The Aviator

What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption" generations
ago?

Tuberculosis.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:49:17 -0500, "Carl WA1KPD"
wrote:

Saw the movie last night. Anybody here have a recommendation for a good
biography (not a sensationalist rag) that covers his whole life? I

Howard Hughes, Aviator

See my review at www.warbirdforum.com/hughes.htm

Where did "self-inflicted" come from?

From the folks trying to dig up an AIDS cause of death to explain his
"early" demise.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in
::


The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham’s hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?


I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
these allegations.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?

I dismissed the statement as worthless.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

What the hell do we call today, what they called "consumption"
generations
ago?

Tuberculosis.


Oh!

Thanks...I guess :~)

According to an elderly uncle (94 and still going) people used to be called
"queer", then "mentally retarded", then "mentally disabled", then "mentally
challenged", and next year...what?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?

I dismissed the statement as worthless.

To say the least!!

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in
::


The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?


I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
these allegations.

I found one site that said where he got it, but I cannot find it again. It
looked like a third hand account, at best.

Trying to track it down, Amazon.com's editorial reviews seem to accept
Hughes' bisexuality, while saying that Higham's allegations concerning AIDS
and his sexuality being warped by being abused while a child are
speculative. Washington Post's movie review also claimed disappointment that
the movie did not cover Hughes' bisexuality, heroine addiction, or other
unpleasant aspects of his life (apparently the reviewer only likes movies
that glorify weakness, moral ambiguity and decay; since this reviewer hates
the movie, I will probably like it).

Other reviews on rottentomatoes.com also refer to Hughes' affairs with Cary
Grant and Tyrone Power.

Personally, I am not interested in those aspects of Hughes' life. I am more
interested than ever in seeing the movie, especially since it seems to have
avoided at least the most trashy accounts.

C J Campbell wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in
::


The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?


I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
these allegations.


I found one site that said where he got it, but I cannot find it again. It
looked like a third hand account, at best.

Nevermind that Hughes died a decade before AIDS appeared, or perhaps
recognized as such.

Recently, Rosspilot posted:

I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was actually pretty good,
and thought DeCaprio pulled off a believable Hughes.

The flying sequences seemed a little hokey, and the crash scenes were
typical Hollywood crap, but for 3 hours, it goes by quickly.

I thought that there were some things that seemed to be glossed over, and
other things that left me wondering. For instance, why was the
Constellation fleet grounded? They referred to the Pennsylvania crash, but
the sequence of events suggested that the reason for the grounding may
have been politically driven. Anyone know the facts?

I was somewhat amused by the wing of the experimental spy plane slicing
through several apartments of a brick building, though I don't think that
the "artistic license" of that move improved the scene any.

All in all, it was entertaining, and made me want to see "Hells Angels"
again.

Neil