Jump to content

Tom Hanks And The (Possible) HBO Mini-Series


Recommended Posts

SO why was he there that day?

He says he came to town by private plane from California with oil speculators who met with H.L. Hunt.

That was the ostensible reason for his presence in Dallas that day, and indeed, his two pals did meet with Hunt while

Braden went to the Federal building and was in the parole office reporting the fact that he was there when JFK was killed,

and then went to Dealey Plaza afterwards.

JFKcountercoup: Jim Braden 1948 Camden, NJ Mug Shot

JFKcountercoup: Braden's Camden Arrest Report

JFKcountercoup: Camden, New Jersey

Peter Noyes - The Education Forum

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most odd for a bunch of Oil Speculators showing up from Calif. by Private Plane, and Jim Braden is riding along. So, when did this plane get to Dallas? Did he stay in the Cabana Hotel?

Isn't he suppposed to be hooked up with some rich woman in Calif.?

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=91174&sub_topic_id=91211&mesg_id=&page=

This set of connections doesn't look like a bit part:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5983

Edited by Jim Phelps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most odd for a bunch of Oil Speculators showing up from Calif. by Private Plane, and Jim Braden is riding along. So, when did this plane get to Dallas? Did he stay in the Cabana Hotel?

Isn't he suppposed to be hooked up with some rich woman in Calif.?

http://www.jfklancer...&mesg_id=&page=

This set of connections doesn't look like a bit part:

http://educationforu...?showtopic=5983

The bottom line is, he didn't shoot anybody, as you attest, and there are already other threads dedicated to Braden, while this one is supposed to be on Tom Hanks and the HBO production of the Bug's book.

Gary Mack BTW, says that I am wrong, and that Hanks really did intend to produce the show, and not just pay off Bugliosi, as I suspect.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the subject was inclusive of why Tom Hanks/HBO/Bug might be falling short of the whole story. Most don't buy the WC report, so it would be good to explain or field a few points as to why, and their motives. Consideration of how to get into the deeper issues on what was left off the JFK issues by just following the WC report becomes important.

So, the best counter point is to develop the Morris Jaffe theme with Dal-Tex as a shooting point, and tie in Jaffe and LBJ USAEC uranium dealings. The subject is still on the issues of the serious omissions that might stem from the Hanks and Bug movie making. Bringing up the Dal-Tex, Jaffe, and uranium issues hooks up LBJ into the scheme of things and makes for lots of motive to fake up a WC report. And create the SBT, as they could not admit to a Dal-Tex shooter.

Then some consideration of Braden appearing to want to break into the oil game in Dallas, showing up at Cababa Hotel. All the issues of the man with the X's on the hat. And what was he doing running around the Hunt and Jaffe Uranium company? Thus, using that to counter the Hank/Bug issues.

I do think it falls within the realm of Hanks and Bug discussions. And if anyone wanted to discredit the WC report/Bug's theme, that Morris Jaffe, Calif. DNC issue, USAEC scamming with LBJ sure works well.

It sure doesn't look good that Braden just pops into Dallas with a Calif. oil gang visiting Hunt and Hunt's oil deals are linked to Jaffe's uranium dealings, and Braden shows up at Dal-Tex. Then the Cabana Hotel issues.

Bug is California Politics, so was Ronnie Reagan who blocked the PERMINDEX from Garrision, now Braden jumps in with Calif oil people in Dallas. Like someone is celebrating the oil depletion allowance ending. It just doesn't look good.

Then there appears to be issues with Jaffe's Dal-Tex partner named "David Weisblat":

=========

http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-uranium-explorers-in-texas-in.html

The co-owner of the Dal-Tex Building was David Weisblat, a major financier of the Anti-Defamation League, which has ties to Israeli Intelligence and is a key part of the Israeli lobby. The Israeli lobby hated Kennedy for going after it's [sic] nuclear arms program. The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, has close ties to the CIA.

===========

So, just tossing those issues on the table. There seems to be a lot of baggage with Braden being there, and perhaps a lot he didn't bother to tell. IMHO

Edited by Jim Phelps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the subject was inclusive of why Tom Hanks/HBO/Bug might be falling short of the whole story. Most don't buy the WC report, so it would be good to explain or field a few points as to why, and their motives. Consideration of how to get into the deeper issues on what was left off the JFK issues by just following the WC report becomes important.

So, the best counter point is to develop the Morris Jaffe theme with Dal-Tex as a shooting point, and tie in Jaffe and LBJ USAEC uranium dealings. The subject is still on the issues of the serious omissions that might stem from the Hanks and Bug movie making. Bringing up the Dal-Tex, Jaffe, and uranium issues hooks up LBJ into the scheme of things and makes for lots of motive to fake up a WC report. And create the SBT, as they could not admit to a Dal-Tex shooter.

Then some consideration of Braden appearing to want to break into the oil game in Dallas, showing up at Cababa Hotel. All the issues of the man with the X's on the hat. And what was he doing running around the Hunt and Jaffe Uranium company? Thus, using that to counter the Hank/Bug issues.

I do think it falls within the realm of Hanks and Bug discussions. And if anyone wanted to discredit the WC report/Bug's theme, that Morris Jaffe, Calif. DNC issue, USAEC scamming with LBJ sure works well.

It sure doesn't look good that Braden just pops into Dallas with a Calif. oil gang visiting Hunt and Hunt's oil deals are linked to Jaffe's uranium dealings, and Braden shows up at Dal-Tex. Then the Cabana Hotel issues.

Bug is California Politics, so was Ronnie Reagan who blocked the PERMINDEX from Garrision, now Braden jumps in with Calif oil people in Dallas. Like someone is celebrating the oil depletion allowance ending. It just doesn't look good.

Then there appears to be issues with Jaffe's Dal-Tex partner named "David Weisblat":

=========

http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-uranium-explorers-in-texas-in.html

The co-owner of the Dal-Tex Building was David Weisblat, a major financier of the Anti-Defamation League, which has ties to Israeli Intelligence and is a key part of the Israeli lobby. The Israeli lobby hated Kennedy for going after it's [sic] nuclear arms program. The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, has close ties to the CIA.

===========

So, just tossing those issues on the table. There seems to be a lot of baggage with Braden being there, and perhaps a lot he didn't bother to tell. IMHO

Jews in the garment industry. Sleazy "oilmen" and Uranium "salesmen" in Texas. This is exactly what one should expect to find, Jim. It would be far more suspicious, in fact, if the Dal-Tex Building was owned and ran by WASPS and if at least one Braden-type wasn't among those rounded up.

Now Braden himself, and his circumstances--with those with whom he was traveling moving on to Galveston--where Ferrie and his friends would head just afterwards--is a bit suspicious.

But collecting Jewish names--even those within the ADL--isn't evidence. Heck, most every prominent Jew was in the ADL. I'm watching my TV. I think I see one now. Darn that Larry David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That was the ostensible reason for his presence in Dallas that day, and indeed, his two pals did meet with Hunt while

Braden went to the Federal building and was in the parole office reporting the fact that he was there when JFK was killed,

and then went to Dealey Plaza afterwards.

...

its a general understanding, when a felon is on parole, permission to leave the state he's been paroled to is required BEFORE he leaves that state? Showing up in Dallas with a hi, I'm here, is a no-no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That was the ostensible reason for his presence in Dallas that day, and indeed, his two pals did meet with Hunt while

Braden went to the Federal building and was in the parole office reporting the fact that he was there when JFK was killed,

and then went to Dealey Plaza afterwards.

...

its a general understanding, when a felon is on parole, permission to leave the state he's been paroled to is required BEFORE he leaves that state? Showing up in Dallas with a hi, I'm here, is a no-no.

According to Noyes, before leaving California, Braden had informed his Los Angeles parole office that he'd be traveling to Dallas. So he had done what was required. He didn't just show up in Dallas. Then, when he arrived, he was letting that city's authorities know -- nothing nefarious, part of his parole requirements.

That's the problem with assuming Braden is part of the assassination detail. Highly unlikely, since he shows no quality of the "sneaking around" so characteristic of the other players in the drama such as Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie and the rest of the cast.

Edited by John Navin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That was the ostensible reason for his presence in Dallas that day, and indeed, his two pals did meet with Hunt while

Braden went to the Federal building and was in the parole office reporting the fact that he was there when JFK was killed,

and then went to Dealey Plaza afterwards.

...

its a general understanding, when a felon is on parole, permission to leave the state he's been paroled to is required BEFORE he leaves that state? Showing up in Dallas with a hi, I'm here, is a no-no.

According to Noyes, before leaving California, Braden had informed his Los Angeles parole office that he'd be traveling to Dallas. So he had done what was required. He didn't just show up in Dallas. Then, when he arrived, he was letting that city's authorities know -- nothing nefarious, part of his parole requirements.

That's the problem with assuming Braden is part of the assassination detail. Highly unlikely, since he shows no quality of the "sneaking around" so characteristic of the other players in the drama such as Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie and the rest of the cast.

If you read Braden's two days of secret, closed door testimony, he wants to come clean, and acknowledges that he not only stayed at the Cabana hotel, and that after he was taken into custody, his pals went to see H. L. Hunt and then left town without him. Braden then moved on to Houston and then to New Orleans where he worked out of the offices of Vernon Main, Jr. in the Pierre Marquette office building, on the same floor just down the hall from G.Ray Gill's law office.

Braden also acknowledged living in New Orleans during the summer of '63.

While I agree that he is not a conspirator in any crime related to the assassination, he seems to be moving in interesting circles, and he could have told us more about what he did in New Orleans that summer.

Of course Braden will not be a character in Tom Hank's HBO production, if it is ever made.

BK

JFKcountercoup: Braden's Camden Arrest Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That was the ostensible reason for his presence in Dallas that day, and indeed, his two pals did meet with Hunt while

Braden went to the Federal building and was in the parole office reporting the fact that he was there when JFK was killed,

and then went to Dealey Plaza afterwards.

...

its a general understanding, when a felon is on parole, permission to leave the state he's been paroled to is required BEFORE he leaves that state? Showing up in Dallas with a hi, I'm here, is a no-no.

According to Noyes, before leaving California, Braden had informed his Los Angeles parole office that he'd be traveling to Dallas. So he had done what was required. He didn't just show up in Dallas. Then, when he arrived, he was letting that city's authorities know -- nothing nefarious, part of his parole requirements.

That's the problem with assuming Braden is part of the assassination detail. Highly unlikely, since he shows no quality of the "sneaking around" so characteristic of the other players in the drama such as Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie and the rest of the cast.

my concern is answered... thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bill, you yourself said he did not fire anything.

ANd his time at the killing is accounted for.

He then checked in at both ends for probation.

I mean working in the same building that GIll did is hardly evidence. Do you know how big that building was?

The best case one could make is that he was sent there as a diversionary tool. He could be connected to BIg Oil, and connected at one step away from the Mafia.

This is why I always had problems with Noyes and his book. It was just so amorphous.

Hey Jim, I added directly to the HSCA file on Braden by supplying them with his Camden arrest report, FOIA's his HSCA testimony, lobbied for years before the JFK Act was passed and then when Braden's testimony was finally released, offered a $100 bounty to any researcher who could locate him if he was still alive - a bounty that still stands.

He actually wants to talk, the HSCA didn't ask him the right questions, and he said he'd come clean if anyone bothered to talk to him. Apparently nobody did.

And yes, the Pierre Marquett is a twenty story skyscraper, but both Gill and Main had offices on the same 17th floor, right down the hall from each other, so I think their proximity is important to show that they Braden and Main must have at least known Gill and his office people, even if it was only to share the elevator, which makes them acquaintances, not co-conspirators.

And I too was upset that Peter Noyes would republish Legacy of Doubt without updating it with the latest information.

But what galled me even more was G. Robert Blakey using Braden's story and the info in the Camden arrest report I gave him to bolster the bogus mob did it story while locking Braden's HSCA testimony away for fifty years and saying, "I'll rest on the judgement of historians fifty years from now."

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting things back to the topic of this thread....

No one-including Bugliosi, Posner, DVP or Tom Hanks-can make an effective case for Oswald being the lone assassin, because the official record proves that was impossible. However, what we should be worried about are two things; the star power of Tom Hanks, and the increasingly stupid American public.

What made JFK such a successful film, and so important to our cause, was Oliver Stone's fame and the fact so many high profile stars agreed to appear in it. An indepedent film, made by even a well known director, wouldn't have had nearly the impact without all those stars. Tom Hanks is a mega star, and his name alone will attract viewers, no matter what his thesis is. Fortunately, it appears as if Hanks is confronting the reality of just how difficult it will be to film a convincing argument from all the historical inaccuracies in Bugliosi's huge book.

If Hanks is able to film anything based on Bugliosi's book, it won't matter how good a production it is. People will watch, and a certain number will believe it, because they simply don't know the subject matter and, as noted above, are just incredibly unwilling to think for themselves. P.T. Barnum would drool over the prospect of dealing with today's public.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting things back to the topic of this thread....

No one-including Bugliosi, Posner, DVP or Tom Hanks-can make an effective case for Oswald being the lone assassin, because the official record proves that was impossible. However, what we should be worried about are two things; the star power of Tom Hanks, and the increasingly stupid American public.

What made JFK such a successful film, and so important to our cause, was Oliver Stone's fame and the fact so many high profile stars agreed to appear in it. An indepedent film, made by even a well known director, wouldn't have had nearly the impact without all those stars. Tom Hanks is a mega star, and his name alone will attract viewers, no matter what his thesis is. Fortunately, it appears as if Hanks is confronting the reality of just how difficult it will be to film a convincing argument from all the historical inaccuracies in Bugliosi's huge book.

If Hanks is able to film anything based on Bugliosi's book, it won't matter how good a production it is. People will watch, and a certain number will believe it, because they simply don't know the subject matter and, as noted above, are just incredibly unwilling to think for themselves. P.T. Barnum would drool over the prospect of dealing with today's public.

Yea, Don,

Let's get back on topic here.

While Bugliosi, Posner, DVP and Tom Hanks are all Americans who I disagree with, they certainly aren't "stupid," and I take offense that you continually insult Americans, and wonder how you can be a moderator without noting on your profile what nationality you are, and how the other moderators let you repeatedly insult Americans?

As to your assertion that the American public are so gullible and "are incredibly unwilling to think for themselves," especially about this subject, since Bugliosi said that his purpose was to convince people of the truth of the Lone Nut scenario, he has failed, as over 80% of Americans still know there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

And I politely request that you tell us members of the stupid American general public what nationality you are, and I ask that the moderators explain how you can be accepted among their ranks while repeated asserting your personal bias that Americans are stupid.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I didn't think it was a secret- I'm an American, and I can trace my roots back here to the mid 1700s.

I wasb't calling Hanks stupid- but I think the majority of the people, at this time, unfortunately are. Maybe dumbed down or brainwashed is a better term. They've proven to be incredibly easy to fool. I'm not qualified to judge the collective brain power in any other country, but I know Americans, and that's my assessment.

As a populist, what makes it more difficult for me is the fact that I still feel a great affinity for "the people." Kind of like the way Winston Smith described the proles in 1984; he was desperately rooting for them, and realized they could overpower the Party in sheer numbers with little effort, but recognized how unable they were to do that.

That's where I am, I guess- waiting for the people to wake up and take control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I didn't think it was a secret- I'm an American, and I can trace my roots back here to the mid 1700s.

I wasb't calling Hanks stupid- but I think the majority of the people, at this time, unfortunately are. Maybe dumbed down or brainwashed is a better term. They've proven to be incredibly easy to fool. I'm not qualified to judge the collective brain power in any other country, but I know Americans, and that's my assessment.

As a populist, what makes it more difficult for me is the fact that I still feel a great affinity for "the people." Kind of like the way Winston Smith described the proles in 1984; he was desperately rooting for them, and realized they could overpower the Party in sheer numbers with little effort, but recognized how unable they were to do that.

That's where I am, I guess- waiting for the people to wake up and take control.

Like they have in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yeman, Libya and Syria?

I don't think the American revolution is over, but is just caching on.

But no, it won't happen in America because most Americans are too complacent, and like things just the way they are, except they want more money and cheaper gas.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Getting things back to the topic of this thread....

No one-including Bugliosi, Posner, DVP or Tom Hanks-can make an effective case for Oswald being the lone assassin, because the official record proves that was impossible. However, what we should be worried about are two things; the star power of Tom Hanks, and the increasingly stupid American public.

What made JFK such a successful film, and so important to our cause, was Oliver Stone's fame and the fact so many high profile stars agreed to appear in it. An indepedent film, made by even a well known director, wouldn't have had nearly the impact without all those stars. Tom Hanks is a mega star, and his name alone will attract viewers, no matter what his thesis is. Fortunately, it appears as if Hanks is confronting the reality of just how difficult it will be to film a convincing argument from all the historical inaccuracies in Bugliosi's huge book.

If Hanks is able to film anything based on Bugliosi's book, it won't matter how good a production it is. People will watch, and a certain number will believe it, because they simply don't know the subject matter and, as noted above, are just incredibly unwilling to think for themselves. P.T. Barnum would drool over the prospect of dealing with today's public.

Yea, Don,

Let's get back on topic here.

While Bugliosi, Posner, DVP and Tom Hanks are all Americans who I disagree with, they certainly aren't "stupid," and I take offense that you continually insult Americans, and wonder how you can be a moderator without noting on your profile what nationality you are, and how the other moderators let you repeatedly insult Americans?

As to your assertion that the American public are so gullible and "are incredibly unwilling to think for themselves," especially about this subject, since Bugliosi said that his purpose was to convince people of the truth of the Lone Nut scenario, he has failed, as over 80% of Americans still know there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

And I politely request that you tell us members of the stupid American general public what nationality you are, and I ask that the moderators explain how you can be accepted among their ranks while repeated asserting your personal bias that Americans are stupid.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I happen to fully agree with Don's opinions, after all, Budweiser is the "king of beers" and Coors Light is also curiously popular in these United States. Maybe "shallow" is a better word than "stupid" when attempting to describe the majority of our countrymen, but my experience is that the French voters run rings around most of us when it comes to identifying and voting their own best interests.

Isn't a clear sign of stupidity manifested in the crisis of wealth inequity in this country? The wealthiest 20 percent of U.S. households owned 87.7 percent of all private wealth, per a study by the Levy Institute released two years ago. The triennial, Federal Reserve studies of wealth distribution fully support that statistic.

The reaction to this is manifested in the actions of the governor of New Jersey. Championing policies obviously further weakening the consumer class. It is a wave of "reform" pushed successfully since Reagan's first term, and the haves are now triumphing politically and economically over the have nots, while an astounding number of our misinformed countrymen cheer for more of it.

So Bill, even thought the actual crisis is the fact that 20 percent of households own 87.7 percent of the wealth and the bottom 50 percent own just 3 percent, doesn't it seem a sign of stupidity that so FEW embrace the idea that domestic consumption can more likely be stimulated by supporting a political solution intended to lessen wealth inequity? Did I mention that the French enjoy a model, state engineered, univerasl healthcare system, or that the minimum wage in France is $13 per hour and the poverty rate is half what it is in our great country?

I watched Newt Gingrich propose defunding the NLRB in a farcical "debate" recently held at a New Hampshire college. Wasn't it after the creation of the NLRB to uphold the labor reform legislation enacted in the mid 1930's that Americans last experienced a lessening of wealth inequality strikingly similar to what the French people have managed to effect through their thoughtful voting decisions?

In response to your demands for fuller disclosure, here is a link to my maternal grandfather's genealogy.:

His mother's direct ancestors landed in Massachusetts in 1632. Emigrant John, his son, Thomas, his son Nathaniel, his son, Benjamin, his son, Abel (revolutionary war veteran), his son Jauncey, his son, Orrin, his son, William, his daughter, Emma, her son, my grandfather, Edward. Edward's maternal great-great-grandfather also fought in the Revolutionary War. My mother and her grandmother were both D.A.R.

If I recall accurately, your were invited to join the moderation team of this forum, but you declined to volunteer your time.

You are a smart guy, and it is my privilege to be able to interact with you, but in this instance, I hope you can sense my reaction to the sentiments you directed at Don while I attempt to avoid posting what is on my mind in any more detail.

Have a happy and safe 4th of July.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...