Tom Hanks in THE HUFFINGTON POST

[James H. Fetzer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04...reloaded=1

On his upcoming project re: the JFK assassination:

"We're going to do the American public a service," Hanks says. "A lot of
conspiracy types are going to be upset. If we do it right it'll perhaps be one
of the most controversial things that has ever been on TV."

So I added a comment, which did not show up--probably because of some
typos, I supposed--so I posted another, which, to my surprise, was posted:

It would be great is Nelson actually knew what he was talking about for a
change. By the simple expedient of determining where the bullet that struck
JFK hit his back, it is possible refute--conclusively--the "magic bullet"
theory. Michael Baden, M.D., has observed that, if the "magic bullet" theory
is false, then there have to have been at least six shots from three
directions. It is not only false but is not even anatomically possible. You
can download the proof, which includes the shirt and jacket that he was
wearing, autopsy and FBI diagrams, his personal physician's death
certificate, and reenactment photographs, which is archived at
http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reas...ations.pdf
I have been a fan of Tom Hanks, but in this case, he is on the wrong side
of logic, evidence, and history.

Then my webmaster send me a snag showing that both had been posted,
after all, typos and all. Hanks is making a huge mistake in undertaking this.

[Phil Dragoo]

The actor who portrayed the astronaut has swallowed the actor who portrayed the Communist. Unfortunate, but fixable.

Tom, listen carefully to Professor Fetzer. You have the opportunity to correct the grievous crime of the last century.

The back wound (not "the neck wound") was five and three-quarters down from the shirt collar, five and three-eighths down from the jacket collar--and it did not penetrate more than the first joint of the finger.

This non-transiting wound did not exit at the entry wound to the throat--described by Dr. Perry before he had been badgered by telephone all night.

Governor Connally insisted until the day he died he was not hit by the same shot which hit the president.

CE 399 the "magic bullet" was intact within two grains--yet the surgeon of the governor saw more lead in his patient than was absent the supposed bullet.

This "magic bullet" was impossibly intact--yet test bullets were massively deformed by cotton wadding, let alone bone.

The Tippitt murder as the Rosetta Stone--Oswald would not have been convicted, so absurd was the "evidence"--automatic shells? Oswald had a magic revolver?

Forty medical professionals saw a massive occipital (back of the head) wound not shown on the extant photos. Tom--you were in Toy Story--shall we believe every cinematic image?

Seven Hollywood film experts said Zapruder shows crude paint-out of that back of the head wound--did you really talk to JFK as Gump, or was there some technique involved?

In short, Tom, fifty-eight thousand souls are watching your next move. Shall you continue the protection of their murderers? You do know, don't you, that John Kennedy was pulling us out through NSAM 263 with as yet "only" 170 American lives lost--that the Tuesday following his funeral (26 Nov 63) his successor signed NSAM 273 reversing the pull out.

Life is not a box of chocolates, Tom--it's the blood of your fellow human beings.

[James H. Fetzer]

Very nice, Phil. Can you add it as a reply to mine in The Huffington Post?

[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




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

[Dawn Meredith]

Dr. Fetzer:
Have you considered actually sending Hanks a copy of JFK and the Unspeakable? I daresay IF he takes the time to read this book he would reconsider the huge backward step he is about to take.

Thank you for posting that letter giving those who wish to write to him an address. I think if a lot of people contacted him and educated him he might just be persuaded that he has crossed over to become a voice of disinformation.

That said, I don't ever recall seeing him speak out against anything that matters, so could be he's just another idiot actor who will do anything for a buck.

Dawn

[David Healy]

Dr. Fetzer:

...

That said, I don't ever recall seeing him speak out against anything that matters, so could be he's just another idiot actor who will do anything for a buck.

Dawn

It's been my experience that those who did NOT serve during in the military during Vietnam era, whom also had a parent who DID serve in the military during wartime.... later in life, suffer extreme emotional anxiety from NOT serving, as their peers/family members did.... call it non-participating survivors guilt

Well, ya can take Hanks from there....

[James H. Fetzer]

. . . that their agents or loved ones or trusted friends will realize how serious it would be for their careers to do something this stupid . . .

Dr. Fetzer:

...

That said, I don't ever recall seeing him speak out against anything that matters, so could be he's just another idiot actor who will do anything for a buck.

Dawn

It's been my experience that those who did NOT serve during in the military during Vietnam era, whom also had a parent who DID serve in the military during wartime.... later in life, suffer extreme emotional anxiety from NOT serving, as their peers/family members did.... call it non-participating survivors guilt

Well, ya can take Hanks from there....

[Keith Millea]

It's been my experience that those who did NOT serve during in the military during Vietnam era, whom also had a parent who DID serve in the military during wartime.... later in life, suffer extreme emotional anxiety from NOT serving, as their peers/family members did.... call it non-participating survivors guilt

Well, ya can take Hanks from there....

Yeah David,but you have to remember Hanks got to dress up like a soldier,and play with toy weapons and fake blood and such in his movie "Saving Private Ryan".And also let's not forget that 10 part mini-series,"Band of Brothers",that Hanks co-produced.See,Hanks knows all about WAR from personal expierence (on the set)..........

[Ed Jewett]

Dr. Fetzer:
Have you considered actually sending Hanks a copy of JFK and the Unspeakable? I daresay IF he takes the time to read this book he would reconsider the huge backward step he is about to take.

Thank you for posting that letter giving those who wish to write to him an address. I think if a lot of people contacted him and educated him he might just be persuaded that he has crossed over to become a voice of disinformation.

That said, I don't ever recall seeing him speak out against anything that matters, so could be he's just another idiot actor who will do anything for a buck.

Dawn

Brilliant idea...! Send one to the producer, executive producer and other involved parties as well. I will contribute the cost of at least one copy. Send it in a way that requires a personal signature to show receipt.

Furthermore, some consideration ought to be given to the use of the same 'misprision of treason' informational technique currently in use by 9/11 Truth advocates -- even if the law did not exist then. An assemblage of a packet of truth -- even simply a link to this web site and key people here -- serves to present the moral obligation and serve notice of our role as 'Witnesses'.

[Phil Dragoo]

James Douglass made it come alive, how Jack and Bobby were there in 1951, and learned first hand how the French failed at something America should not repeat.

Certainly the long cold wall of names is an indictment of John Kennedy's killers.

Tom Hanks is blithely willing to exonerate the men who murdered not just our president, but fifty-eight thousand of our fellow Americans.

Hanks the poseur has the opportunity to unmask the evil which took possession of the national soul this half-century.

It would require genuine courage, not makeup, a script, and guaranteed accolades. Is he at last merely shallow.

Or ready to make the cinematic masterpiece whch finally shatters the power structure into a thousand pieces, some new daring assault on conventional wisdom where Blow-Up meets Seven Days in May, and the Guns of November lead relentlessly to the long black wall.

If he reads Douglass, he can never go back down the yellow brick road.