even an average guy today.

However, if you go way back to Classical Greek statues (granted, this is an ideal, but still) you see the X or T shape again. I can only guess the difference is nutritional – but what would change the shape of the skeletal structure like that?