its an excellent book and a very good insight in to hanks playtone company . i recommend the book highly . as geoff correctly says it not only takes in bugliosis huge tome , but also such things as operation mockingbird , hollywood , hanks and playtone .

for the benefit of the readers here . hanks playtone production company has and is making movies and tv shows . hanks has decided for what ever reason that he wants in , whether that is just acting in or making these movies or programs .

hanks starred in charlie wilsons war , supposedly based on a true story , the main character is real and based on real events however our friends in hollywood again made sure that unsavoury truths that would show the us government , its military and its agencies in its true bad light have been kept out and kept from the people .

hanks and playtone are now playing a part in this . remember you are dealing with a mindset here where they think IT WORKED JUST FINE 50 ODD YEARS AGO AND SINCE , SO WHY CHANGE NOW ?. back in the 60s if "uncle walt" came on tv and said it was so no one would ever question it . lbj put warren in charge of the commission because he knew that like uncle walt that the gullible people would believe him .

in the movies you had the likes of john wayne , for example the green berets . get the book the movie was based on and read it , it bears little resemblance to the movie . the book showed the green berets and the vietnam war in its true awful light . by the time wayne was done well lol if anyone knows their history , and about the vietnam war that was started on the basis of a lie (an attack in tonkin that never occurred ) well then they will see exactly what wayne did to that movie .

some might say wayne was a patriot , now dont get me wrong im partial to his western movies as are most people , but i think a patriot would want only the best for his country , not lies based on wars . if you are making and starring in a movie about historical events shouldnt you ensure your are as accurate as is humanly possible . if the green berets were killing innocent people , women and children shouldnt honest good people want the world to know it ? and to stop that war ? . either wayne thought the book lies and didnt believe it or he knew it was the truth and in his warped patriotic logic thought revealing the truth to the people would be detrimental to americas military . after all WE HAVE TO FIGHT THE LITTLE COMMIES AND DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO STOP THEM even killing women and kids apparently .

hanks and playtone purchased the rights to to make bugliosis tome into a 12 part tv series . he was asked about this and warned against it , remember now some 60 to 70% of americans believe the warren commission to be a whitewash and it was . bugliosis was a warren apologist and his tome simply a rewriting of that whitewash . so why would hanks risk the wrath of the people supporting that rubbish ?. in the end the 12 part series was shelved (mr hanks may wait another 5 years and wheel it out for the 60th anniversary lol , sont be surprised) and instead we got the movie parkland .

now while i dont expect a hollywood movie to be 100% accurate if its SUPPOSEDLY based on actual events they should make an effort to ensure its reasonably accurate , allowing for dramatization etc etc .

how much research does one have to do to know that mr zapruder was stood up on the white concrete plinth with marilyn sitzman stood up there behind him to steady him ? . just looking at the photos or other film (other than the zapruder film) will show you them stood up there . yet the movie has mr z up there all alone . well miss sitzman is on record stating that mr zapruder started film when jfk was on houston and nearing the corner of elm , and as the lead motorcycles turned on to elm  . we see that in the film , and mr zapruder corroborated that . neither made any mention that they started filming , stopped , then started again . both said they started filming and filmed the motorcade and that was that . but the z film does not show the limo making the turn , the limo simply appears on elm . i read mr zapruders testimony , he wasnt asked about that .

so i guess the logic here is if we dont show sitzman our viewers especially the younger viewers wont wonder who that lady is and check out what she had to say .

the movie parkland was used to attack the credibility of oswalds mother . they made her out to be a stern faced nut . and they lied and deceived in order to do so , either that or they cant do even basic entry level research .

in one scene robert oswald walks in to a police station room and finds his mother  mrs oswald in there . again a very stern face on her , robert argues with her , then have her say MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY THAN ANY OTHER MAN . the point of the scene is to highlight that the women is a nut who thinks her son lee was some sort of agent for his country .

well now a very cursory search on youtube will bring up videos of mrs oswald . did she use the wording that is seen in the movie ? , yes she used similar wording . however NOT AT THE POLICE STATION and most certainly NOT IN THE CONTEXT WE SEE IN THE MOVIE . in fact if you go on youtube you will find a video of her filmed live , showing her standing weeping over the grave of her son , while many of the media look on and film her . she was afforded no privacy . she spoke to the cameras still weeping , and said MY SON , LEE HARVEY OSWALD , EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH , HAS DONE MORE FOR HIS COUNTRY THAN ANY OTHER LIVING PERSON .

can you see the difference ? that is the difference between what the movie had the mrs oswald character say and what she really said ? . let me help you "EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH " and "ANY OTHER LIVING PERSON" . the scene in the police station was at a time when oswald was STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE . that tells us a few things about playtone and hanks does it not ? . it tells us they knew EXACTLY what mrs oswald said , that means they had and saw the film i mentioned just above . they knew the comment was NEVER made at the police station or in the context they falsely placed it . the knew that she made the comment NOT stern faced but weeping over her dead sons grave . and they knew they had to remove the references to a DEAD oswald from her comment , or they could not use it in the film .
have no doubt hanks is our latest uncle walt , the latest john wayne . after all tom hanks wouldnt lie , just as uncle walt and wayne did he will always give us accurate and true facts ? .

f hanks believes the official version of events and sees the us government / military and its agents blindly only in the best light well thats is his right . however its not his right to use his production company to force BS down the throats of people .

operation mockingbird is alive and well im afraid . we must rely on the internet for truth , however as we can see now the internet is heavily under attack . words like extremism are used , ill bet you think that means jihads or terrorists ? lol . the word extremist is being used to describe person or persons who dissent , who oppose lies and demand the truth . that is people like you and me . dont believe me ? , well find out how many videos and posts telling the truth are deleted from facebook , youtube etc etc often without reason or explanation . freedom of speech and freedom of information is under attack . in my own country there were and are many protests and videos filmed and uploaded online , many have been taken down .

the late john judge was excellent . i watch him even now on youtube and you can see just how knowledgeable and well researched he was , he talks and what he says is compelling .

ive seen him on a panel recently in a video , sadly he had an idiot to his left on the panel (dan moldea) , judge didnt lower himself to moldeas level , he just reeled off fact after fact that moldea made no effort to refute . on the far right side of the panel was the late fletcher prouty .when prouty mentioned a name moldea repeatedly jumped in saying OH NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT PERSON WAS INVOLVED IN YOUR CONSPIRACY ? . moldea reminds me of LN on youtube , LN that know they cant refute the facts in front of them so they try to ridicule you with nonsense you never said and about a vast conspiracy that everyone was in on . to see a grown man (moldea ) act the way he did is a pitiful .

prouty to his credit never reacted to moldeas antics , he simply turned to the audience and gave them more facts and more information .

judges mother had an interesting job in 63 and was smack dab in the middle of things in washington dc . on november 25 the day of jfks funeral she was told to work out projections for a 10 year war in vietnam . which shows just how quick lbj got to reversing jfks policies .

some authors / researchers had a problem with others . weisberg was a bit bitter that he did such great work but that others got mentioned , such as garrison . different authors disagree on certain things , for example groden refuses to look at some pretty valid evidence that could mean that the zapruder film was in some way edited . i say edited not altered . groden says the film is proof of a frontal shot (back and to the left ) so he doesnt want to know about anything that might refute that . all 4 motorcycle officers behind jfk were asked and said the limo did a "rolling stop" , it didnt stop completely but a near stop for a few short seconds .

as a driver i understand the speeds we are talking about here . the limo having turned from houston to elm was traveling 10 to 12 miles per hour . thats pretty slow on the road , you are driving in the lower gears (with a stick shift ) 2nd gear maybe 3rd gear , when you factor in greer stepping on the brakes multiple times the cars speed drops to all most walking speed all be it for just several seconds . that has a knock on affect on the motorcade behind . they also slowed greatly , thats why people said the motorcade stopped , to all intents and purposes for a few seconds it did . but LN dont like that because they think to admit that is to admit that the limo also stopped .

groden wants nothing to do with these witnesses . so some authors have a problem with him and they with him .

no doubt we had some wonderful people , may b russell , sylvia meagher , john judge , weisberg , lane , josiah thompson , garrison etc , and these days we also have some great people . but as researchers we all need to be on the same page , yes we may not agree on everything but we can stand together . sadly some were bitter like wiesberg , he did a lot of fantastic work while the likes of lane and garrison got all the press . its a pity .

to be honest i prefer to be guided by facts , that is what we can prove or disprove irrefutably rather than to be guided by any individual . we know that LN look on bugliosi as a messiah of some sort , the bringer of truth lol . if the bug said its so well IT MUST BE SO . likewise with posner . i mean citing facts from a book or author (if proven and irrefutable) is fine , but to rely on one author as LN do with bugliosi ? no not for me . so i dont rely on lane or thompson or weisberg or judge etc , but all authors even bugliosi give us some facts , we just have to research and ensure they are facts .

lane is attacked by LN because he wrote or claimed certain things in the early days . they make no allowance that so much was sealed away , and little information was available early on . what might have honestly been believed true and accurate in 65 could be shown to now be true years/ decades later . we must remember that weisberg and lane and the early researchers had no computers , no internet , and as i said much information was sealed away . with what they had they did a great job . inevitably i think errors would be made , inaccurate claims made , but the important thing is that they later put that right . and ct to be fair usually do . have posner and bugliosi righted their wrongs ? the answer is no .

lane is also attacked because he was jim jones lawyer . as tho who a lawyers client is discredits the lawyer , or in this case we should not believe lane when he wrote or spoke about jfk because he was jim jones lawyer . LN even stupidly try and claim that he had some involvement in the jones town deaths .

without doubt there have been and are people whos sole purpose is to push the lone nut version of events or muddy the waters further . dave perry (gary macks partner in crime ) claimed to be ct but we know that was not the case . mack himself changed to the LN side . dale myers was a ct who switched to the other side . were they ever true ct ? myers is recorded in interview saying he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that oswald did not shoot jfk or tippit . how do you go from that to rabid LN ? .

posner pretended in the early days to be ct , that allowed him to get in ct circles . weisberg even gave him access to his file cabinets . so i guess we need to know who we can trust , because clearly there are some that we cant . so maybe as i said we should not let people distract us away from the facts , because the facts are more important .

the woman in question was an elderly lady , according to whalley she asked if she could take the cab . at that whalley said that oswald (SUPPOSEDLY IN A GREAT DASH TO ESCAPE ) motioned to get out of the cab and give it to the elderly lady . whalley said there was no need that another cab would be along any second . LNs dont mention this , for obvious reasons , they want to say oswald was in flight and in a hectic rush .

i dont know where the elderly lady came from , i dont think we even have her name , so bad was the so called investigation .

the transfer in oswalds shirt pocket has long bothered me . it is just a little slip of paper . we know multiples of officers pounced on oswald . we know they handled oswald so roughly that they tore all the buttons off the shirt and ripped it in places . the photo of oswald being removed from the theater shows the shirt being pulled in multiple directions . and that transfer emerges from oswalds shirt pocket like it just came out of the ticket machine PRISTINE ?? . the photos of it show it has no kicks , bends or wrinkles which i think is a virtual impossibility .

this is true geoffrey . as i said in another post here david emerling one day says the 3 pathologists are the best people to tell us about jfks wounds , that includes humes . but then david tells us HE DOESNT BELIEVE HUMES about the EOP head wound entry location , nor apparently the other two pathologists that said they saw the same thing lol . we can add to that that humes testified that he could not conceive of where all the fragments in evidence came from ce399 , given that it lost all most none of its mass . and LN dont accept that either .

i believe it was the clark panel geoffrey but im going from memory . they tried to tell humes he was wrong about the head wound . they tried to tell him in effect that he saw an entry wound by the EOP that they said DID NOT EXIST (all 3 pathologists apparently imagined seeing the same wound lol ) , and further to that that all 3 pathologists failed to see an entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up in the crown area . the autopsy photos show that there was no wound in the crown area , its a spot of dry blood that even has hairs in it . humes vehemently protested that there never was any wound up there . but that fell on deaf ears . but as we know humes and boswell were quite pliant , later humes would go along with the crown entry . i think essentially all 3 originally were honest men , as was earl warren , for what its worth i think they were likely told something similar to what LBJ told warren , WW3 .

this is the same humes who took home the autopsy notes , then re wrote them , burned the original , then heard on sunday that oswald had died and then re wrote them again . oswald living or dying doesnt change jfks autopsy findings so why would news of oswalds death lead humes to again re write the autopsy report ?  . the only answer i can come up with is that NOW THERE WONT BE ANY TRIAL , humes can write pretty much what he wants on the autopsy report and it wont be questioned .

bugliosi as with all warren apologists must shall we say atleast bend the truth / the facts to make his argument work . the warren commission omitted , deceived and lied , so there is not an LN in the world that can make an argument supporting the commission that is honest and truthful .  you cant make a lie THE TRUTH , a lie is a lie , but LN clearly think they can massage a lie . by doing that they think they can make a lie look like a blunder , an error or a mistake . or they omit to mention the lies , i always says a good omission is often better than a good lie . LN can be caught in a lie , and if so they lose credibility , but as posner and bugliosi etc have found that if they simply dont mention something that contradicts them well they often get away with it . thats the mentality we have to deal with every day .

as a quick example , bugliosi in his book mentions that oswald LIED and said he ate lunch with jarmin and norman , as a means to gain an alibi . in essence bugliosi opined that oswald hoped jarmin and norman would lie and say they ate with him . so bugliosi mentality here for the start is HE NEEDS TO MAKE OSWALD A LIAR , if his readers believe oswald was a liar they will then say he must be guilty or why lie ? .  now in his book he mentions the interrogation notes , and cites them . but he omits to mention that in them SEVERAL TIMES oswald was recorded saying HE ATE LUNCH ALONE . bugliosi has to omit this information , because then he cant argue that oswald lied , in bugliosis prosecutorial logic lies equate to guilt , he wants his readers to believe every word from oswalds mouth was a lie EVEN BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT OSWALD SAID . if they believe oswald lied , they believe he is guilty its simple . so bugliosi HAS LIED to his readers , he has conned them , he told them oswald lied about eating lunch with jarmin and norman , so he conned his readers . now how does he keep that con going ? , well if he tells his readers about the interrogation notes that say multiple times that oswald said HE ATE ALONE well his con is finished . so he omits to mention that oswald said he ate alone , and instead cites some of will fritz inaccurate testimony , given without having his notes , testimony that is contradicted by his own interrogation notes . fritz testified wrongly that oswald said he ate with jarmin . this is completely false . so now bugliosi adds to his own lie and supports that lie with testimony HE KNOWS FULL WELL is wrong and contradicted by multiple interrogation notes .

so bugliosi has to use a variety of tactics in his book in order to make his argument plausible , we have seen one just above . many people have fallen for his tricks , in my experience usually only those people with little research who dont ever check to see if what he said was true .
bugliosi knew about guinn and his work , and he knew the problems with NAA , yet he still went and led his readers to believe that guinn and his tests are accurate and should be relied upon . when you find out that a test is unreliable for any reason you cease using it , because you have to have accurate results . as an example the nitrate test was abondoned even by late 1963 , because it gave false positive results and also false negative results . meaning a person who had never held a gun could test positive (due to things their hands could come in contact with such as print ink ) while a person that had held and fired a weapon could test negative . such a test is useless in determining accurately the guilt or innocence of a person , thus that test cant be used .

NAA we now know has problems , it had those problems while bugliosi was alive , he knew all about them . yet he did not seek to correct/ amend his book with the new information we have regarding NAA . guinn in essence claimed he could link a very small fragment of bullet via NAA to one particular bullet and to a batch of bullets . that led him to state that all fragments in the limo came from one bullet ONLY and from one batch . guinn likely believed in that test and spoke honestly back then , but now we know that the test has serious problems . and its not the only test used by the fbi in regards jfks death that has problems . but i have yet to see any LN at all that will admit or even mention this .

to do so would weaken their already weak argument drastically . but that is the case for many aspects of their argument . bugliosi had the same problem as all LN which is how do you turn BS or a lie in to truth , or how to make a pigs ear in to a silk purse . inevitably they must fail and they do .

the evidence is what the evidence is , you trust it or you dont . that is for example if you trust the pathologists you must trust them 100% , you cant say i trust them 90% but on 10% they were inept . the official entry wound on jfks head is low on the rear of the head , just off center to the right , in an area call the EOP . whether the above is true or not many LN wont accept it . one LN is david emerling . he posts regularly saying THE PATHOLOGISTS EXAMINED JFKS WOUNDS FOR SOME 4 HOURS , AND THEY ARE THE BEST PEOPLE TO TELL US ABOUT HIS WOUNDS . but when they tell david that jfk had an entry wound down low near the EOP he refuses to accept it . which is hypocrisy , but also its because davd is smart enough to understand that the EOP entry location from 6 floors up and fired right to left and exiting where LN say it did (upper right side of the head towards the temple) is a serious problem , the EOP entry is too low . clark panel , and later hsca also knew this . so they eradicated that problem by moving the entry wound up 4 to 5 inches (and a bit to the right also ) to the crown area of the head , specter eradicated a similar problem with the back wound in 1964 by moving it up to the right of neck . this is the entry wound location that emerling tells me is accurate , despite also telling me the pathologists studied jfks wounds 4 hours and were the best people to tell us about these wounds . yet when it suits him he chooses to ignore them .

honest people accept the truth , when they see proof they accept it . LN be they authors like bugliosi or regular LN like david etc continually try to fix the many problems they have with their argument by omitting ,twisting and distorting , in bugliosis case we can certainly add lying . you dont have to fix evidence to make it fit your argument , it either fits or it doesnt . the EOP entry doesnt fit the LN argument so it has to go , because its too low , the crown head entry works better so lets say the entry wound was there . we wont let the fact that the autopsy photos prove their was no such wound or that humes vehemently protested that there was no such wound dissuade us lol .

Guinn's NAA is a dead duck. FBI dont use it at all and havent for over a decade. Its amazing how Bugliosi accepts it but then doesnt realise he traps himself because the supposed bullet fired at Walker is VERY different in its antimony and tin levels. Thats why the Warren Commission didnt use the NAA test results in their report.

Further, Guinn used the same NAA tests to check Oswalds cheek casts and it showed he hadnt fired a rifle. Of course LNers then start shouting that rifles dont emit GSR but then seem to forget that Guinn made 7 control casts were he had individuals fire a carcano rifle and he took paraffin casts of their cheeks and all 7 came back positive

I was watching and listening to the excellent John Judge but he said something that I thought was very odd.

He said Mark Lane isnt really what we think he is and that he is some sort of government stooge. I have read all Lane's JFK books, listened to his debates, his interviews and watched his movie and I find him very genuine.

I know JJ was a staunch friend and was mentored by the excellent Mae Brussel who didnt like Mark Lane and wondered if thats where his feelings originated.

Whats your opinion of Mark Lane?

2 people supposedly got off the McWatters bus and got transfers. One was supposedly Oswald and the other was a woman. They supposedly got off at the same time. Then Oswald got the cab and a woman then opened the cab door and Whaley said he would call the woman a cab. I just wondered if the woman that got off the bus was the woman that tried to get that taxi. After all, she must have seen Oswald get in the cab as she approached it.

A lot of people died in RTAs, too many for it to be just coincidence. Same goes for all the very weird suicides and "accidental" deaths. LNers would never buy it if the 3 pathologists, Markham, Brennan and the Davis sisters all died in similar circumstances within a short period

They also dont believe Humes when he states that he doesnt think CE399 was the bullet that went through both Connally and JFK.

I read a book (cant remember which) and it said that during his HSCA testimony, Humes was adamant that the wound was where he stated it was in the autopsy report, but they threatened to exhume JFKs body and he suddenly changed his mind. I dont remember reading that in the HSCA Report and I am going to have to try and find the book I read it in. Finck and Boswell never changed their mind though.

fobrien1

I read James Di Eugenio's excellent Reclaiming Parkland which is an almost satirical debunk of Bufliosi's Reclaiming History. The latter part of that book does go into great depth about Hanks, Hollywood and the CIA. Apparently he has enlarged upon this in his latest release.

Operation Mockingbird took over the Mainstream Media back in the late 50s for sure.  Unfortunately, it didnt just happen in the USA, we in the UK also seem to have a similar problem. There are many things that seem to taboo here and things that should be on the front page but they end up talking about some celebrity scandal instead.

For the foreseeable future we are only going to be able to read, watch or listen to what they want us to.