Tom Hanks is trying to put together a 10 part series debunking all the conspiracy theories. HBO is supposedly going to air it.
Prison Planet
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june20 ... 7Hanks.htm
Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070607/en ... 0607205518
Great just what America needs.
mc
Tom Hanks to Produce JFK Debunking Series
-
M.C.Newton
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Ricky Clow
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
I agree this is just great, He's going to attempt to debunk them but we all know that it was a conspiracy. He needs to open his eyes. When you live outside the U.S. you without a doubt know that it was a conspiracy it's just to obvious. the few people that belive that Oswald killed Kennedy do so because they don't want to belive that their govermen would conspire to kill there leader.
-
Pennyworth
- Posts: 2931
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
By Karl Helicher -- Library Journal, 6/15/2007
In recent years, the image of the Kennedy presidency as Camelot has been tarnished by authors who portray JFK as an overly medicated, belligerent world leader eager to push the nuclear button and expand the war in Vietnam. But in Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years (Xpress Reviews, 5/15/07), David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com, instead reveals that the Kennedy brothers reached out to Khrushchev and Castro in search of peace and paid with their lives for their efforts.
Your depiction of the early Cold War is an important feature. How dangerous was it to be JFK or RFK then?
I think an air of sinister menace hung over much of the Kennedy presidency. JFK's administration was a government at war with itself. He became increasingly alienated from his national security bureaucracy after the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's behavior during that operation was “treasonous” in RFK's estimation. The agency continued to operate in a rogue fashion in its secret war on Castro, resisting the president's direction.
Meanwhile, JFK's military was deeply restive. His top commanders considered him weak and inexperienced. Gen. Curtis LeMay, chief of the U.S. Air Force, talked openly of an inevitable nuclear war with the Soviet Union. JFK was deeply concerned about a “Strangelovian” scenario in which an unhinged general—and he considered LeMay “mad”—might start World War III. JFK spoke often to friends and trusted advisors about the possibility of a coup or assassination. The mutinous atmosphere was so palpable that he appealed to liberal friends in Hollywood: director John Frankenheimer made a film version of the political thriller Seven Days in May, about a military plot that nearly topples the civilian government. JFK hoped the movie would be a shot across the bow of disgruntled generals and awake the American public to the growing threat against democracy.
You identify provocative linkages between the murders of JFK and RFK.
As soon as he heard the news from Dallas, RFK suspected that his brother was the victim of a plot that he immediately concluded had grown out of the CIA's shadowy war on Castro. This anti-Castro operation brought together some of the Kennedys' most violent enemies, all of whom believed the Kennedys had betrayed their cause. At least one of the key figures in this murky operation—a CIA official named David Morales known for his associations with the Mafia—has been tied to both Kennedy assassinations. Before his death in 1978, Morales revealed to his attorney that he was involved in both crimes.
You conducted interviews with the Kennedys' “band of brothers” as well as shady figures with possible murder ties. Any that stand out or that left you intimidated?
My interviews with Ted Sorensen, JFK's devoted speechwriter, and Adam Walinksy, RFK's speechwriter, were particularly moving. These are men with ferocious intelligence and ferocious commitment to the Kennedy ideals. But their sorrow over the historical traumas of the 1960s made them very human. Many of the former Kennedy aides fought back tears as they recalled what they and the nation as a whole had lost.
I never felt threatened, but there were certainly occasions when I felt a sense of the dark forces that had swirled around the Kennedys. When Morales's best friend, Ruben Carbajal, told me that JFK “deserved to die” for his failure to rescue the Bay of Pigs invaders and that he and Morales felt “good riddance” when RFK was killed, I got an unmistakable sense of the poisonous hatred that drove the enemies of the Kennedys.
You portray JFK and RFK sympathetically, much as they were perceived at the time of their respective assassinations. Why have they been treated harshly recently?
Historical assessments of presidencies shift over time, often in response to current fads and forces. There was bound to be a reaction against the gauzy Camelot mythology that enveloped JFK as soon as he was struck down. And much of his private life was certainly reckless by today's more stringent standards. But I think the anti-Kennedy revisionism of recent years has gone way too far—to the point where journalists like Christopher Hitchens can brazenly dismiss JFK as a “vulgar hoodlum,” which is promiscuous language that has no grounding in reality.
The truth is that both Kennedys exhibited enormous heroism. Against relentless militaristic pressures, JFK “kept the peace”—he planned to remove the “advisors” from Vietnam following his reelection—that's what he wanted his epitaph to be, and it should be. It was an enormous achievement considering the terrifying nuclear demons of his day. In speeches like his soaring commencement address at American University in June 1963, he dared to dream of a world where America was not in a constant death grip with a foreign enemy, where we could even acknowledge the humanity of our opponents.
Will the new “assassination writers” be successful in cracking JFK's murder?
I am hopeful. I already see signs that the slow-motion collapse of the Bush presidency will lead to a new era of honesty and open inquiry. This was true of the post-Watergate 1970s, with the revelations of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Both inquiries found evidence of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. But the CIA continues to withhold key government documents about intelligence officials who have been linked to the crime. This stonewalling is in shameless defiance of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which mandated the release of all government documents bearing on the crime. As the Bush era ends, we must push for full disclosure, so the American people can finally reclaim their history.
In recent years, the image of the Kennedy presidency as Camelot has been tarnished by authors who portray JFK as an overly medicated, belligerent world leader eager to push the nuclear button and expand the war in Vietnam. But in Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years (Xpress Reviews, 5/15/07), David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com, instead reveals that the Kennedy brothers reached out to Khrushchev and Castro in search of peace and paid with their lives for their efforts.
Your depiction of the early Cold War is an important feature. How dangerous was it to be JFK or RFK then?
I think an air of sinister menace hung over much of the Kennedy presidency. JFK's administration was a government at war with itself. He became increasingly alienated from his national security bureaucracy after the Bay of Pigs. The CIA's behavior during that operation was “treasonous” in RFK's estimation. The agency continued to operate in a rogue fashion in its secret war on Castro, resisting the president's direction.
Meanwhile, JFK's military was deeply restive. His top commanders considered him weak and inexperienced. Gen. Curtis LeMay, chief of the U.S. Air Force, talked openly of an inevitable nuclear war with the Soviet Union. JFK was deeply concerned about a “Strangelovian” scenario in which an unhinged general—and he considered LeMay “mad”—might start World War III. JFK spoke often to friends and trusted advisors about the possibility of a coup or assassination. The mutinous atmosphere was so palpable that he appealed to liberal friends in Hollywood: director John Frankenheimer made a film version of the political thriller Seven Days in May, about a military plot that nearly topples the civilian government. JFK hoped the movie would be a shot across the bow of disgruntled generals and awake the American public to the growing threat against democracy.
You identify provocative linkages between the murders of JFK and RFK.
As soon as he heard the news from Dallas, RFK suspected that his brother was the victim of a plot that he immediately concluded had grown out of the CIA's shadowy war on Castro. This anti-Castro operation brought together some of the Kennedys' most violent enemies, all of whom believed the Kennedys had betrayed their cause. At least one of the key figures in this murky operation—a CIA official named David Morales known for his associations with the Mafia—has been tied to both Kennedy assassinations. Before his death in 1978, Morales revealed to his attorney that he was involved in both crimes.
You conducted interviews with the Kennedys' “band of brothers” as well as shady figures with possible murder ties. Any that stand out or that left you intimidated?
My interviews with Ted Sorensen, JFK's devoted speechwriter, and Adam Walinksy, RFK's speechwriter, were particularly moving. These are men with ferocious intelligence and ferocious commitment to the Kennedy ideals. But their sorrow over the historical traumas of the 1960s made them very human. Many of the former Kennedy aides fought back tears as they recalled what they and the nation as a whole had lost.
I never felt threatened, but there were certainly occasions when I felt a sense of the dark forces that had swirled around the Kennedys. When Morales's best friend, Ruben Carbajal, told me that JFK “deserved to die” for his failure to rescue the Bay of Pigs invaders and that he and Morales felt “good riddance” when RFK was killed, I got an unmistakable sense of the poisonous hatred that drove the enemies of the Kennedys.
You portray JFK and RFK sympathetically, much as they were perceived at the time of their respective assassinations. Why have they been treated harshly recently?
Historical assessments of presidencies shift over time, often in response to current fads and forces. There was bound to be a reaction against the gauzy Camelot mythology that enveloped JFK as soon as he was struck down. And much of his private life was certainly reckless by today's more stringent standards. But I think the anti-Kennedy revisionism of recent years has gone way too far—to the point where journalists like Christopher Hitchens can brazenly dismiss JFK as a “vulgar hoodlum,” which is promiscuous language that has no grounding in reality.
The truth is that both Kennedys exhibited enormous heroism. Against relentless militaristic pressures, JFK “kept the peace”—he planned to remove the “advisors” from Vietnam following his reelection—that's what he wanted his epitaph to be, and it should be. It was an enormous achievement considering the terrifying nuclear demons of his day. In speeches like his soaring commencement address at American University in June 1963, he dared to dream of a world where America was not in a constant death grip with a foreign enemy, where we could even acknowledge the humanity of our opponents.
Will the new “assassination writers” be successful in cracking JFK's murder?
I am hopeful. I already see signs that the slow-motion collapse of the Bush presidency will lead to a new era of honesty and open inquiry. This was true of the post-Watergate 1970s, with the revelations of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Both inquiries found evidence of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. But the CIA continues to withhold key government documents about intelligence officials who have been linked to the crime. This stonewalling is in shameless defiance of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which mandated the release of all government documents bearing on the crime. As the Bush era ends, we must push for full disclosure, so the American people can finally reclaim their history.
-
Mike Bruni
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Mike,
Here is the BBC program that talks about Morales being in Los Angeles for the RFK assassination and Dallas for the JFK assassination. I hope Mr. Hanks watches this too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkkUJp2pi3Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMOeE4qn_V4
Here is the BBC program that talks about Morales being in Los Angeles for the RFK assassination and Dallas for the JFK assassination. I hope Mr. Hanks watches this too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkkUJp2pi3Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMOeE4qn_V4
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Tom Hanks to Produce JFK Debunking Series
11.06.2013Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:06.09.2007 - M. C. Newton Posted this interesting Headline.A short discussion developed and evolved with a few facts, points of information,and opinions that were raised that many may not be aware of today.I have been taking a sort of Inventory On All the Great Revelations about JFKthat were to have come out, or may still come out, this year for my own purposes, research, and writings.Any more recent analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research,studies, thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this subject matter ?Comments ?Respectfully,BB.