HBO Mini-series on LHO bit the dust?
jfk...@gmail.com
two years. It should have been in production by now if its intended
release was 2010. Can't imagine what sorts of problems they must have run
into -- like trying to figure out how to show all of LHO's actions while
deleting all of the people he interacted with who had connections to
intelligence? An heroic feat in itself.
Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks and HBO that the Bug's
lugubrious tome, full of bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply
lead everyone into a quagmire?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential LImousine SS-100-X and the
Crime of the Century
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Chuck Schuyler
I think they're setting the release for 2013.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200903/20090316_paxton.html
Scroll to the bottom of this link. It shows Reclaiming History in
development, but I don't see any recent updates.
With the economy in the tank, who knows if the money will be spent to
fully develop this into the miniseries it was originally envisioned as.
bigdog
Somebody reported that it was being planned for a 2013 release to coincide
with th3 50th annviersary of the assassination. With such a late date, it
doesn't surprise me that there would not be a lot of activity of publicity
about it now.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/85fad2c67d9a5f2e
>>> "HBO Mini-series on LHO bit the dust? .... There have been no press releases about this once-touted show for about two years. It should have been in production by now if its intended release was 2010. Can't imagine what sorts of problems they must have run into -- like trying to figure out how to show all of LHO's actions while deleting all of the people he interacted with who had connections to intelligence? An heroic feat in itself. [~~LOL BREAK HERE; "PAM" HAS DECIDED TO INSERT SOME MAKE-BELIEVE SHIT IN HER COMMENTS HERE, QUITE OBVIOUSLY~~] Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks and HBO that the Bug's [~~AKA: VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI'S~~] lugubrious tome, full of bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply lead everyone into a quagmire? [~~ADDITIONAL LOL BREAK REQUIRED HERE; I GET THE FEELING THAT "PAMELA" DOESN'T LIKE "RECLAIMING HISTORY TOO MUCH. IMAGINE THAT--A CONSPIRACY THEORIST WHO WANTS TO ATTACK AND BERATE AN EXEMPLARY "LN" BOOK, WHILE AT THE SAME THE CONSPIRACIST NAMED "PAM" EVIDENTILY WANTS TO IGNORE ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S LONE GUILT. WONDERS WILL NEVER CEASE, WILL THEY?~~]" <<<
Maybe "Pamela" McElwain-Brown should get up to speed on things.
Bill Paxton (Tom Hanks' partner at Playtone for the 10-part JFK mini-
series) said in March 2009 that the series being based on Vince
Bugliosi's book wouldn't be ready until 2013 (almost certainly in
November of 2013, too, for the 50th anniversary).
If you don't believe me, you surely will believe Paxton himself, right
here:
yeuhd
March 16, 2009. Paxton is the person who initially brought the project
to Tom Hanks and Hanks' production company, Playtone. Release is
scheduled for HBO in 2013.
Transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200903/20090316_paxton.html
Paxton talked about it again with London's Daily Express newspaper in
July 2009:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/116558/A-story-that-s-haunted-me/
Jas
release in 2013.
Quote-----Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks and HBO that the
Bug's
lugubrious tome, full of bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply
lead everyone into a quagmire?------------
BS
What is it with conspiracists describing the LN side in a way only
reflective of their own modus operandi?
Sorry to inform you, but YOU are the ones trying to lead everyone into your
"quagmire."
James
<jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a20791c9-382e-4411...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
>Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
>release in 2013.
But I hear the world is going to end in 2012!
<quote on>
A forthcoming film by Roland Emmerich, the director behind the
disaster movies Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, is
renewing interest in predictions of a major calamity to strike the
Earth on December 21, 2012. The film - 2012 - focuses on a series of
disasters which force man to flee the planet in order to survive.
Evidence for the 2012 prediction is... er... patchy although it does
centre upon the end of the what is known as the long run of the Mayan
calendar.
<quote off>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6132571/2012-Will-it-be-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.html
Ah well. Best advice in the meantime is a quote from Lewis Lambert
Strether, a character in "The Ambassasors" by Henry James:
"Live all you can - it's a mistake not to. It doesn't so much matter
what you do in particular, so long as you have your life. If you
haven't had that, what have you had?"
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
slats
> Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> release in 2013.
You mean the car buff got something wrong?? Shocking.
pamela
> Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> release in 2013.
Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
> Quote-----Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks and HBO that the
> Bug's
> lugubrious tome, full of bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply
> lead everyone into a quagmire?------------
>
> BS
Au contraire. The WCR didn't work because it was based on GIGO. The
retellings don't work either for the same reason. Those behind these
reduxs seem to think that if they hurl this myth out just one more time
with even more fanfare and ad hominem attacks against their critics, that
something just might stick. But that hasn't happened.
Look at RH. That was a ten-pound sack of merde that fell onto the
research community. Has it caused research to stop? Hardly. It may have
slowed things down for a few moments while everyone rolled around on the
floor laughing.
>
> What is it with conspiracists describing the LN side in a way only
> reflective of their own modus operandi?
The LNT idea that LHO acted alone is simply not believable. Trying
to force it down peoples' throats is even sillier.
>
> Sorry to inform you, but YOU are the ones trying to lead everyone into your
> "quagmire."
When LNTs choose not to think for themselves and let others do their
thinking for them they seem to have a difficult time handling glimpses of
their own predicament. The WCR IS a quagmire. Why do you think the OC
has to try to respin it so many times? They know that even if you don't.
>
> James
>
> <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
bigdog
I love when you CTs accuse us of not thinking for ourselves when all you
do is parrot the stale myths that have been created by the likes of Lane,
Lifton, Groden, Marrs, Stone, etc. They're selling it and you're buying
it, hook, line, and sinker. We accept the findings of the WC simply
because they make sense and are consistent with the evidence. It is the
only explaination that meets that basic litmus test.
bigdog
> On 5 Sep 2009 14:41:28 -0400, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> >release in 2013.
>
> But I hear the world is going to end in 2012!
>
> <quote on>
>
> A forthcoming film by Roland Emmerich, the director behind the
> disaster movies Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, is
> renewing interest in predictions of a major calamity to strike the
> Earth on December 21, 2012. The film - 2012 - focuses on a series of
> disasters which force man to flee the planet in order to survive.
> Evidence for the 2012 prediction is... er... patchy although it does
> centre upon the end of the what is known as the long run of the Mayan
> calendar.
>
Thanks for the info, Peter. Screw the penalties, I'm cashing out my IRAs.
Peter Fokes
Lol!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c0f742a-5ac7-4781...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;
I love when you CTs accuse us of not thinking for ourselves when all you
do is parrot the stale myths that have been created by the likes of Lane,
Lifton, Groden, Marrs, Stone, etc. They're selling it and you're buying
it, hook, line, and sinker. We accept the findings of the WC simply
because they make sense and are consistent with the evidence. It is the
only explaination that meets that basic litmus test.
I write;
I have NEVER quoted any of those authors.
I have ONLY posted evidence/testimony from YOUR 26 Volumes.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
Which you continue to RUN FROM>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WhiskyJoe
> There have been no press releases about this
> once-touted show for about two years.
> It should have been in production by now if
> its intended release was 2010. Can't imagine
> what sorts of problems they must have run
> into -- like trying to figure out how to show
> all of LHO's actions while deleting all of the
> people he interacted with who had connections
> to intelligence?
People like Judith Baker?
> An heroic feat in itself.
********************
> Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks
> and HBO that the Bug's lugubrious tome, full of
> bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply
> lead everyone into a quagmire?
The hidden message here is glee that maybe this
show will never be made. While there are many
books and documentaries on the assassination,
most people get there information about the
assassination from movies. So that means,
for all practical purposes, the people have
only seen one side of the story,
the movie "JFK".
Is this really the way it should be? Should not
the American people hear the other side of the
story? Should the only information on the JFK
assassination be Kevin Costner, lying through
his teeth, using a false diagram and a pointer
"showing" the absurdity of the
Single Bullet Theory?
There are many people out there, who at least
at the subconscious level, think "Yeah, I hope
it stays that way."
pamela
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/85fad...
So it seems they may have grabbed a clue as to the morass they are
intending to wade into and have decided to put the project off for a
while? Hmmm.
David Von Pein
>>> "So it seems they may have grabbed a clue as to the morass they are
intending to wade into..." <<<
What "morass"? There is none. You're making shit up again (as all
conspiracy theorists do, 24/7).
Lee Oswald took his own gun to work one day and shot the President with
it. He (Oswald) wasn't influenced by any other person or group. He had it
WITHIN HIMSELF to murder the President, and the evidence shows that he did
just that.
And Jack Ruby's killing of Oswald was certainly not a "group" effort. Ruby
was positively alone. And the timing of his actions on 11/24/63 certainly
prove that fact to any reasonable person looking at Ruby's movements and
actions immediately preceding Oswald's murder.
Jas
...that means we have roughly 3 years to wrap up the Kennedy assassination
debate..
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:47c5a55a5v76efnug...@4ax.com...
Jas
"pamela" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2cfe39f2-c402-481f...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
> Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> release in 2013.
>Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
>roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
Last minute to what? There is no last minute.
The argument's been raging for what will be then 50 years, what's waiting
4 more years going to do in the grand scheme?
"Roadblocks," if any, could be anything in the nuts and bolts of putting
together a production -- you should know that, and if you don't, I do --
from production schedule changes to securing location shoots to any number
of "unforseeables"as they occur.
>
> Quote-----Or is it that it has finally dawned on Tom Hanks and HBO that
> the
> Bug's
> lugubrious tome, full of bullying and fallacies of logic, would simply
> lead everyone into a quagmire?------------
>
> BS
>Au contraire. The WCR didn't work because it was based on GIGO. The
>retellings don't work either for the same reason. Those behind these
>reduxs seem to think that if they hurl this myth out just one more time
>with even more fanfare and ad hominem attacks against their critics, that
>something just might stick. But that hasn't happened.
Who is saying the WC didn't work? You?
Please.
"Retellings" like Stone's movie retelling Garrison's miserable attempt in
1968 and twisting it around to portray him as some nearly God-like
American hero battling the evil Empire of U.S. government, and in the
process throw in for added measure all major conspiracy theories, just to
make it more interesting?
Please...
>Look at RH. That was a ten-pound sack of merde that fell onto the
>research community. Has it caused research to stop? Hardly. It may have
>slowed things down for a few moments while everyone rolled around on the
>floor laughing.
Bugliosi didn't put his book together to "stop" research. If you stopped
your jibbering on this forum long enough to actually take the time to read
it you'd know he is the first to acknowledge the argument/research
continues, and encourages it, like all true researchers do.
>
> What is it with conspiracists describing the LN side in a way only
> reflective of their own modus operandi?
>The LNT idea that LHO acted alone is simply not believable. Trying
>to force it down peoples' throats is even sillier.
Your pre-emptive attack on the series even before you've laid eyes on it
belies your true nature. If you were a true, unbiased researcher, you'd be
welcoming it with open arms, THEN do some constructive, informed
criticizing.
Instead you kick it down before it has a chance to air.
>
> Sorry to inform you, but YOU are the ones trying to lead everyone into
> your
> "quagmire."
>When LNTs choose not to think for themselves and let others do their
>thinking for them they seem to have a difficult time handling glimpses of
>their own predicament. The WCR IS a quagmire. Why do you think the OC
>has to try to respin it so many times? They know that even if you don't.
Let's see if I get this straight...
So, it's ok for conspiracists to "think for themselves" in fabricating
aspects of the assassination based only on speculation and conjecture, but
not ok for LNers to defend the scientific data, known evidence, and
conclusions of the massive WC and HSCA investigations?
Great bouts of laughter....
If you don't encourage the "other side" to make reasonable attempts at
research, you, my friend, are not a true researcher yourself.
Anthony Marsh
They keep telling us that the comet will just barely miss us. But don't
listen to them. It's just a conspiracy. ';>
Anthony Marsh
Hey, you got it all backwards. We CTers do not follow the likes. We feed
them the information. They follow us.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "pamela" <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2cfe39f2-c402-481f...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
>> release in 2013.
>
>> Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
>> roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
> Last minute to what? There is no last minute.
>
> The argument's been raging for what will be then 50 years, what's
> waiting 4 more years going to do in the grand scheme?
>
Yes, but what if they plan to show it in November 2013 and then the
documents are released in September 2013 which prove that they knew it
was a conspiracy? Kinda awkward, ain't it?
Anthony Marsh
>
> ...that means we have roughly 3 years to wrap up the Kennedy
> assassination debate..
>
And then you'll have to hide when the files come out.
David Von Pein
>>> "And then you'll have to hide when the files come out." <<<
What "files" are those, Tony.
Apparently Tony thinks there's a file (or files) out there that nobody has
seen that will somehow ERASE the dozens of pieces of "OSWALD IS GUILTY AND
HE ALMOST CERTAINLY ACTED ALONE" evidence that is currently piled up
against Anthony's door.
LOL.
pamela
> "pamela" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Of course, that's just your opinion which, in true LNT fashion, you
like to present as fact.
> but
> not ok for LNers to defend the scientific data, known evidence, and
> conclusions of the massive WC and HSCA investigations?
LNTs defend the myth of the WCR, to which they like to make
pretentious claims.
Fact is, the JFK assassination is GIGO. Anybody who tries to tie it
into a neat little package inevitably looks foolish. Why do you think
there have had to be so many redux of the WCR? Nobody with a
reasoning mind believed it in the first place.
Anthony Marsh
Of course there are, or why haven't they been released already?
> LOL.
>
Jas
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4aa579db$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
geovulture
> On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> > release in 2013.
>
> Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
> roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
If you did even a minor bit of research you would realize that the
production team that is putting this out is currently wrapping up a
little HBO miniseries called "The Pacific" based on battles fought by
the Marines in the Pacific during World War II. This is a 150 million
dollar plus production and tends to take up a little time. In fact,
production started on "The Pacific" in 2007 and will air in 2010.
Take a guess at what this means. One project ends and another ramps
up. If you choose, you can remain fact free and dream of major
roadblocks. It's the CT way.
While you are dreaming, watch the trailer for The Pacific. It looks
entertaining to me and will probably give you an idea of the
production values you will see in Reclaiming History.
pamela
> On Sep 5, 4:06 pm, pamela <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> > > release in 2013.
>
> > Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
> > roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
> If you did even a minor bit of research you would realize that the
> production team that is putting this out is currently wrapping up a
> little HBO miniseries called "The Pacific" based on battles fought by
> the Marines in the Pacific during World War II. This is a 150 million
> dollar plus production and tends to take up a little time. In fact,
> production started on "The Pacific" in 2007 and will air in 2010.
So you are expecting everyone to be psychic? Are you speaking as one of
the producers of the other project or did you just think this up on your
own?
HBO is huge, it has enough money to do what it wants. There is no
connection between the two projects other than your opinion, is there?
> Take a guess at what this means. One project ends and another ramps
> up. If you choose, you can remain fact free and dream of major
> roadblocks. It's the CT way.
It seems to be the LNT way to dream up excuses for the fact that the
production of RH has been postponed. I can just imagine what excuses you
will also come up with for how HBO is going to respin the Bug after his
inflammatory and unpatriotic book accusing W of Murder. That book is, I
think, the real reason for the postponement to the last minute of the 50th
anniversary.
>
> While you are dreaming, watch the trailer for The Pacific. It looks
> entertaining to me and will probably give you an idea of the
> production values you will see in Reclaiming History.
The Bug's biggest problem in RH is that he can't tell the difference
between fact and fiction. He treats the movie JFK as if were history
rather than a movie, for example. Stone repeatedly called JFK myth-
counter-myth to the WCR, but the Bug dismisses that and just plunges on in
an insane rant.
What can possibly come out of the visual RH except more of the same
inability to separate fiction from fact? That can only create a colossal
blunder than even the most naive LNT won't be able to buy.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and the
pamela
If the Ongoing Coverup had any sense at all they would have focused only
on the WCR, even though nobody believed it. Every time they try to re-do
it, they expose more and more of their agenda.
Now the new idea is a visual RH. It will do wonders for giving everyone a
chance to see what has been going on behind the scenes for the last 50
years.
The audience of 1964 that was supposed to buy the thesis of the WCR, that
LHO acted alone, or better yet, stuff the book away on a shelf and not
read it, is gone, and the audience now is internet savvy and wise. If the
OC weren't so desperate for the 'victory' that has eluded them all this
time, they might see this. But instead, they will again forge ahead and
somehow manage to once again hoist themselves on their own petards.
pamela
> >>> "So it seems they may have grabbed a clue as to the morass they are
>
> intending to wade into..." <<<
>
> What "morass"? There is none. You're making shit up again (as all
> conspiracy theorists do, 24/7).
Please, "DVP". Is it necessary to cuss in order to get your point
across? Do you really see the audience of today as naive and trusting
as the one 50 years ago? Oh wait, they didn't buy the WCR back then,
did they?
>
> Lee Oswald took his own gun to work one day and shot the President with
> it.
LHO had no connection to the M/C after he left NOLA. Nobody ever saw
him with it.
>He (Oswald) wasn't influenced by any other person or group.
Well then, at the least, he was enabled by hundreds if not over a
thousand people who gave him a free pass. Many of those people had
connections to intelligence. But don't let that bother you.
>He had it
> WITHIN HIMSELF to murder the President, and the evidence shows that he did
> just that.
Even the WCR couldn't find a motive. You, however, don't seem to have
that problem, though you haven't shared with us just what you think a
motive might have been. But then, once you do that, you will be going
against your precious WCR. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
>
> And Jack Ruby's killing of Oswald was certainly not a "group" effort.
It took at the least a group of people to allow Ruby into the basement
in the first place; not to mention the group of people who should have
been committed to LHO's safety but were not, for whatever reason.
>Ruby
> was positively alone.
Ruby was surrounded by law enforcement. And DPD had the responsibility to
protect LHO's safety. A number of people, including Chief Curry, failed
in that assignment.
> And the timing of his actions on 11/24/63 certainly
> prove that fact to any reasonable person looking at Ruby's movements and
> actions immediately preceding Oswald's murder.
>
Two lone-nut assassins? How convenient, "DVP". Too bad it isn't true.
David Von Pein
>>> "I can just imagine what excuses you will also come up with for how
HBO is going to respin the Bug after his inflammatory and unpatriotic book
accusing W of Murder." <<<
As if Vince Bugliosi's Bush book will even come up at all.
The fact that "Pam" actually thinks that HBO will need to "spin" (or
"respin") anything with respect to VB's Bush book is another of the many
reasons why nobody can possibly take "Pamela" seriously.
"Pam" seems to think (for some silly reason) that since Bugliosi wrote a
book bashing George Bush, this means that HBO needs to "respin" something
regarding that book.
Why would HBO feel the need to do that, "Pam"? Just....why?
David Von Pein
>>> "LHO had no connection to the M/C [Carcano rifle #C2766] after he left
NOLA [New Orleans, Louisiana]. Nobody ever saw him with it." <<<
LOL. Is this the best you can do, "Pam"? Come now, my good "woman".
Seeing as how most of Oswald's possessions (including the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle) were packed up and stored away at Ruth Paine's house in
Irving during the entire time since LHO returned to Dallas from New
Orleans (from late September 1963 right through the day of the
assassination, which was only two months later), I wouldn't really expect
anyone to have seen Oswald with his rifle after he left New Orleans in
'63.
And this is a "so what?" type of thing anyway. Just because nobody
physically SAW Oswald with his Carcano after he departed New Orleans, this
is supposed to somehow ERASE the many pieces of evidence that incriminate
LHO for Kennedy's murder?
Come now, "Pam". You must be joking.
>>> "At the least, he [LHO] was enabled by hundreds if not over a thousand
people who gave him a free pass. Many of those people had connections to
intelligence. But don't let that bother you." <<<
Don't worry, I won't.
"Pam's" overactive imagination has been turned on (again).
>>> "Even the WCR couldn't find a motive. You, however, don't seem to have
that problem, though you haven't shared with us just what you think a
motive might have been." <<<
Better think (and look) again, "Pamela":
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVE FOR KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
>>> "It took at the least a group of people to allow Ruby into the
basement in the first place." <<<
You're silly.
Ruby merely had impeccable timing and some really good luck. That's all.
He merely walked down the ramp (or he used the side door to the jail):
HOW DID JACK RUBY GET INTO THE DALLAS POLICE BASEMENT?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5bfb6bd1b771ed4d
>>> "Two lone-nut assassins? How convenient, "DVP". Too bad it isn't
true." <<<
It most certainly is true. And all the evidence supports it.
But, then again, why do you really care, "Pam"? You've got your JFK
conspiracy fantasies that you can't come even close to proving (nor can
anybody else). And those fantasies will comfort you nicely in your old
age.
yeuhd
> > If you did even a minor bit of research you would realize that the
> > production team that is putting this out is currently wrapping up a
> > little HBO miniseries called "The Pacific" based on battles fought by
> > the Marines in the Pacific during World War II. This is a 150 million
> > dollar plus production and tends to take up a little time. In fact,
> > production started on "The Pacific" in 2007 and will air in 2010.
>
> So you are expecting everyone to be psychic? Are you speaking as one of
> the producers of the other project or did you just think this up on your
> own?
>
> HBO is huge, it has enough money to do what it wants. There is no
> connection between the two projects other than your opinion, is there?
"The Pacific" is not just an HBO presentation, it's also a Playtone
production, the same company that will be producing the "Reclaiming
History" project.
yeuhd
> On Sep 6, 3:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Lee Oswald took his own gun to work one day and shot the President with
> > it.
>
> LHO had no connection to the M/C after he left NOLA. Nobody ever saw
> him with it.
From the WC testimony of Marina Oswald:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you move your household goods [from New Orleans] in
her [Ruth Paine's] station wagon at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the
station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant
at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went
back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's
crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part,
and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was
part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
yeuhd
> On Sep 11, 8:37 am, geovulture <geovult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take a guess at what this means. One project ends and another ramps
> > up. If you choose, you can remain fact free and dream of major
> > roadblocks. It's the CT way.
>
> It seems to be the LNT way to dream up excuses for the fact that the
> production of RH has been postponed.
FYI, the current Playtone/HBO miniseries "The Pacific" was first
announced in January 2004, began filming in August 2007, and hasn't
been released yet in 2009.
Jas
Pot-kettle.
Conspiracists are the ones trying to "re-do" the assassination in so many
ways its laughable.
I wonder which of the many CTs will be the prevailing one in 2013 when the
series comes out?
Let's see--
The CIA has been worked to death, and any Oswald link only speculation;
The anti-Castro Cubans, well, why would they kill Kennedy if they wanted
Castro out too;
The pro-Cubans, but then, how would Oswald fit in;
Johnson, but wait, wasn't he and JFK on the same ticket;
The MIA, trouble is, JFK wanted rocket technology for the space race but
also quite coincidentally for ICBM development for defense against the
Soviet threat too;
The mob, maybe, I mean, well, they were the bad guys after all, but since
there's no tangible or credible evidence, that's also in the crapper. And,
didn't RFK stay on as AG after the assassination, and the war on the mob
continue with great vigor amd success into the 70s, 80s, and 90s, to the
present?
Hmmmm.... maybe 'ol Jimmy Bob Files will start finally convincing
conspiracists far and wide and they'll find a Remington Fireball that
matches a newly-found bullet fragment in Dealey;
Yeah, right...
>Now the new idea is a visual RH. It will do wonders for giving everyone a
>chance to see what has been going on behind the scenes for the last 50
>years.
It will counter conspiracist agenda and set the record straight, like the
book does, nothing more, nothing less.
>The audience of 1964 that was supposed to buy the thesis of the WCR, that
>LHO acted alone, or better yet, stuff the book away on a shelf and not
>read it, is gone, and the audience now is internet savvy and wise.
There's nothing different between the '64 "audiences" and today. There
were people immediately after the release of the Warren Report who thought
it could have been a conspiracy.
And, the Internet and its "savvy and wise audience" of today, as you call
it, is only because there are more conspiracist yahoos taking advantage of
the web's ubiquitous nature to disseminate false and misleading
assassination information to unknowing minds.
In other words, "savvy and wise" to the wrong ideas.
>If the
>OC weren't so desperate for the 'victory' that has eluded them all this
>time, they might see this. But instead, they will again forge ahead and
>somehow manage to once again hoist themselves on their own petards.
No one other than conspiracists is desperate for any "victory."
Gee Pam, seeing as how you're frequenting this forum to expound on the
"horrors" of the RH series being released, you appear to be a tad, shall
we say, nervous?
geovulture
> On Sep 11, 8:37 am, geovulture <geovult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 4:06 pm, pamela <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> > > > release in 2013.
>
> > > Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
> > > roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
> > If you did even a minor bit of research you would realize that the
> > production team that is putting this out is currently wrapping up a
> > little HBO miniseries called "The Pacific" based on battles fought by
> > the Marines in the Pacific during World War II. This is a 150 million
> > dollar plus production and tends to take up a little time. In fact,
> > production started on "The Pacific" in 2007 and will air in 2010.
>
> So you are expecting everyone to be psychic? Are you speaking as one of
> the producers of the other project or did you just think this up on your
> own?
No, I'm not clairvoyant. I used a computer to do research into events of
the past and present. It makes my arguments work better when they have a
basis in reality.
>
> HBO is huge, it has enough money to do what it wants. There is no
> connection between the two projects other than your opinion, is there?
Why the question mark? Is it that you have no idea what you are talking
about? The production company is Playtone, not HBO and yes, they are
doing both RH and the Pacific. It isn't my opinion that the two are
connected. It is fact. It takes a certain amount of time to put out a
miniseries on the scale of both of those projects (not to mention the
multitude of other projects going on at the same time). You could also
look back and see that The Pacific has been in the works since 2004 and it
is still not released. Perhaps Eugene Sledge wrote another book that
called Truman a murderer and HBO has decided to hold off for a few years.
The truth is that this is simply how long projects of this size take. It
is your uneducated opinion that states that they are dragging their feet
or putting the RH project off. It is backed by nothing but your own
conspiracy driven mind. I would expect no less. Do you have anything
other than your own opinion regarding how long it takes to make a
miniseries of this kind? I may have missed it.
>
> > Take a guess at what this means. One project ends and another ramps
> > up. If you choose, you can remain fact free and dream of major
> > roadblocks. It's the CT way.
>
> It seems to be the LNT way to dream up excuses for the fact that the
> production of RH has been postponed. I can just imagine what excuses you
> will also come up with for how HBO is going to respin the Bug after his
> inflammatory and unpatriotic book accusing W of Murder. That book is, I
> think, the real reason for the postponement to the last minute of the 50th
> anniversary.
We don't care what you think. You don't know what you are talking about.
Besides, you could poll a thousand people and perhaps one would know about
the Bugliosi Bush bashing book. Say that five times fast. It isn't
exactly a major area of controversy today. Bush Bashing is pretty much
the norm.
>
>
>
> > While you are dreaming, watch the trailer for The Pacific. It looks
> > entertaining to me and will probably give you an idea of the
> > production values you will see in Reclaiming History.
>
> The Bug's biggest problem in RH is that he can't tell the difference
> between fact and fiction. He treats the movie JFK as if were history
> rather than a movie, for example. Stone repeatedly called JFK myth-
> counter-myth to the WCR, but the Bug dismisses that and just plunges on in
> an insane rant.
Kind of like your current rant that has nothing to do with our
previous discussion.
As you've started the conversation, it isn't Bugliosi that treats the
movie JFK as history, it's millions of impressionable conspiracy
theorists. Hence, Bugliosi is trying to "reclaim" our true history.
Should he ignore Stone and the travesty that was the movie JFK simply
because, like a coward, Stone later stated that he was just making things
up to even the playing field? If you disagree with someone's position, is
it O.K. to just make up a set of false facts backing your own argument?
Don't answer that. We already know how you operate.
>
> What can possibly come out of the visual RH except more of the same
> inability to separate fiction from fact? That can only create a colossal
> blunder than even the most naive LNT won't be able to buy.
>
> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and the
> Crime of the Centurywww.in-broad-daylight.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
pamela
> "pamela" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You seem to be avoiding acknowledging the fact that the LNTs continue to
try to re-do the WCR while constantly revising it. Then, with blinders
firmly in place, they continue to insist that everything is consistant
with what is in the WCR. Isn't that much more deceptive than the honest
intellectual curiousity of the CTs?
P.S. It took you about a thousand words to make your point; it took me one
paragraph. Now who's 'nervous'?
yeuhd
> You seem to be avoiding acknowledging the fact that the LNTs continue to
> try to re-do the WCR while constantly revising it. Then, with blinders
> firmly in place, they continue to insist that everything is consistant
> with what is in the WCR.
Not true. Forty-five years later, the conclusions from Chapter 1 of
the Report are still valid:
1. 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.
2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots
fired.
3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the
Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there
is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor
Connally's wounds. [The Commission stated in Chapter 3, "The evidence
is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot
which missed."]
4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor
Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.
5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45
minutes after the assassination.
6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit
killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot
another Dallas police officer.
7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning
Oswald's interrogation and detention by the Dallas police:
(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald was not
subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement officials.
He was advised that he could not be compelled to give any information
and that any statements made by him might be used against him in
court. He was advised of his right to counsel. He was given the
opportunity to obtain counsel of his own choice and was offered legal
assistance by the Dallas Bar Association, which he rejected at that
time.
(b) Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed
uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass when
he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and other
sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment and
creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to orderly
interrogation or the protection of the rights of the prisoner.
(c) The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to the press by
various local law enforcement officials, during this period of
confusion and disorder in the police station, would have presented
serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for Oswald. To the
extent that the information was erroneous or misleading, it helped to
create doubts, speculations, and fears in the mind of the public which
might otherwise not have arisen.
8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the
killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963:
(a) Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department shortly
after 11:17 a.m. and killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 a.m.
(b) Although the evidence on Ruby's means of entry is not conclusive,
the weight of the evidence indicates that he walked down the ramp
leading from Main Street to the basement of the police department.
(c) There is no evidence to support the rumor that Ruby may have been
assisted by any members of the Dallas Police Department in the killing
of Oswald.
(d) The Dallas Police Department's decision to transfer Oswald to the
county jail in full public view was unsound. The arrangements made by
the police department on Sunday morning, only a few hours before the
attempted transfer, were inadequate. Of critical importance was the
fact that news media representatives and others were not excluded from
the basement even after the police were notified of threats to
Oswald's life. These deficiencies contributed to the death of Lee
Harvey Oswald.
9. 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.
10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence
of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any
Federal, State, or local official.
11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes
that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, to determine the motives for the
assassination of President Kennedy, one must look to the assassin
himself.
12. The Commission recognizes that the varied responsibilities of the
President require that he make frequent trips to all parts of the
United States and abroad. Consistent with their high responsibilities
Presidents can never be protected from every potential threat. The
Secret Service's difficulty in meeting its protective responsibility
varies with the activities and the nature of the occupant of the
Office of President and his willingness to conform to plans for his
safety. In appraising the performance of the Secret Service it should
be understood that it has to do its work within such limitations.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that recommendations for
improvements in Presidential protection are compelled by the facts
disclosed in this investigation.
Anthony Marsh
Are you even aware of when you change your alias or is it accidental?
geovulture
I didn't change anything. How did it change? I guess that means it
was accidental. I see you were able to put two and two together.
>
>
> > As you've started the conversation, it isn't Bugliosi that treats the
> > movie JFK as history, it's millions of impressionable conspiracy
> > theorists. Hence, Bugliosi is trying to "reclaim" our true history.
> > Should he ignore Stone and the travesty that was the movie JFK simply
> > because, like a coward, Stone later stated that he was just making things
> > up to even the playing field? If you disagree with someone's position, is
> > it O.K. to just make up a set of false facts backing your own argument?
> > Don't answer that. We already know how you operate.
>
> >> What can possibly come out of the visual RH except more of the same
> >> inability to separate fiction from fact? That can only create a colossal
> >> blunder than even the most naive LNT won't be able to buy.
>
> >> Pamela McElwain-Brown
> >> IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and the
> >> Crime of the Centurywww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jas
No, not nervous. Too much caffine and time on my hands...
pamela
> On Sep 11, 7:41 pm, pamela <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 8:37 am, geovulture <geovult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 5, 4:06 pm, pamela <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 5, 1:41 pm, "Jas" <lle...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sorry to rain on your little parade, but the HBO series is stated for
> > > > > release in 2013.
>
> > > > Waiting til the last minute, are they? Can't help but wonder what
> > > > roadblocks they have encountered so far that caused them to do this.
>
> > > If you did even a minor bit of research you would realize that the
> > > production team that is putting this out is currently wrapping up a
> > > little HBO miniseries called "The Pacific" based on battles fought by
> > > the Marines in the Pacific during World War II. This is a 150 million
> > > dollar plus production and tends to take up a little time. In fact,
> > > production started on "The Pacific" in 2007 and will air in 2010.
>
> > So you are expecting everyone to be psychic? Are you speaking as one of
> > the producers of the other project or did you just think this up on your
> > own?
>
> No, I'm not clairvoyant. I used a computer to do research into events of
> the past and present. It makes my arguments work better when they have a
> basis in reality.
But you are still comfortable making statements on behalf of others and
thinking they are true.
>
>
>
> > HBO is huge, it has enough money to do what it wants. There is no
> > connection between the two projects other than your opinion, is there?
>
> Why the question mark? Is it that you have no idea what you are talking
> about? The production company is Playtone, not HBO and yes, they are
> doing both RH and the Pacific. It isn't my opinion that the two are
> connected. It is fact. It takes a certain amount of time to put out a
> miniseries on the scale of both of those projects (not to mention the
> multitude of other projects going on at the same time). You could also
> look back and see that The Pacific has been in the works since 2004 and it
> is still not released. Perhaps Eugene Sledge wrote another book that
> called Truman a murderer and HBO has decided to hold off for a few years.
> The truth is that this is simply how long projects of this size take.
Really? Like to give me a quote of somebody actually involved in this
saying such a thing?
It
> is your uneducated opinion that states that they are dragging their feet
> or putting the RH project off. It is backed by nothing but your own
> conspiracy driven mind.
You do not want to ask questions as to why there is a delay and then you
object to my doing so? Can we say 'ostrich'? :-0
I would expect no less. Do you have anything
> other than your own opinion regarding how long it takes to make a
> miniseries of this kind? I may have missed it.
I would expect no less from you than documentation to back up your claim,
but apparently you expect us to believe you based on your word alone?
>
>
>
> > > Take a guess at what this means. One project ends and another ramps
> > > up. If you choose, you can remain fact free and dream of major
> > > roadblocks. It's the CT way.
>
> > It seems to be the LNT way to dream up excuses for the fact that the
> > production of RH has been postponed. I can just imagine what excuses you
> > will also come up with for how HBO is going to respin the Bug after his
> > inflammatory and unpatriotic book accusing W of Murder. That book is, I
> > think, the real reason for the postponement to the last minute of the 50th
> > anniversary.
>
> We don't care what you think.
Then why try to shut me up?
>You don't know what you are talking about.
Then neither do you.
> Besides, you could poll a thousand people and perhaps one would know about
> the Bugliosi Bush bashing book. Say that five times fast. It isn't
> exactly a major area of controversy today. Bush Bashing is pretty much
> the norm.
Prosecuting W for murder is not something routinely used as the subject of
a book by somebody who wants to look squeaky-clean to the govt.
>
>
>
> > > While you are dreaming, watch the trailer for The Pacific. It looks
> > > entertaining to me and will probably give you an idea of the
> > > production values you will see in Reclaiming History.
>
> > The Bug's biggest problem in RH is that he can't tell the difference
> > between fact and fiction. He treats the movie JFK as if were history
> > rather than a movie, for example. Stone repeatedly called JFK myth-
> > counter-myth to the WCR, but the Bug dismisses that and just plunges on in
> > an insane rant.
>
> Kind of like your current rant that has nothing to do with our
> previous discussion.
I started this thread, did you forget? This is the discussion.
>
> As you've started the conversation, it isn't Bugliosi that treats the
> movie JFK as history, it's millions of impressionable conspiracy
> theorists. Hence, Bugliosi is trying to "reclaim" our true history.
He is trying to reclaim the myth of the WCR; that didn't work the
first time around.
> Should he ignore Stone and the travesty that was the movie JFK simply
> because, like a coward, Stone later stated that he was just making things
> up to even the playing field?
The Bug fell into a trap. He treated like history, not like a movie.
That is a serious flaw in RH. But apparently you have not noticed
that yet.
If you disagree with someone's position, is
> it O.K. to just make up a set of false facts backing your own argument?
> Don't answer that. We already know how you operate.
That is just what you have attempted to do. Guess we know how you
operate.
>
>
>
> > What can possibly come out of the visual RH except more of the same
> > inability to separate fiction from fact? That can only create a colossal
> > blunder than even the most naive LNT won't be able to buy.
>
> > Pamela McElwain-Brown
> > IN BROAD DAYLIGHT: the JFK Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and the
> > Crime of the Centurywww.in-broad-daylight.com-Hide quoted text -