ville huoponen

Friends, I decided to share my scripts with you. "Give Killing a Chance" (part1) and "For The Good of The Country" (part2). BostonLegal_Part1.pdf It's one story divided to two episodes.

Dale Myers criticizing Max Holland is like debating whether poor, hungry people should be eating their children.

Another thing is the HBO miniseries about the assassination. I already quickly wrote about that on amazon message board. But I think it needs to repeated. Artists - screenwriters that is - have an exceptional thirst for truth and honesty. Most of the time they actually care. Once they'll read other books about the assassination (they have to) it's going to be real hard for them to write the screenplay. Any reasonable person that reads even one decent "it was a conspiracy!"-book about the case will go into tank. But less seriously I can't wait for the miniseries. How about when Oswald is going to buy that bottle of coke right after the killing. It might as well be a Coca-Cola ad. "A drink to die for" or "it keeps you cool". Or how they are going to build up his motive. "Kennedy is a good president - I'm going to kill him - and then keep quiet about it". Oh the drama! Hot dang!

I have let myself understand that Bugliosi got interested in the JFK assassination only after he signed up for the mock trial. Seems to me like a man who "stays the course" after he's been given a standpoint. He reminds me in so many ways of George W. Bush. When Bush was asked about mistakes that he had made so far as a president, he couldn't name one. I wonder whether Bugliosi can name a single mistake he has made either. I don't know anything about the Helter Skelter/Charles Manson case but I am speculating here based on the information given by Mr. Don Jeffries (well, I also checked the 1 star reviews on amazon). After Bugliosi got a "confirmation" for his wild theory by getting Manson behind the bars he has heard the same voices as George W. Bush. Bush thinks God speaks through him and Bugliosi thinks he is the God. They call it 'hubris' or something. Probably everyone here is willing to agree that Bush is a 'true believer'. I think the same might very well apply to Bugliosi too.

Basically the A-story in both is (I tried to write it as comedic as possible) that a guy kills an Oswald-did-it-alone author and then pleads not guilty based on self defense of the United States of America. James Spader defends Edgar Brown for killing LN author Paul Nolan who has his new book "I did it alone" out. Of course this might sound a bit extreme but as you should know Boston Legal is a dramedy which means it's part comedy. So it's usually 1/3 comedy 1/3 nonsense and 1/3 drama. And I guess the most important thing about this case is that nobody gets off the hook easily. CT's won't get a free pass. Otherwise there's no drama and it's just one-sided ranting. I would say it had some kind of a pen vs sword theme. I also tried to address the selling of a single killing vs. selling a war theme. It took me a bit more than two weeks to start from scratch and to finish two scripts. Emotionally the writing experience was rather draining and my next project will be probably be something like a comedy movie screenplay. But it was also fun to see what I could do. Unfortunately Boston Legal's 5th season is probably its last and it may go on only for 13 episodes. So it might be a bit late to pitch to DEK productions. I don't know. Maybe miracles could still happen. For copyright reasons I think I can't post my scripts online but I guess if one wants to read and make factual corrections then I can send you a copy. It would help if you are regular Boston Legal "fan". I've heard that nobody writes good first scripts so you have to take that into consideration. At least my best buddy liked the tree hugging and poker-storylines a lot.

Hello all. My name is Ville Huoponen, born august 5th in 1979. I am studying computer science at the Helsinki university of technology and residing currently in Espoo, Finland. Of course like many other contemporaries I too had my first more profound encounter with this subject matter when I saw the Oliver Stone movie JFK. However it took many more years until I really got interested in the assassination literature. I was really hooked after my father brought a book Murder in Dealey Plaza from Dallas, TX USA roughly four years ago. The very first time I found about the murder was in circa 1987 when I was only eight years old and was reading the 1500+ pages long book Chronicle of Our Century. One page told us about the killing of JFK and the very next had the picture and information of Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald. It sure looked strange to me and just didn´t make much sense. I guess I was right even back then. Unfortunately at that time I was more interested in He-Man action figures and C-64 computer games. Those sure were the good times. I´ve read about two dozen books about the assassination and have been especially interested in the medical evidence and the possible Zapruder-film alteration. Also I´m curious about the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I firmly believe that these deaths were not committed by lone nuts either and that the same people who killed JFK were also ultimately responsible for the deaths of RFK and MLK. Hopefully in a year or two I will be able to write a high-quality screenplay about what happened to the great country of United States of America back in the sixties. Some people are saying that I´m a talented writer and have a good understanding of life. If that is true then I guess I´m going to do what I can and will give my best possible contribution. The John Kerry presidential primary campaign slogan says it well: We´re coming, you´re going and don´t let the door hit you on the way out. For all you researchers out there - you are the best.

I am quite surprised that one has yet to mention the treatment that Posner gave to Rose Cheramie. After all she did predict the assassination of JFK. Posner says: "Dr. Victor Weiss, a treating physician, told investigators that he did not hear her say anything about the assassination, until November 25, the day after Ruby killed Oswald." Posner's source is HSCA volume X page 200: "The doctor [Weiss] corroborated aspects of the Cheramie allegations. Dr. Victor Weiss verified that he was employed as a resident physician at the hospital in 1963. He recalled that on Monday, November 25, 1963, he was asked by another physician, Dr. Bowers, to see a patient who had been committed November 20 or 21. Dr. Bowers allegedly told Weiss that the patient, Rose Cheramie, had stated before the assassination that Kennedy was going to be killed. The account then relates that Cheramie told Weiss the same story she had allegedly told Dr. Bowers." I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that Posner "forgets" to mention the actual witnesses - the hospital nurses and Dr. Bowers - who heard Cheramie's prediction and instead uses a statement that was in no way relevant to the case. I guess this means that if you talk about someone's prediction to thirty people before the event and to one person after the event that makes you immediately a xxxx because that one person did not hear about it before the fact.

What I am wondering is how Oswald could have moved one stairs up, supposedly bought a coke and even turned his back (before) while Baker was "trotting" and confronted Oswald approximately 75 seconds after the shooting. Remember that Baker supposedly saw Oswald through the small window on the first floor and then again on the 2nd, 3rd or the 4th floor. Could Oswald have made it? This one is a big mystery and the person who can explain it has surely done "one heck of a job". In my opinion the speculation about the 3rd or 4th floor probably won't take us anywhere. But that is just me..

Ah, jokes! Q: Do you know why the three strikes law does not apply to business and chief executives? A: They can´t count to three

Does someone actually believe that the game in question is an honest effort? I don´t think so. Same old wrapped in a new package. My fundamental complaint about the game is that the shooting cannot be repeated. This I believe is an objective conclusion. For me the subjective part in this case isn´t a fight worth fighting.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 I don´t know if this kind of advertising is allowed but I really enjoyed the book. And it covers all bases very well. I recently read the book "shadow play" by Melanson & Klaber and was a tad disappointed. It was okay but not what I perhaps expected. You are right. In order to understand what really was going on in the sixties it really helps to know what happened to RFK and MLK and who did it. As the military puts it, the two first times can be something else but the third time means a conspiracy. It certainly was.

"Don´t you ever, EVER talk that way about television" - Homer Simpson As much as our Homer hits bullseye with that comment - meaning that he loves television - one just has to wonder what is going on in the minds of tv-executives these days. The quality of the tv programs is going downhill and fast. I should know since I happen to watch more than enough tv. And furthermore it doesn´t hurt to have an open but critical eye for quality tv-entertainment. I have watched at least The Apprentice, The Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Temptation Island, The Amazing Race and if counted as reality-tv, The Weakest Link and (American) Idols. And of course many more. Now which ones of these shows would survive my cut? I´d say only The Survivor, and possibly The Apprentice. The rest of the shows are more or less Buxxxx. I can´t believe how any so called "good" person would come up with these latter kind of reality-tv concepts. Are these people truly money-hungry-rotten-to-the- core-types? Shame on you. And I haven´t even seen the worst of the worst. Why do I not like most of these concepts? Well, I would say that is because these are 1) unethical 2) in no way constructive 3) usually do not properly show the cause and effect 4) no immediate feedback and 5) total lack of substance. The Weakest Link is certainly not cream of the crop. I mean how low can you go? This show even puts Bill O´Reilly in shame. "You´re ugly", "don´t you know anything?","are you an idiot? " and so on. If you shout back, it´s usually edited out or the host takes a break with the writers to outf**k the contestant. As if the fact of contestants knowing what to expect would make it somehow even remotely acceptable. Oh, it´s just a game. Right. When the kids at school kick the crap out of their weakest link, "that uncool guy" it´s also just a game. I can´t believe people actually watch this kind of stuff. We should call it what it is - brainwashing or indoctrination. Then again saying that all reality-shows are worthless is like saying that there is no difference between democrats and republicans. I´m not sure if it is right to say that The Survivor celebrates life and humanity but at the very least it has many redeeming qualities in it. We for example get to see truly beautiful sceneries around the globe, genuine relationships between people from different backgrounds, but perhaps most importantly you´re part of something real and out of the rat race for a while. Proof positive of this is that I don´t care that much who wins the one million dollar prize. The Producer of the show Mark Burnett (also The Apprentice) is involved in many charities and foundations to help poor people. I guess it is inevitable that were going have reality-programs around for a long time. They are relatively cheap to produce and that is just what the execs love. My biggest tv-hero David E. Kelley (Picket Fences, Chicago Hope, Ally Mcbeal, The Practice, Boston Public) has been aggressively campaigning against the concept of reality-tv. I have to side with mr. Kelley. While he is a substance hero, most of the reality-concepts are substance zeros.

I know I´m asking a lot but could someone produce a complete list of the witnesses to the Tippit murder and their statements. Are there any witnesses who thought that the killer of J.D Tippit really could have been Oswald? (besides Warren Reynolds) Is this the defining two Oswalds moment in the JFK assassination?

Hello folks. My name is Ville Huoponen, born august 5th in 1979. I am studying at the Helsinki university of technology and residing currently in Espoo, Finland. Of course like many other contemporaries I too had my first more profound encounter with this subject matter when I saw the Oliver Stone movie JFK. However it took many more years until I really got interested in the assassination literature. I was really hooked after my father brought a book Murder in Dealey Plaza from Dallas, TX USA roughly four years ago. The very first time I found about the murder was in circa 1987 when I was only eight years old and was reading the 1500+ pages long book Chronicle of Our Century. One page told us about the killing of JFK and the very next had the picture and information of Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald. It sure looked strange to me and just didn´t make much sense. I guess I was right even back then. Unfortunately at that time I was more interested in He-Man action figures and C-64 computer games. Those sure were the good times. I´ve read more than dozen books about the assassination and have been especially interested in the medical evidence and the possible Zapruder-film alteration. Also I´m curious about the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I firmly believe that these deaths were not committed by lone nuts either and that the same people who killed JFK were also ultimately responsible for the deaths of RFK and MLK. Hopefully in a year or two I will be able to write a high-quality screenplay about what happened to the great country of United States of America back in the sixties. Some people are saying that I´m a talented writer and have a good understanding of life. If that is true then I guess I´m going to do what I can and will give my best possible contribution. The John Kerry presidential primary campaign slogan says it well: We´re coming, you´re going and don´t let the door hit you on the way out. For all you researchers out there - you are the best.

Using my best judgement these two are in my opinion one and same person.

Hello folks. My name is Ville Huoponen, born august 5th in 1979. I am studying at the Helsinki university of technology and residing currently in Espoo, Finland. Of course like many other contemporaries I too had my first more profound encounter with this subject matter when I saw the Oliver Stone movie JFK. However it took many more years until I really got interested in the assassination literature. I was really hooked after my father brought a book Murder in Dealey Plaza from Dallas, TX USA roughly four years ago. The very first time I found about the murder was in circa 1987 when I was only eight years old and was reading the 1500+ pages long book Chronicle of Our Century. One page told us about the killing of JFK and the very next had the picture and information of Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald. It sure looked strange to me and just didn´t make much sense. I guess I was right even back then. Unfortunately at that time I was more interested in He-Man action figures and C-64 computer games. Those sure were the good days. I´ve read more than dozen books about the assassination and have been especially interested in the medical evidence and the possible Zapruder-film alteration. Also I´m curious about the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I firmly believe that these deaths were not committed by lone nuts either and that the same people who killed JFK were also ultimately responsible for the deaths of RFK and MLK. Hopefully in a year or two I will be able to write a high-quality screenplay about what happened to the great country of United States of America back in the sixties. Some people are saying that I´m a talented writer and have a good understanding of life. If that is true then I guess I´m going to do what I can and will give my best possible contribution. The John Kerry presidential primary campaign slogan says it well: We´re coming, you´re going and don´t let the door hit you on the way out. For all you researchers out there - you are the best.

Larry, have you seen Dale Myers´s great animation that shows that the single bullet theory is true after all. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm Of course that is until you see that in the animation (picture) Connally is hit in the center of his back - not below his right shoulder as one picture correctly shows before. Unbelievable!

WC testimony of dr. Humes:"...wound was situated approximately 2.5 cm to the right, and slightly above the external occipital protuberance which is a bony prominence that can be felt in the low rear posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 cm to the right and slightly above that point..." Now of course this wound certainly is not the ridiculous Posner & HSCA cowlick entry wound. There is absotively posilutely no way that Humes and Boswell could have erred. I hardly need to stress that the back of the of head of JFK was gone as 100% of the witnessess said. Now shouldn´t two holes in the back of the head mean two head shots?

But how about the supposed EOP entry wound? Were the doctors simply wrong about that? I´m assuming that you believe in the single tangential headshot that hit the right temple of JFK, caused the bat wing and exited from behind.

We are not going to get anywhere with this Z-film alteration issue unless the authors of the The Great Zapruder Film Hoax agree that Bill Miller´s critiques are in most cases correct. Let´s face it friends - there is no good reason to assume anymore for example that Mary Moorman was in the street. First of all she said she wasn´t in the street at the time, then there is the altgens #6 - if and when authentic - the shadows show where they were and thirdly the shoe issue that was fully explained by Miller. All easy to understand. Kudos to him allthough Mr. Miller certainly is not a great communicator. Having said that I need to emphasize that Miller´s findings do not prove the authenticity of the film. There are many more issues still to be resolved and many of the points in the rebuttal of the book TGZFH did not impress me. Bill Greer´s rapid head turn was however one of those good rebuttals they made and I believe this issue is now settled. Since I don´t have right now the trilogy in my hands to make some comments I have to resort to some would perhaps say empty rhetorics but I will say this once again. I believe it is absolutely essential to this case. Do you really believe that the conspirators did not consider the possibility of altering the Z-film?

Out of 216 known witnesses: (source 26 volumes of WC) -54 said the shots came from the grassy knoll -45 referred to Texas school book depository -71 people were not asked -35 couldn´t tell where the shots originated from -6 said shots came from both GK & TSBD -5 said the shots came from elsewhere Well I guess this definitely settles our ultimate question. Oswald did it alone - case closed mofos! Or.. ..should we perhaps use here some common sense and conclude that shots came from at least two places and propably from three or four? The fact that someone can put a spin on this table is just beyond my imagination unless of course one is an allmighty spook.

Well, John F. Kennedy deserves it. We the people deserve it.

Here goes. I tried to find assassination books that should be familiar to most of you. I personally have not read Crossfire or Conspiracy. I am kind of afraid that I didn´t include some of the best ones. Have mercy on me, thank you. I personally voted for Best Evidence because it has stood the test of time. It has an incredible theory except that this theory is not just a theory but is also very much true. Lifton´s book is extremely informative, shows the evolution of research and is very well written. Without a doubt the medical evidence is the rosetta stone to this assassination. It is - no matter what others may think. What happened at Parkland and at Bethesda, between Parkland and Bethesda and after Bethesda is something that shows what kind of a coup the assassination of JFK really was. The powers that be were not just accessories after the fact. They had to have planned the assassination beforehand. No other book I have read shows how absurd the situation was and that truth is stranger than fiction. That the conclusions of Lifton´s book have turned out to be correct since ARRB is another reason to appreciate "Best Evidence". Death of a President by Bill Manchester - best writing style, emotional, simply a five star book allthough a LN book Coverup by Galanor - too quick read, for beginners and demolishes the LN stance for good Harold Weisberg - NOT for beginners! (compared to him I am Will Shakespeare) Murder in Dealey Plaza - ARRB findings and Z-film alteration claims. (my first book) Killing of a President by Groden & Pictures of Pain by Trask - lots of pictures Bloody Treason by Twyman: context and introduces us to the gallery of goons. Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK & RFK: well well, all were conspiracies, what will there be? (so I say thank you for the music) Great Zapruder Film Hoax: very interesting but has many errors. Come on my friends it HAS bad research in it. I still believe the big Z has been faked (and the rest too) edit: Thanks Ian, my next book will be The Warren ©ommission Report. (not the 26 volumes)

Could someone who absolutely rejects the alteration theory (anyone else too) answer some critical questions I pose: Did or did they not (the conspirators) THINK of altering the Z-film? Why is the Muchmore film mutilated at the exact time of the headshot? Let me try first to answer as best as I can. Since there is a somewhat general consensus that the x-rays, the brain of JFK, back of the head photograph, and the Backyard photographs have been altered, doctored or switched it is an incredible perception that the conspirators did not bother to at least check this particular piece of evidence. Based on that we can also quite safely conclude that these people were not amateurs and knew what they were doing. Is it really just a coincidence that the backyard photos were the first to be published of these and were also the first to be detected as forgeries? I´m speculating that either they didn´t have the skill or time enough to make perfect forgeries. I would argue that they simply didn´t have enough time to check the anomalies and the inconsistencies. On the other hand the conspirators had plenty of time with the Z-film. Then there is the Muchmore film issue. (if someone could please reproduce these frames) I would guess that this "mistake in handling" was not a coincidence. If this was no coincidence, then it was either to conceal something or/and a part of a bigger alteration scheme. Based on only even this it is nonsense to say that the Z-film alteration theory is absolutely nonsense. If there is a way and a will then that is the way it will be.

The answer to your question propably is that showing the Z-film and emphasizing the "back and to the left"-movement is by far the easiest way in proving a conspiracy to the layman and it takes the least amount of time. Few of us believe until we see. Another classic is the "badgeman" in Moorman polaroid #5. David Mantik argues in Murder in Dealey Plaza that the people who were responsible for the alteration faced some severe limitations i.e. that it wasn´t possible to alter everything just like they wanted and that they were forced to compromise. I have to remind that there is still no widely accepted theory of what exactly caused the "back and to the left" movement of JFK´s head. Lone nutters use the neurospasm or jet effect argument and conspiracy theorists on the other hand argue that the force and the trajectory of the bullet caused the movement. And by the way the thing that constantly bugs me is the deposition of NPIC´s Homer Mcmahon to ARRB: "six to eight shots in Zapruder film". Ville