06-03-2010, 04:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2010, 04:56 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Below is a fine letter from Jane W. Prettyman to Tom Hanks. I returned to The Huffington Post to add a third remark:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04...85418.html
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
- laocoon I'm a Fan of laocoon 43 fans permalink
there are two real broad possibilities: 1) LHO acted alone 2) there was a conspiracy and like he said he was being framed. i think it is useful to ask what patterns of evidence would you expect if 1 were the case and what patterns if 2. in either case there is going to be evidence incriminating to LHO isnt there? in case one the evidence should mostly have good foundations, good chains of custody and not have a lot of divergences. if the second you would expect ballistics evidence that appears on floors when no one is looking, shell casings that lose their evidentiary markings without good explanation, conflicting patterns of wounds at dallas and washington, nitrate tests that are negative, a failure to test the murder weapon to see if it had been fired, the silencing of the patsy when normal security fails, missing brain of the victim, notes at autopsy that are not consistent with the final version on key locations of wounds, failures to probe wounds,destruction of the original notes, lack of a rational motive for the conduct of the patsy-- you know these sort of irregularities as a rule more than an exception. certainly some anomolies are understandable but step back and look at the forest and tell me which of the two possibilities does this case fit best? ( sometimes what you thought was a box of chocolates has so many pebbles in it you have to wonder if it was mislabled)
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 3/05/2010
- FZliveson I'm a Fan of FZliveson 156 fans permalink
Damn you're good!
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 3/05/2010
- James Fetzer 12 fans permalink
Nice points. Anyone who wants an overview of the assassination should visit the book site http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ and download my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?" That study and many others, such as several blogs about the research of Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), may also be found on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. JFK was hit four times--once in the throat from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head from behind and from in front--while John Connally was hit from one to three times and another shot missed and injured a distant bystander. At least two other shots missed, so there were eight, nine, or ten shots from six locations. By stealing the body in violation of state law, conducting a sham autopsy, altering the X-rays and creating phony autopsy photographs as well as recreating the Zapruder film, they were able to conceal the true causes of death for decades. On the Zapruder film, a good place to start is http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 AM on 3/06/2010
![[Image: 24lo7te.jpg]](http://i47.tinypic.com/24lo7te.jpg)
FYI, letter (hardcopy) to Tom Hanks about JFK:
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson
Playtone Productions
P.O. Box 7340
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Dear Mr. Hanks,
I saw you on "Morning Joe" on Friday March 5 when you mentioned you might consider doing a film of Vincent Bugliosi's book about JFK's murder and Oswald as the lone assassin. I was shocked that a man of your sophistication, with a reputation as "America's History Teacher," would be tempted to cinematize such an inferior work about JFK as that of Mr. Bugliosi. He's a great prosecutor but he's no historian, and most reputable JFK researchers agree. "Helter Skelter" on his pursuit of Manson was brilliant; but his view of the JFK killing is more theory than history.
Far superior in quality and truth is the extraordinary research of James W. Douglass whose book appeared in mid 2008, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." From Douglass' perspective, Oswald was not the "lone assassin" (if a shooter at all) and not only JFK died in Dealey Plaza. Peace was murdered that day and that is not expressing it too dramatically. Douglass puts together the entire mystery of the JFK killing A to Z -- and most important he answers the question "Why?" He comes up with a work that is not a "conspiracy theory" but a remarkably rich history supported in nearly every paragraph by detailed documentation, much of it quite recently uncovered and not covered by the newsmedia. Yet the truth of the "why dunnit" is far more breathtaking than the "who dunnit" which is horrendous enough. The latter has been intuited by millions of Americans since 1963 but the former has been unknown until virtually now.
For example, you might not have been aware of JFK's extended correspondence with Nikita Khrushchev after the two of them looked into the nuclear abyss during the Cuban missile crisis. They were working toward ending the Cold War and, as such, were seen by their respective generals and intelligence agencies as "traitors." Therewith a motive for the murder of either of them. Kennedy caught it first.
Kennedy pulled off the nuclear test ban treaty in record time during this correspondence period with Khrushchev, so we're not talking about flights of fancy here. He was on a roll to close down the Cold War up to hours before he died – and he was stopped. How he was stopped is the tale Douglass tells (setting up for you an extraordinary narrative for a film script), not from his own agenda (Douglass is admittedly a peace activist and devotee of Thomas Merton) but from the documents he cites at every turn. If you used Douglass as a kind of narrator, this has the makings of the "Titanic" of the JFK saga. Indeed, like the Titantic, [size=12]the truth about what happened to JFK has been lying on the bottom of American historical consciousness for nearly fifty years waiting for Douglass -- and perhaps you -- to come down and tap its secrets.
This is the book you should put to film, not another warmed-over "official story" descended from the long-discredited Warren Report to yet again delude the American public. This is the film that should come from "America's History Teacher."
I suggest if you're serious about this JFK film that you 1) read "JFK and the Unspeakable" and 2) sit down with Mr. Douglass and talk to him.
This is extremely important, Mr. Hanks. Our loss of Kennedy as a nation was one thing (he was a medium president, there was deep grief for one man) but our loss of the peace process Kennedy was working on (likely the end of the Cold War and no Vietnam, saving 58,000 Americans and thousands of Indonesians) and our continuation, therefore, of the military-industrial madness ever since are bad enough (and I'm no pacifist) without your making American history worse by not paying attention to the truth now that someone has done yeoman's work of digging it up and telling it with such depth and what can only be described as a kind of "national tenderness."
I think it will change your life to read this book and talk to Mr. Douglass.
Here's the Amazon link -- $20 bucks. Skim through reader comments:
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-...6127&sr=1-1
[/size]Sincerely,
Jane W. Prettyman
Honesdale PA
Formerly at Esquire Magazine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04...85418.html
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
- laocoon I'm a Fan of laocoon 43 fans permalink
there are two real broad possibilities: 1) LHO acted alone 2) there was a conspiracy and like he said he was being framed. i think it is useful to ask what patterns of evidence would you expect if 1 were the case and what patterns if 2. in either case there is going to be evidence incriminating to LHO isnt there? in case one the evidence should mostly have good foundations, good chains of custody and not have a lot of divergences. if the second you would expect ballistics evidence that appears on floors when no one is looking, shell casings that lose their evidentiary markings without good explanation, conflicting patterns of wounds at dallas and washington, nitrate tests that are negative, a failure to test the murder weapon to see if it had been fired, the silencing of the patsy when normal security fails, missing brain of the victim, notes at autopsy that are not consistent with the final version on key locations of wounds, failures to probe wounds,destruction of the original notes, lack of a rational motive for the conduct of the patsy-- you know these sort of irregularities as a rule more than an exception. certainly some anomolies are understandable but step back and look at the forest and tell me which of the two possibilities does this case fit best? ( sometimes what you thought was a box of chocolates has so many pebbles in it you have to wonder if it was mislabled)
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 3/05/2010
- FZliveson I'm a Fan of FZliveson 156 fans permalink
Damn you're good!
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 3/05/2010
- James Fetzer 12 fans permalink
Nice points. Anyone who wants an overview of the assassination should visit the book site http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ and download my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?" That study and many others, such as several blogs about the research of Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), may also be found on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. JFK was hit four times--once in the throat from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head from behind and from in front--while John Connally was hit from one to three times and another shot missed and injured a distant bystander. At least two other shots missed, so there were eight, nine, or ten shots from six locations. By stealing the body in violation of state law, conducting a sham autopsy, altering the X-rays and creating phony autopsy photographs as well as recreating the Zapruder film, they were able to conceal the true causes of death for decades. On the Zapruder film, a good place to start is http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 AM on 3/06/2010
FYI, letter (hardcopy) to Tom Hanks about JFK:
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson
Playtone Productions
P.O. Box 7340
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Dear Mr. Hanks,
I saw you on "Morning Joe" on Friday March 5 when you mentioned you might consider doing a film of Vincent Bugliosi's book about JFK's murder and Oswald as the lone assassin. I was shocked that a man of your sophistication, with a reputation as "America's History Teacher," would be tempted to cinematize such an inferior work about JFK as that of Mr. Bugliosi. He's a great prosecutor but he's no historian, and most reputable JFK researchers agree. "Helter Skelter" on his pursuit of Manson was brilliant; but his view of the JFK killing is more theory than history.
Far superior in quality and truth is the extraordinary research of James W. Douglass whose book appeared in mid 2008, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." From Douglass' perspective, Oswald was not the "lone assassin" (if a shooter at all) and not only JFK died in Dealey Plaza. Peace was murdered that day and that is not expressing it too dramatically. Douglass puts together the entire mystery of the JFK killing A to Z -- and most important he answers the question "Why?" He comes up with a work that is not a "conspiracy theory" but a remarkably rich history supported in nearly every paragraph by detailed documentation, much of it quite recently uncovered and not covered by the newsmedia. Yet the truth of the "why dunnit" is far more breathtaking than the "who dunnit" which is horrendous enough. The latter has been intuited by millions of Americans since 1963 but the former has been unknown until virtually now.
For example, you might not have been aware of JFK's extended correspondence with Nikita Khrushchev after the two of them looked into the nuclear abyss during the Cuban missile crisis. They were working toward ending the Cold War and, as such, were seen by their respective generals and intelligence agencies as "traitors." Therewith a motive for the murder of either of them. Kennedy caught it first.
Kennedy pulled off the nuclear test ban treaty in record time during this correspondence period with Khrushchev, so we're not talking about flights of fancy here. He was on a roll to close down the Cold War up to hours before he died – and he was stopped. How he was stopped is the tale Douglass tells (setting up for you an extraordinary narrative for a film script), not from his own agenda (Douglass is admittedly a peace activist and devotee of Thomas Merton) but from the documents he cites at every turn. If you used Douglass as a kind of narrator, this has the makings of the "Titanic" of the JFK saga. Indeed, like the Titantic, [size=12]the truth about what happened to JFK has been lying on the bottom of American historical consciousness for nearly fifty years waiting for Douglass -- and perhaps you -- to come down and tap its secrets.
This is the book you should put to film, not another warmed-over "official story" descended from the long-discredited Warren Report to yet again delude the American public. This is the film that should come from "America's History Teacher."
I suggest if you're serious about this JFK film that you 1) read "JFK and the Unspeakable" and 2) sit down with Mr. Douglass and talk to him.
This is extremely important, Mr. Hanks. Our loss of Kennedy as a nation was one thing (he was a medium president, there was deep grief for one man) but our loss of the peace process Kennedy was working on (likely the end of the Cold War and no Vietnam, saving 58,000 Americans and thousands of Indonesians) and our continuation, therefore, of the military-industrial madness ever since are bad enough (and I'm no pacifist) without your making American history worse by not paying attention to the truth now that someone has done yeoman's work of digging it up and telling it with such depth and what can only be described as a kind of "national tenderness."
I think it will change your life to read this book and talk to Mr. Douglass.
Here's the Amazon link -- $20 bucks. Skim through reader comments:
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-...6127&sr=1-1
[/size]Sincerely,
Jane W. Prettyman
Honesdale PA
Formerly at Esquire Magazine