In 1991, Cancerman says he doesn't care what wins Best Picture at the Oscars. Shouldn't he care just a bit? That, after all, was the year of 'JFK' (one of my favourite films). Wouldn't Cancerman have some opinion on that? If the film's Vietnam-specific conspiracy theory is wrong or disinformation, wouldn't Cancerman want it to win. And if it has truth in it, wouldn't he want it to lose? Perhaps his associates don't know he killed Kennedy. If nothing else, it adds an interesting dynamic to that silly throwaway line.

Speaking of the JFK segment of this episode, Cancerman's alias is "Mr. Hunt". This is a clever reference, as someone once anonymously sent a letter to the media which was from Lee Harvey Oswald (handwriting analysts believe it is his writing, or else a very careful forgery) to a Mr. Hunt. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr Hunt,
I would like information concerning my position
I am asking only for information. I am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.
Thank you,
Lee Harvey Oswald

Two suggestions are that Mr. Hunt is CIA man E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame, or the Dallas oilman H.L. Hunt, who has other odd connections to the Kennedy assassination. If "Musings of a CSM" takes place only in Cancerman's fantasies, that's possibly where he took the name from. In any event, the creators did their homework on this one.

The Dallas "oilman", huh? Is it possible that
"oil" also refers to black, gucky, *sentient* oil?
(Joke, joke. I swear, I am constantly hounded. And
yes, I am very paranoi.. gasp! they've found me!!)

Hmmm... never thought of that. And the X-Files movie was set in... DALLAS!

We certainly know our way around Dallas.

Dear Lord, Anonymous, you had to say that, didn't
you. We were going to church one day and stopped
for gas. And my mother, who doesn't even watch the
X-Files frequently, swears she saw a older man in
a dark suit sitting in his car, smoking a
cigarette and staring at us meditatively. Freaky.
Ya know, what I've always wondered about was Deep
Throat. Is he supposed to be Watergate's Deep
Throat?

Actually, I don't think the character ever referred to himself as Deep Throat, or even identified himself at all. I thought it was just a nickname that Mulder gave to him, like Cancer Man or Mr. X.

In case anyone is wondering, "The Silence of the Lambs" won the Oscar for Best Film in 1991.

Also, I happened to wait on a customer at work who looked just like CSM, but just a little thinner. He was wearing dark pants and a blue t-shirt. (Insert twilight zone theme here.) Too bad we don't sell cigarettes.

Sorry about that! Is there any way to remove multiple messages like that?

JFK *must* have been disinformation. Otherwise, CSM wouldn't have allowed the film to be made. he

Yeah, Charles, just ask me! J I'm making a habit of removing duplicate messages. I noticed this same problem when I was posting to one of the movies boards, where it gave me an error, but it in fact did post. I wonder what's up with the happy discus system.

I have the same problem, Joel. Also, it keeps
cutting off the last few words of my message, so I
usually hafta revise a few times. It's starting to
be a real pa

Actually, K.N.D., that's the Consortium editing your me

I have to agree, Scott. Lately, I've been getting threatening emails telling me to delete messages that the senders claim reveal "too much." And now they're interfering with the message system itself. But I'll resist them as long as I...oh, no, they're here! Help, they've got...

Pay no attention to what Mr. Boutiere I said before. There is no such thing as a Consortium, it is all a paranoid fantasy made up by your television writers. These are the kind of deluded people who look at Venus claiming they have seen extraterrestrials, but it has been proven that they only saw the planet Venus. Mr. Boutiere was I am very deluded to believe such lies.

Alex Tr Joel Boutiere

"They" even edit me! Someti

>JFK *must* have been disinformation. Otherwise, >CSM wouldn't have allowed the film to be
>made. he

Sure he would have allowed it to be shown if it told the truth, as no one would believe what they are seeing is actual truth as told by the governmemt as no one trusts the governmemt.

It's what the goverment doesent say that people always say is truth

I stand corrected. Perhaps he allowed the movie to be made to confuse everyone.

While we're making wild observations, consider this. Another figure often mentioned in connection to the Kennedy assassination is General Charles Cabell, fired by Kennedy in '61 after the Bay of Pigs. His brother Earle was mayor of Dallas in 1963... Now, I couldn't help but observing that the name of one of the posters here is only two letters off! Now isn't that suspicious?

Seriously though, I'm just joking. You knew that, right?

The Twelveth Man!! <gasp>
You *have* been deceiving us!!!

If Cigarette-Smoking Man/Cancer Man/Raul Bloodworth/C.G.B. Spender shot only two bullets to assassinate Pres. John F. Kennedy, then who shot the other five bullets as noted in James Garrison's investigation? (ref.: JFK, starring Kevin Costner and Tommy Lee Jones)

Obviously there were other gunmen. Spender just takes the credit for the assination.

My nitpicks are as numerically proceeds:
1) Cigarette-Smoking Man/Cancer Man/Raul Bloodworth/C.G.B. Spender reaches into his pocket to give Lee Harvey Oswald money for something. He announces to L. H. Oswald, "That's all I have. Thirteen dollars in change." If that is all he has, then what of the ninety cents for the cinema? I cannot believe I missed this one after observing this episode nearly seven times.
2) When initially inhaling a cigarette's smoke, your immediate tendency is to cough. However, Cigarette-Smoking Man/Cancer Man/Raul Bloodworth/C.G.B. Spender smokes his first cigarette in the cinema during L. H. Oswald's apprehension and does not cough the slightest bit. Happy holidays!

The way they portray the assasination of Martin Luther King in is simply not possible. At this site http://www.whatreallyhappened.com , there is a lot of info on it which shows where the shot really came from and has plenty of evidence to back it up. It also has info on the assasination of JFK . Both are very good reads.

I thought it was a nice tough have the actor who played spender play a young CSM, given that CSM is spenders father.

When the shadow men brief young cancerman, they say his new assignment is to assassinate "an american civilian, age..." Since JFK is president at that time, isn't he automatically chief of the forces, and therefore, no civilian? (Or is that only true during war?)

It's nice of the general to say explicitly that the unqestioning devotion to one cause is the same for Cancerman's father and cancerman himself, showing how dangerous blind patriotism is.

Even if the JFK movie isn't a doku, I still wonder how cancerman could kill JFK with a bullet from below street level. That's an even more magic bullet than the normal magic bullet from the grassy knoll!

Just for the record (apparently, most americans don't know the real reason), the cuba crisis which brought the world to the brink of atomic catastrophe ... the cause of it wasn't the failed invasion of the pigs bay, it was the unprovoked stationing of atomic missiles by the US in Turkey (their aye-saying ally), which could really reach the Sowjetunion. This was the reason that the USSR stationed their missiles at Cuba - from where the US wasn't in any real danger, because they couldn't have reached the mainland. Once Bobby Kennedy in secret negotiations with Russian Head of State agreed to withdraw the US missiles from Turkey, the threat was over and Nikita could back down. (And he kept the promise, too.)
Also noteworthy is that during the naval quarantine, one US commander of a surface ship threw hand grenades on an USSR atomic submarine! Although state of war had been declared, and the Russian would've been justified in opening attack - which would really have started a world war - the captain was level-headed enough (and not testosterone-poisoned or brainwashed about the dastardly enemy!!!) not to retaliate.
Peopel like these, who prevented catastrophes at crucial points because they acted sensibly instead of idealogically, should be honored and recognized more.

Cuba is only 90 miles away from the US mainland. Yes, the missiles could have hit the mainland.

The word "unprovoked" is a tad strong. At the time, the Cold War was going VERY strong. The Berlin Wall had only recently gone up, and the Airlift was recent too. In the minds of NATO, it was provoked.

Further discussion belongs in PM. If necessary, I will continue there.

The president is the comander-in-chief but he is also a civillian, that is one of the foundations of US govermnet that a civillian be in charge of the millitary.

Brian, thanks for the info. Makes things clearer if it's a special case of definition per law.

ScottN,


Further discussion belongs in PM. If necessary, I will continue there.

Could a Mod/Roving Mod please move the relevant posts please, then? Because I don't know where on PM there's a board for "Historical events, that most people have mistaken beliefs about, because of the misrepresentation in the popular media".

Cuba is only 90 miles away from the US mainland. Yes, the missiles could have hit the mainland.

Yes, I goofed there. I remembered that the missiles weren't a "real" danger, but mistakenly attributed the reason to the distance. The correct reason is that the missiles didn't contain nuclear warheads yet (since the russians didn't trust Fidel with them.)

The word "unprovoked" is a tad strong. At the time, the Cold War was going VERY strong. The Berlin Wall had only recently gone up, and the Airlift was recent too. In the minds of NATO, it was provoked.

First, sadly, this reply fulfilled my expectations, that people wouldn't believe the US ever did wrong (or that the "eeviiilll cos communist" USSR ever was justified). If you're referring to the Berlin Airlift - that was 1947. I don't call that recent. The Berlin Wall wasn't a threat of attack to a free country. It was built on the territory of the GDR to protect itself (from bleeding dry and an threatening collapse of infrastructure).
Why is it right and just if the US takes steps to protect itself if Russia places missiles close to its coast in another allied country (Cuba), but it's wrong when then USSR takes steps to protect itself from *armed* missiles the US stationed close to its borders in an allied country (Turkey).
Is it because the USSR threatened to fire at the US? Well the US threatened to extinguish the USSR with nuclear power, too. So why is one country justified protecting itself, but the other isn't? (Please try to use a response that's valid outside the US. "Because the US is home of democracy and freedom" doesn't mean it's allowed to do what it likes - at least not from an outsiders point of view.)
You also missed your usual two retorts: That I always attack (vilify?) the US military; and that I do so without knowing military people personally, or understanding the finer, detailed workings of the military. (I just mentioned these arguments to save you the bother of typing them.)

Since there's no PM thread for this...

Sorry, I couldn't remember the date of the Airlift (and was too lazy to look it up). You're correct about the Airlift date.

that people wouldn't believe the US ever did wrong (or that the "eeviiilll cos communist" USSR ever was justified)

Whether or not I believe the USSR was "eeviiilll" or not is irrelevant. I was not yet born at the time (T-15 days and counting, though). What is relevant is what the NATO (not just US) power structure thought (and note, Germany was/is a member of NATO, so you don't get a free pass there).

I am not one of those people who believe that the US never did wrong. What I don't believe is that the US is the cause of all the world's ills. What I do believe is that hindsight is 20-20. We have the luxury of looking back at the Cuban Missile Crisis from a 40 year perspective. You have to consider what was known *AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT*.

Yes, *both* sides played nuclear brinkmanship. BOTH sides were wrong in many ways.


You also missed your usual two retorts: That I always attack (vilify?) the US military; and that I do so without knowing military people personally, or understanding the finer, detailed workings of the military. (I just mentioned these arguments to save you the bother of typing them.)

Nice ad hominem.

What I don't believe is that the US is the cause of all the world's ills. What I do believe is that hindsight is 20-20. We have the luxury of looking back at the Cuban Missile Crisis from a 40 year perspective. You have to consider what was known *AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT*.

I wasn't talking about what was known at the time of the incident. Besides, the people in power knew quite well the reason the russians wer right to be pissed off. That's why JFK sent his brother Bobby as secret ambassador to Moskau, and he offered to withdraw the US missiles from Turkey (and kept that promise). Of course, he didn't dare tell the public that he'd backed down against the bad russkies.
But why is the incident represented today as the russians provoking the US with the missiles on Cuba, and great JFK saving the world from disaster, without mentioning that the US started it?

I didn't say the US was/is the course of all ills. But to accept responsibility where it went wrong (instead of saying "Ah well, cold war..." as if that's a valid reason in itself) and say "in future, we will try to accept certain standards of beahviour for ousrelves, instead of talking about ideals and doing sth. else" would be a step forward.

Nice ad hominem..

Where did I call you any names? And didn't you use these arguments against me in the past on other boards when discussing the military? (or was that somebody else?)

No, the "(I just mentioned these arguments to save you the bother of typing them.)" was what I considered an ad hominem.

Ok, you didn't intend it as such, and so I'll drop it. I don't want this to devolve into a flamewar like the Dworkin thing.

I don't want this to devolve into a flamewar like the Dworkin thing.

Agreed. Me neither - that wasn't my intention at any point.

Though the MJ/Mark thread there is in good cheer

Due to my lack of knowledge of the publishing business this may not be a nit, but didn't the company that finally accepted CSM's novel Second Chances say it would be part of a series? If so, unless it was a short story instead of a novel, why would the first issue already have the ending in it? Also, while it's a bit premature to 'quit your day job' after only one publication, the company told him there would likely be some changes to the story, but changing the ending was enough to tear up his resignation letter after waiting so long for a publisher?

Somehow I doubt Spender would have that much authority over Hoover; Edgar clandestinely hiring someone like Cancerman makes more sense. It was a funny scene but it just seemed off to me.

constanze: I still wonder how cancerman could kill JFK with a bullet from below street level. That's an even more magic bullet than the normal magic bullet from the grassy knoll!
If there's a clear line of sight, which it certainly appeared to be, no 'magic' would be needed. My question is how nobody, including the secret service, failed to notice somebody in such a large drainage compartment.

Thank you all for the JFK info on this page; there was a fair amount that I either didn't know or had forgotten.