Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bruce Willis says the forbidden words


Recommended Posts

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05052007/gossi...ic_pagesix_.htm

"May 5, 2007 -- ADD Bruce Willis to those who don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. "They still haven't caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy," the tough-guy star tells June's Vanity Fair. "I'll get killed for saying this, but I'm pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted. But, he adds, "I don't think my opinion means jack [bleep], because I'm an actor. Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act?""

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05052007/gossi...ic_pagesix_.htm

"May 5, 2007 -- ADD Bruce Willis to those who don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. "They still haven't caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy," the tough-guy star tells June's Vanity Fair. "I'll get killed for saying this, but I'm pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted. But, he adds, "I don't think my opinion means jack [bleep], because I'm an actor. Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act?""

I wish more high-profile people would come forward and say -- if they believe it -- that the government, financed by rich oil men, paid snipers to kill President Kennedy. Yes, they're still in power. One of the oil families is the Bushes. And the most incompetent Bush has been our President for nearly 8 years. The scumbag -- I hope I can say that.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

While I agree in part, I also think that celebrities can have a powerful affect. For a few months now I have been thinking of writing to Oprah and asking her to do a show on MLK. Have as guests MLK's sons (who believe in conspiracy) and Judge Joe Brown, who KNOWS there was a conspiracy. Add to the mix James Earl Ray's atty, Dr. Pepper. I think this could make a great show, but I wonder if Oprah has the guts to do it.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

While I agree in part, I also think that celebrities can have a powerful affect. For a few months now I have been thinking of writing to Oprah and asking her to do a show on MLK. Have as guests MLK's sons (who believe in conspiracy) and Judge Joe Brown, who KNOWS there was a conspiracy. Add to the mix James Earl Ray's atty, Dr. Pepper. I think this could make a great show, but I wonder if Oprah has the guts to do it.

Dawn

Well instead of just THINKING about doing this I just did it. I am sure she gets tons of email with show ideas...but it does not hurt to try, so I did. I choose MLK because she has said many times how she admired him. Surely she does not believe the media cover story. But you just never know, so I also suggested a book. Phil Melanson's "The Martin Luther King Assassination". (It's a real page turner too!).

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

It isn't mutually exclusive. We can actually have historians AND celebs speaking the truth and the more the better.

What we need is critical mass; the more the better.

The fact is when Bruce Willis says something it gets space in a newspaper.

I'll bet few people here can get the same result when they speak out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

While I agree in part, I also think that celebrities can have a powerful affect. For a few months now I have been thinking of writing to Oprah and asking her to do a show on MLK. Have as guests MLK's sons (who believe in conspiracy) and Judge Joe Brown, who KNOWS there was a conspiracy. Add to the mix James Earl Ray's atty, Dr. Pepper. I think this could make a great show, but I wonder if Oprah has the guts to do it.

Dawn

Well instead of just THINKING about doing this I just did it. I am sure she gets tons of email with show ideas...but it does not hurt to try, so I did. I choose MLK because she has said many times how she admired him. Surely she does not believe the media cover story. But you just never know, so I also suggested a book. Phil Melanson's "The Martin Luther King Assassination". (It's a real page turner too!).

Dawn

Good going Dawn. Focusing on Dr King's murder makes sense for so many reasons, including the fact that the case is largely solved thanks to Dr Pepper, as described in his book An Act of State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the

official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)

And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.

Not one.

When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based

understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.

Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."

But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.

The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

It isn't mutually exclusive. We can actually have historians AND celebs speaking the truth and the more the better.

What we need is critical mass; the more the better.

The fact is when Bruce Willis says something it gets space in a newspaper.

I'll bet few people here can get the same result when they speak out.

Absolutely. Historians and the media have largely, in recent years, dismissed conspiracy theorists as kooks. It's important that people see that people they trust, whether a celebrity or an historian, also suspect that something was amiss in the Big D.

A few years back I picked up a book in which a couple of hundred people, including celebrities and politicians, expressed their recollections of November 22nd 1963. Most just said how sad it was. The one celebrity who stood out, and said that she was never satisfied with the Warren Report and that Oswald acted alone, was Florence Henderson. It made me see "Mrs. Brady" in a different light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'John Geraghty' wrote:

Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.

John

-------

MORE status quo? -- bulls**t

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

probably a contract requirement NOT to broach the subject matter. "We after-all, sell advertising, NOT theories-conspiracies or documentary's..." says the Madison Avenue Ad man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

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...