So I just finished watching Oliver Stone's 'JFK'

[Eloriel]

It's the first time I've seen it. Curiously enough, it's not carried by my local Blockbuster.

Anyway, I remember there was some controversy over it when it came out, that it didn't hew to the facts, or made some up, or -- ?? What was all that about? Seemed perfectly right on target to me.

Oh, and at the end: The past is prologue.

Also, whatever happened to Jim Garrison?

Eloriel

[Terwilliger]

1. Garrison ended up a judge IIRC

and died a few years back (after JFK, since he was in the movie)

[Terwilliger]

4. and for some other light Sixties loss...

try MalcolmX next

[DoctorBombay]

2. Garrison died a few years ago

I agree, I think Stone is much closer to the truth than most people realize.

I don't know how far you got into the credits, but the real life Jim Garrison played Earl Warren in the film.

Also, see if you can find a five part documentary called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Fascinating stuff. The History Channel runs it from time to time.

[bowler_4_columbine]

14. "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" is a great documentary...

I go back and forth on whether Oswald was a lone gunman. But I have little doubt that there WAS a conspiriacy. Was Oswald a Manchurian Candidate or was there more than one gunman? One of those questions that can never be answered ?

Has anyone else noticed that the History Channel seems to have become the "All War All of the Time" Channel lately? I just recently learned that Rupert Murdoch owns the History Channel. Maybe another conspiracy theory in the making?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. It used to be the Hitler Channel

all Nazis, all the time.

[tjdee]

82. I called it the WWII channel--maybe it still is....

I'd turn there, see a lot of Nazis....flip there again, lots of WWII battles...

Hello, LOL, you've got at LEAST 2-3 centuries worth of history, hop to it! The WWII years are SO overplayed (and Vietnam too). Just once I'd like to see something about WWI, or the Korean War...if they like showing war stuff so much.

[JHB]

85. The problem, from their view...

... is that there's not all that much FILMED history, which is a tad cheaper than re-enacting stuff.

[Allah Akbar]

3. He died shortly after the movie was done

Garrison was in the movie, he played Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Also, at the end by where it says Past is Prologue, is something about dedicated to the Young. Scuttlebutt is, that was JFK, Jr he was talking about with that line and John Jr met Stone over it.

I think JFK, Jr was going to run for office to try and get some answers about his fathers death and was killed to prevent that. I'm pretty much positive that is why Bobby was assassinated.

[RichM]

5. There was a "reason" for all that "controversy."

The best piece I ever read about this was in the book "Dirty Truths" by Michael Parenti. (Maybe it's online at

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/TWTwebsite_INDEX.html

but you'd have to search a bit...)

Parenti's basic idea is that the upholders of the American Establishment do not wish the idea to be widely propagated that JFK might very well have been offed by elements high up in the national security apparatus. It's bad for the desired propaganda self-image of the US, to allow people to think that such a thing can happen, in the always-so-virtuous United States. Assassinations are only something that happen in OTHER countries (not so advanced and peaceful as we); or if they happen here, it's NEVER by the hand of powerful elements of the government; it can ONLY be by the hand of whacko lunatics acting alone. So, it's important to Establishment defenders to make sure that people entertain only the right kind of thoughts about such matters.

Stone's movie was threatening to these people - particularly when Costner asks, "Whose interests were served, who was helped..." about the assassination. That scene, where some little cabal of CIA or Joint Chiefs were meeting, conspiring... All of this is a big no-no, for the land of the always-virtuous. A big campaign was launched by the Washington Post, & other stalwarts, to try to defame Stone's movie months before it was released.

[Eloriel]

10. So true, RichM

And I know all that -- remember, I'm the one who put together the Reality 501 threads. I'm the one who said the JFK assassination may have been our last chance to save our country from the "secret govt" (a term I dislike immensely, tho is probably as apt as any other). I'm the one who says that getting a Dem in the White House in 2004 will only offer us a pleasant respite because what's needed is excising this whole cancer from our governmental institutions and trying the Bush Cabal for treason.


LOL -- so that leaves just the question of the larger details. Does anyone know if there were allegedly any "liberties" taken with the details of the movie (the bigger ones, not the more arcane ones)? Also, it just hit me, there was no mention of George HW Bush in the movie, was there? Too bad.

Eloriel

[misanthrope]

18. Don't forget...

...the more moving parts any mechanism has, the more it breaks down. For this very simple reason, it couldn't have been the labyrinthian conspiracy touted by Fletcher Prouty and brethren. Too many folks, too many mouths, too many chances for slip-ups.

It's a foregone conclusion that Oswald was involved, though certainly not alone. So, what organization is capable of keeping a secret of this level for this long with no slips? Who?

Even the various arms of government leak in time. Look at the things we know about that we shouldn't have. Iran-Contra. CIA drug runners. Covert biological testing on private citizens. Environmental mishaps. The list is long, and a lot of it is recent history with none of the intense limelight that the JFK assasination has generated.

So, who can keep a secret better than anyone else?

Easy, the mob.

We know Hoover (a well-known enemy of the Kennedys) was listening to Sam Giancana's phones for a while prior to November of '63. Could J. Edgar have surreptitiously arranged for lax security in Dallas in order to facillitate a mob hit on the President? You betcha'. Would he? In a heartbeat.

Remember, Oswald had been arrested for an attempt on the life of Gen. Edwin A. Walker not six months prior to Kennedy's visit (the charges never stuck). So why was he not even so much as visited by advance security personnel in the weeks before November 22nd? Maybe someone didn't want to spook an already nervous man.

I better shut up before I get started on a dissertation here, but the lengthy list of Warren Commission witnesses who met untimely demises immediately prior to testifying also reeks of organized crime tactics.

[Mechatanketra]

21. A good point.

Assassinations are only something that happen in OTHER countries (not so advanced and peaceful as we); or if they happen here, it's NEVER by the hand of powerful elements of the government; it can ONLY be by the hand of whacko lunatics acting alone.

I've read a similar point elsewhere: America is the only country in the world where assassinations aren't inherently political (or rather, presumed to be political). Anywhere else, a leader gets shot and you look for a conspiracy amongst his political enemies. In America, someone gets shot and we look for a "lone nut".

[scarletwoman]

26. We are a population totally trained in denial.

Denial has been raised to a high art in this country.

sw

[tom_paine]

86. You got that right, scarlet!

It has been ingrained in such a Pavolvian fashion, that it has been "elevated" higher than that.

The Imperial Subjects of Amerika are unable to feel ANYTHING (out side the personal circle of their lives) unless the TV tells them 12 times
the TV tells them 12 times
the TV tells them 12 times
the TV tells them 12 times
the TV tells them 12 times

So, they who own and control the TV, own and control the Imperial Subjects of Amerika.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Oh, it was the usual, I think -- "Garrison and Stone are just a

couple of :tinfoilhat: conspiracy theorists, move along, nothing to see here, the Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, don't you know?

JFK fired Allen Dulles and Allen Dulles ended up on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's death. . . no problem.

:eyes:

[Allah Akbar]

8. If I recall correctly

Dulles' brother was Mayor of Dallas, TX at the time of the assassination as well.

Just another one of those strange coincidences, I'm sure!

[JohnKleeb]

9. no that was Connelly

his brother is the guy who Dulles airport is named after he was Secretary of State during Ike's adminstration

[RichM]

12. You're thinking of this: the mayor's brother was the general who'd been

in charge of the Bay of Pigs invasion. (Or something like that - definitely connected to Cuba, in some way.)

[DemBones DemBones]

50. Another guy fired by JFK was the brother of the mayor of Dallas.

But I don't recall the name.

[maveric]

34. I beleive it was a LIHOP, possibly with the assistance of the CIA&FBI

Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and Jimmy Hoffa all had an axe to grind with JFK and Bobby. Jack fired Allan Dulles and wanted to disolve the CIA. Hoover thought the Kennedys were going tio turn the country into communism.
Frank Ragano, Trafficantes lawyer for 30 odd years wrote a book on his deathbead stating that the mob guys wanted JFK dead because Jack rolled over on them after Giancana allegedly helped Jack take the Illinois. And back then Bobby was on a crusade prosecuting the mob.
Clay Shaw was also mentioned in the conspiracy. Remember Shaw was a defense contractor and Jack wanted to get out of Viet Nam for good.
All these figures had much to gain with JFK out of the way and Bobby backing off on the mob.
Ragano stated that Marcello,Hoffa and Trafficante hated JFK very much. Marcello was said to use the expression "If you cut off the head the the tail will die" Jack being the head and Bobby being the tail. After the asssaination Bobby pretty much ended his crusade against the mob, the CIA stayed in business, Clay Shaw made billions during Viet Nam and Hoover got the"commie" Kennedy out of the white house.
Do the math!

[LiberalLibra]

61. You are definitely on target with this one. I firmly believe.....

.....that Hoover was in it all up to his neck or was the driving force possibly leave the dirty details to someone else. Hoover, head of the FBI absolutely loathed the Kennedy's almost as much as I loathe that thing in the WH.

[bluestateguy]

7. He was indicted, but not convicted.

I forget why. He also was not known as the knight in shining armor the way the movie portrayed him. He had more of a Ken Starr type of reputation. Oh, and that flowery little speech in his closing statement? Never happened. An assistant made the closing, and it was not a memorable one.

[Eloriel]

11. Ah, okay

What wasn't so "shining armor-ish" about him?

Good screenplay, I thought, especially to handle all the "talking" and exposition that needed to happen. And it was a terrific closing argument, even if it wasn't an accurate portrayal. I can live with that.

Eloriel

[Terwilliger]

13. I dont think most Americans got to see the "magic bullet" theory

spelled out in such great detail before the movie came out

I mean...wasn't that amazing that it did so much? And not a scratch on it! :shrug:

[tinanator]

60. oh but Walter Cronkite disspelled all concerns

after JFK came out Cronkite hosted a computer graphics demo of how the magic bullet did its job, and probably featured the drummer who heard the open mic recording of shots fired and recognized the echo that was mistaken for multiple or unexplained gun shots.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttt.
Walter Cronkite-whore of the century, king of media spooks.
fuck you uncle walter.
Oswald did all that by himself, and if so, why?
JFK the movie was a work of art, and its preemptive critics like Cokie Roberts and the internet con artists are works of shit.

[Gringo]

15. But Costner's closing speech

is one of the best I've ever seen on film. It makes me alternately angry and sentimental, and watching that film reminds me why I am a liberal.

Stone was very clear in stating that the film is an alternate myth to the myth promulgated by the Warren commission, but the ESSENCE of the story is dead on, as well as a great many of the details.

For the sake of brevity, multiple characters were condensed, and names changed.

Even at over 3 hours, that film just whizzes by.

I've probably seen it 10 times, I never get bored of it - a definite DVD to buy, and share with friends.

I wish today's repukes (and a few spineless congressional dems) possessed the type of real patriotism that Garrison represents in that film. If they did, we wouldn't have ANY of today's problems.

[scarletwoman]

24. It's all Jim Garrison's own words, though.

I wish everyone who has disagreements with how Stone did this movie could listen to Stone's director's commentary on the "JFK" DVD. The courtroom closing speech came directly from Garrison's writings, and Stone explains exactly why he did it that way.

sw

[DoctorBombay]

41. Closing statement

The assistant made the closing statement, which was not memorable. True. Makes for terrible cinema, however.

That final scene is not Jim Garrison making his closing statement, it's Oliver Stone making his.

It's artistic license and it has to be done that way. It doesn't really change the message of the film, which is Stone's theory based on Garrison's book.

[Dookus]

16. I hated that movie...

because I thought it was fundamentally dishonest.

When Stone inter-mixed real life black & white newsreel footage with similar-looking footage that HE filmed, I lost all respect for him.

[Gringo]

20. I thought that the real footage and new footage were easily discernible

The original is grainy and the new is crystal-clear. The black and white is for effect, not deception. That's also a hell of a reason to write off a magnificent film. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be great, it just has to be TRUE.

[RummyTheDummy]

79. I totally agree. Get your eyes checked if you cant tell

The difference between Gary Oldman and the real Oswald. Please.

[julka]

22. what does that have to do with ANYthing?

it was a MOOOvie

a drama

NOT a documentary.

there were lots of liberties taken, like the Donald Suthreland character, supposedly a composite, based on Fletcher Prouty, among others (Prouty, unfortunately, is/was a crackpot, but did have some useful information).

howEVER, the thrust of his argument is very close to what I think happened.

I had a chance to talk to a couple of those 'historian' archivers who had access to the assassination records a few years ago, and they didn't have a CLUE (or didn't want to/were 'advised' not to) about what really happened.

I quoted from a book by John Newman (Oswald and the CIA), in which Richard Helms, among others, was caught in a huge lie about Clay Shaw's CIA connections. they had said that Helms and others were cooperative, and didn't seem to have anything to hide.

anyway, point is, I don't like Stone much either.....way to overwrought in everything he's done, for starters, BUT, if you take the time to read enough about this case, I don't see how you can accept the idea that SO many mutually exclusive things had to have occurred to make the Warren Commission's myth assume the mantle of reality.

please.

and Eloriel. I really appreciate the myriad contributions you've made here, and couldn't agree more with your idea re: JFK assassination representing one of the last chances to reclaim what was left even then of what passed for democracy.

try this, for an entertaining intro to the basics of the JFK assassination lore:

http://hallaudiobooks.com/general/378.shtml

Richard Belzer's book on JFK is on tape. he gives the salient points about what happens, and takes apart the Warren Commission, Posner, Gerry Ford, and others, in a very amusing, though superficial (good starting point, though) presentation.

I LOLed many times at his descriptions of Ford, Warren, Hoover, and the many absurdities that the Oswald-acted-alone nuts have put forth as their laughable explanation of what happened.

ALSO, while the movie is fresh in your mind, PLEASE see "Thirteen Days," about the Cuban Missile crisis. I just saw it, and one of the strongest impressions I got (aside from what an invidious comparison is to be made between JFK and the monkeyboy), is that Kennedy signed his own death warrant during the confrontation with his own military advisors.

check this, cause this last bit just occurred to me.

that's why I'm so exercised about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5818

ALso, did you know that E. Howard Hunt was revealed in a court of law to have LIED about his where he was during the assassination?

he told two different stories, and got caught in a trial doing so.

[Dookus]

31. No need to be offended...

I've liked very few of his other movies, either.

As for dishonest.... well, I maintain he was.

He showed somebody dropping a bullet onto JFK's stretcher, in black and white.

There's no evidence that happened. He just showed it as if it were historically true. Dishonest.

[julka]

32. no offense taken, but

I'd say it's pretty much accepted that the bullet on stretcher event happened.

why do you think it didn't

not asking you to prove a negative

yes I am

did you get that from Posner?

[julka]

36. for those that believe the single bullet theory

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html

[julka]

37. for those that wonder how that amazingly pristine bullet got there

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara.htm

[RummyTheDummy]

80. I think Barney is more your speed.

NT

[Merlin]

51. Thanks for the info about Beltzer's book on tape, Julka.

I just ordered it.

[julka]

53. curious to see what you think about it

it's pretty sarcastically, mordantly funny

seems to jive with the more reasonable conspiracy material I've read; even debunks some of the wilder stuff, like the SS guy who supposedly shot JFK by accident.

very "funny" passage about the SS behavior the night before and the morning of the killing

[Eloriel]

72. Thanks, julka

And here's a link for you, if you're not familiar with it already --

Online book, Farewell America
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html

Hedda_Foil was the one who brought this to my attention. It's an odd read (structured and put together funny, IMO), and I could only take it in small doses at a time. She said to me: Let me know what you think, what your impressions are. I read only a few chapters and wrote back to her: (1) What an amazing, visionary man, and what a man of peace, and (2) of course he had to die.

Eloriel

[Allah Akbar]

73. Look at the legislation he introduced or signed his last year in office

and it becomes painfully obvious why he was killed and who was behind it.

[scarletwoman]

17. Definitely a must-see movie!

I've got the DVD with Stone's commentary -- awesome stuff!

I think he hit pretty close to the truth. When 9/11 happened, one of the things that kept going through my mind was that long declaimation by "Mr. X" (Donald Sutherland) -- "Ask yourself, who had the power to tell the military to stand down?" (paraphrase -- but those familiar with the movie will know exactly what I'm talking about...)

Btw, the "Mr. X" character was a composite of several intelligence/military insiders with whom Garrison had contact during his investigations, but is mainly based on L. Fletcher Prouty.

Take a look at Prouty's "The Guns of Dallas": http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html

sw

[jpgray]

19. Weird moralistic fable

apparently made to counter the weird fable that explained the JFK assassination in the first place. :)

An entertaining movie, though. Don't take it too seriously as far as accuracy goes, but its message is something to take to heart.

[Merlin]

23. Many people didn't pay attention to the technique he used.

It was clearly spelled out in the credits that those portions of his film constituting speculative reenactment would be shown in B&W. The parts in color were historically accurate. He stuck closely to that practice. (There were a few actual newsreel shots in B&W also, but that was minor. Also, to the previous poster, since the newsreel footage was actual truth, what harm was done???)

The fact is, Stone is the finest, most accurate historical movie maker of our times. I studied the JFK assassination for 3 years, and that movie is right on target. Exactly on target. As others have said, it just scratches the surface in many ways.

Garrison let his ego get out in front of him and over-promised about how much solid evidence he really had. But he ran the only actual investigation ever made into the assassination. I have a friend who worked closely with him.

Big Jim, as they called him, was villified no end after losing the case. He won one more term as DA. Then, following a vicious trumped up effort to smear him, he lost to Republican Harry Connick, father of the singer. A couple of years later, after clearing his name, the people of N'Orleans elected him judge.

Somebody mentioned the Mayor of Dallas. That was Charles Cabell, brother of General Cabell, Deputy Diector of the CIA during the Bay of Pigs, serving under Director Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles, notorious right winger and Sec. St. under Ike. Both Gen. Cabell and Allen Dulles were fired by JFK for their role in the BofP disaster.

Someone mentioned that Allen Dulles later served on the Warren Commission. True. Oh, so true. Can you imagine that? In what other nation of the world would the former head of the secret police, who had been fired by an assassinated head of state, be permitted to serve on the board of inquiry into the assassination!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JFK was a great film, and will bring the truth to future generations.

[Eloriel]

76. Thanks, Merlin

Your estimation of the film matches my own take on it: exactly on target. And the additional details are interesting.

I think I have to get that DVD.

Eloriel

[OurMorale]

25. Remember a writer for Le Voix du Village de la Cite de York Neuve

describe it as the most homophobic movie of all time. Never really had a desire to see it after that, even though I probably would agree with a lot of the perspective

[Gringo]

29. Not being gay

I can't speak to the accuracy of its depiction of gay life in New Orleans circa 1963, but what was there was depicted in a somewhat lurid way. All the gay characters were disgusting people, but then so were a lot of the straight folk. And it wasn't teh homosexuality of the characters that made them disgusting, it was their hatefulness, and in the case of the Bacon character, extreme fascism, and Stone swears up and down that the Bacon character is an accurate portrayal.

Also, none of the gay characters were stereotypical in the traditional sense - all of them could "pass", though Clay Shaw/Bertrand was a little on the prissy side "I think I shall make some etouffe".

I would not let the PC police stop you from seeing this fantastic film. There is no correct way to depict a gay person, as far as I know. Should gay characters in films never be villains, and always be comic roles or victim/saints like Hanks in "Philadelphia"(a hackneyed film which I hated with a passion)

[Merlin]

39. N. O. was (is) a pretty wild hotbed of crazy parties.

If you've ever been to the French Quarter, you know what I mean.

It is indisputable that some of the key characters in the real life drama were gay. That included, most definitely, Clay Shaw, the target of Garrison's investigation and trial. It also included the notorious, brilliant, very odd, nutty David Ferrie (who grew up in my home town of Cleveland, and went to St. Ignatius H. S. with my uncle).

As you may know, New Orleans has a very mystical, secret society that runs its Mardi Gras and the parades and dictates much of the social scene in the city. A significant portion of that was gay at that time. Shaw was head of it.

Those are the facts Stone had to deal with. In one scene he hypothesizes (in Black & White) the involvement of Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw and others at a wild party. That Oswald knew Ferrie was indisputable. Ferrie served as an adult supervisor of a young men's flying club, and there are pictures of Oswald and Ferrie together at one of their events.

I didn't think the film was homophobic. I thought it illustrated some of the pretty seamy lifestyle that is/was common in New Orleans, both homosexual and heterosexual.

[jobycom]

27. Here's a link

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

This gives the errors and literary license Stone made/used. If I recall, Stone himself said he wasn't trying to prove what had happened so much as air all the doubts raised by people about JFK. He just collected a lot of what everyone was saying and threw it together.

For full disclosure, I think the idea that someone other than OSwald killed Kennedy is silly. I'd like to see a film made by a director of Stone's caliber which showed the evidence that Oswald was the lone gunman, and packed all the emotional power, all the intrigue, all the typical Hollywood devices behind that evidence. It might even the tables a bit. But alas, it hasn't been done, so I'm considered a quack by the mainstream.

[julka]

28. you think it's "silly" that someone other than Oswald did it, right?

do you beLIEVE it, have faith in it?

what leads you to that conclusion?

the fact that THREE different rifles were identified as the murder weapon?

the fact that the main 'eyewitness' to the shooting, a man who said he could see Oswald SMILING as he pulled the trigger, couldn't idenfify him in a lineup the first EIGHT times he tried? (give him credit, to be fair. he got it on the ninth time)

stuff like that?

please provide some documented evidence for your faith

[jobycom]

42. Julka, I promise you I could fill volumes and it wouldn't matter

Here's a long collection of evidence.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I'll post it, it will be insulted, questions like yours will be asked, and no one will read a word of it. I'm an historian, I've read all evidence on both sides of the argument. I've spoken to witnesses of the assassination. I worked for one for a while, someone in the motorcade. I'm good at and trained in analyzing evidence. I've looked at the subject from both sides. My basic finding is that those who claim there was a conspiracy cite a lot of details that have been dealt with, disproven, or were just made up somewhere down the line. There is a religious fervor to those who believe in a conspiracy, and it is pointless to argue it for me.

As for three different rifles, I don't know what you mean, since there was only one bullet found, and fragments of a second.

As for the eyewitness who said he could see Oswald smiling... so he was nearsighted. He wasn't the only eyewitness, nor even the main one. The transcript of the police radios for that day are on the web. You can hear the cops discussing what the witnesses were saying. Most claimed the shots came from the SBD. You can also hear them as they try to find someone fitting the description the witnesses give them, then have one of their own shot by a man fitting the description, then have the man pull a gun on them when they corner him. That's live history. Witnesses are unreliable-- memory is filled in by assumptions. Many on both sides are unreliable. Check this out. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/witnesses.htm And as I've said, I've spoken to some witnesses myself.

Anyway, I won't convince you are anyone, and don't even care. I'm just defending myself from the tone of your post implying that I'm a raving idiot. Well, actually, often I am, but not here.

[julka]

45. why is your mythos any more convincing than mine?

you cite McAdams as your source, and Merlin, who certainly knows more about this than I do, finds him, how shall we say....unreliable.

seems he's considered by true believers of the conspiracy to be the Posner of the internet.

AFA the House Investigation, that was a huge joke, and the Notre Dame guy who took over had the same MO as those that led us to war in Iraq: form your conclusion, then pick the facts to go along with them.

please give your account of what happened with the pristine bullet on the stretcher, BTW.

and please don't use 'facts' cited by McAdams.

I've linked a site referencing the testimony of SS agents present at the hospital.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara.htm

from the above WRT stretcher bullet:

The following is a compendium of all the anomolies
pertaining to what I like to refer to as the "legitimacy" of
CE399, including the Secret Service's handling of it:



1) CE2011-O.P. Wright, Darrel Tomlinson, Chief James J. Rowley,
and SA Richard Johnsen could NOT identify CE399 as the bullet
they all allegedly handled on 11/22/63 ("over-the-counter"
references: "JFK-Conspiracy of Silence", p. 133; "Crossfire", p.
365; "Reasonable Doubt", p. 70);

2) 24H412-Although two FBI agents (Todd and Frazier) initialed the
bullet they received from the Secret Service, Johnsen and Rowley
did NOT, breaking the legal chain of custody;

3) CD7-Although the bullet was "officially" found on a stretcher
in a corridor of Parkland Hospital, the FBI(Sibert and O'Neil)
reported that it was found in the emergency room!;

4) a)Sibert and O'Neil interview of SAIC Jerry Behn,
11/27/63-the same FBI agents bypassed Johnsen and spoke instead
to Behn(not even IN Dallas) about "the location of a bullet which
had been found on a stretcher at Parkland";

4) b) RIF#180-10104-10481:HSCA interview of SAIC Behn-
Incredibly, Behn "stated that he was in the chain of custody of
CE 399-Behn received the bullet from Johnsen, then turned it over
to the FBI"

please tell me what's wrong with this analysis. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth, nor have I immersed myself in the aracana of ballistic/forensic evidence available. what I do know is that there's been so much lying, obfuscation, obstruction by the government and major media over the years that it makes it impossible not to wonder what it is that needs to be hidden from us.

Just like Cheney and his energy meeting notes.

what's up with all the secrecy, bub?

[scarletwoman]

30. The House Select Committee on Assassinations final report disputes

the "lone gunman" theory.

Funny how so many "Oswald acted alone" folks manage to forget that there was a post-Warren Report investigation that came to a different conclusion.

# I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

# I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

Findings of the Select Committee on Assassination in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

sw

[jobycom]

38. The acoustic evidence is weak

The HSCA was the conspiracy answer to the Warren Commission in all respects. It wanted to prove a conspiracy every bit as badly as Warren wanted to prove Oswald acted alone.

Here's one rebuttal of the acoustic evidence.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

I haven't ignored the HSCA, I've researched it and found it not convincing.

[Merlin]

40. You found it "not convincing". But the Warren Report sold you!!!???

Come ON, Joby.

I think you should really be fair here and disclose your connection to Jim Wright who was in the motorcade (and who also told me there was a possibility it was a conspiracy).

[jobycom]

43. Merlin!

Peace, friend!

Don't know Jim Wright, I knew Ralph Yarborough. He wouldn't answer questions about whether there was a conspiracy, but he believed Oswald was the lone gunman. He also tried to get a new investigation going, and criticized Warren, but didn't believe the HSCA, either. Reading between the lines (more stuff I read about Yarborough than anything he told me, since he hated to talk about the assassination), I think he felt there was a coverup, but not of multiple gunmen or any plot. He told several people, for instance, that the passage about LBJ's reaction was a lie. LBJ claimed he was reaching down to get a cuff-link when the shots were fired, and the secret service dove on top of him. Yarborough swore that wasn't true, that LBJ was sitting up, and actually grabbed the SS guy and pulled him in the car.

And no, the Warren Commission didn't convince me. That's why I read all the other stuff, too. There's been a lot of research since Warren. Wasn't your buddy even beginning to change his mind, especially after he embarassed himself by proving the rifle could be fired fast enough while trying to prove it couldn't?

[Merlin]

47. Joby!

Peace as well, my friend.

My mistake about Yarborough. I apologize.

Don't know who you mean by my "buddy".

About the rifle. First, it had a rickety site (could have occurred during police handling). It was bolt action, so firing it 3 times in 5.6 seconds was POSSIBLE. But aiming accurately at a moving target and getting 2 out of 3 hits, that's a feat that not even the best marksmen in the country have ever matched. (CBS did a special circa 1978 in which they had the top 3 marksmen try. The all failed. Cronkite wound up the show preposterously by saying "So it seems to be impossible to fire Oswalds gun accurately in the time allotted. So how did Oswald do it? Perhaps it's because he was shooting at a President.")

Thanks for the story about Yarborough and the cufflink. Never heard that before, and I'm not familiar with LBJ grabbing the SS guy.

I'm positive LBJ had foreknowledge. I'm also positive Connally was involved, as evidenced by his late changing of the venue, forcing the motorcade to go past the TSBD. There is a chilling story about this in a 1971 book by JFK advance man Jerry Bruno who met with Connally when the latter demanded the route be changed and made a fake call to the White House in his presence pretending to get "approval".

Are you familiar with the story about the severe argument in JFK's suite in the Fort Worth hotel the night before between JFK and LBJ? According to an SS man and one other person outside who overheard it, they were arguing because LBJ demanded Yarborough ride with JFK and Connally ride with him. JFK was furious because the whole purpose of his trip was to patch up the rift between the liberal (Yarborough-JFK) and the conservative (Connally-LBJ) wings of the party. He told LBJ in no uncertain terms that Yarborough would ride with him.

I know that most public figures, like Yarborough, are very retiscent about the assassination. I think it's because they know how quickly they would be targeted and marginalized if they ever spoke out. Witness what happened to Oliver Stone. Unless you have absolute proof positive, you just can't take a public position that is so phenomenally threatening of the established order's legitimacy.

[julka]

48. merlin, what do you know about the rifle(s) themselves?

mcadam, ahem, says that it was a simple case of incompetence.

easy to mistake a mauser for a mannlicher.

is that true?

don't have the details, but IIRC, the very first announcement of the weapon used was that it was a mauser, and one of those present at the sniper's nest clearly saw the word "Mauser" on the rifle.

I don't know who/what to believe on this subject most of the time.

but there is always E. Howard Hunt, who irrefutably lied under oath concerning his whereabouts on 11/22/63.

no two ways about that, are there?

[Merlin]

49. It's been turned into a nightmare of disinformation.

The whole thing is so convoluted it's extremely difficult to know what's really true.

No doubt the rifle was at first misidentified. But, there is also evidence Oswald came to work that morning with a long package wrapped in plain brown paper. Go figure?

Oswald was a bright guy. He definitely knew something was supposed to happen that day. It's surprising to me he would have allowed his own weapon to be present.

One key here is Ruth Paine who, immediately after Oswald's arrest, invited the police into her garage where LHO kept his rifle and showed them it was missing. She's the one who had also arranged LHO's job at the TSBD 6 weeks earlier.

Because of all the disinfo, I find first person stories like Jerry Bruno's to be invaluable. Here's a guy on the scene who told it like it was. (I actually worked with him for a day in 1968, before he wrote the book, during an RFK trip to the Philly suburbs. Only found out he had written the book a few years ago.)

If you're really interested, are you familiar with "The Fourth Decade" (started off as "Third Decade")? I have most of the issues up to about 1999. It was an extraordinary journal of articles pro and con about the JFK assassination. It's probably on the web by now. (If not, I should publish my copies, since they weren't copyrighted.) Also I know some people who are certified experts on the case. PM me if you'd like more info.

[julka]

52. definitely would like that, Merlin

what's your take on McAdam?

looks like he had a lot of time on his hands

I'd PM you, but I don't know how since they "improved" the layout.

and it's nearly impossbible to keep current with threads now.

is there some way to find the latest posts, if they're not at the bottom. don't fancy reading every single post every time, looking for the latest post number.

there must be some way of hunting them down, right?

[Merlin]

54. There is an active, ongoing effort to sustain the cover-up.

When I was active and attended many of the conferences following the Stone movie, I met and talked with many people there who appeared to be intelligence types and claimed to simply have an abiding interest in the JFK assassination.

In one case, I had drinks with a group of people, including one who I know for certain to be at the core of this effort. One of the others in the group showed us his card to prove he was with the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). But he wouldn't give a card to us.

Another was, I'm certain, assigned to me--since I was quite outspoken and had written several pieces for the Third Decade. When I first saw him as I was exiting the hotel bar, he did a double-take seeing me, and came up to me and struck up a conversation. He attached himself to me nearly the whole time. He said his name was Richard Sheck. He claimed he lived in Malibu, had a Harvard law degree but was not currently practicing. He was obviously very bright. Later I happened to discover he was staying with another guy I suspected to be part of the cover-up. He was really pissed when I found out. After the conference, he called several times, trying desparately to travel across country and stay with my wife and I for a few days. A California friend of mine put a PI on him. The investigator could find no trace of him at the address he had given, and no record of him at Harvard law.

Anyhow, I tell you this to demonstrate that there is a well-funded, active, on-going cover-up operation. It seems to have its routes in the intelligence establishment.

I would bet that Posner is CIA or DIA.

There's clear evidence that the Nobel lauriate who wrote up the "Jet Effect" theory (to discredit the notion of a grassy knoll shot by explaining JFK's rearward head motion after the head shot) was a right wing shill, whose research was funded by the Pentagon.

The notorious Dr. Lattimer, who conducted and filmed field tests on skulls filled with paint to try to show how something moves toward the source of a bullet when hit rather than away from it (as that crank Newton would have us believe), was a career Army officer. I had the privilege of telling him to his face that he was a traitor to his country.

So my take on McAdam is it's a well funded operation.

I agree that there should be some better way to resort the posts to find the most recent. Seems to be a difficult-to-program challenge. Perhaps they could color code them vs. some cookie that remembers when we last viewed a thread. Maybe they've already done that. This thing is so new and undocumented, it's hard to tell what the DU2 features are.

[Merlin]

33. What a bullshit link.

Starts off saying there was no connection between Oswald and Guy Bannister (PI and "former" FBI man and friend of Hoover). That's a first class piece of bull.

Oswald was pictured on New Orleans TV handing out flyers to passers-by directly outside Bannister's office. The posters had "Fair Play For Cuba" on them with the "New Orleans Chapter" address at the same Camp Street office that Bannister used. After Bannister's heart attack, his secretary ID'd Oswald as a guy who came in now and then and used the adjoining empty office and met with Bannister.

Clearly Oswald was serving as an FBI plant to try to smoke out pro-Castro Cubans in a city that was a hotbed of exile activity.

In fact, during a fracas that broke out while he was handing out the posters, he was arrested. When he got to jail, he asked them to notify the FBI and have them send a lawyer, which they did.

This is established, positive, proven, incontrovertible, absolute fact. I have a lot of it on tape from a live radio interview they did with Oswald a week or so after the incident.

During the Warren Commission proceedings, the Attorney General of Texas (name?) asked to present some information, and was allowed to do so. He testified that he had it on positively reliable authority that Oswald was an informant for both the FBI and the CIA. That's how Oswald made his living. He produced Oswald's employee numbers for both agencies.

Oswald came into the FBI office in Dallas the day before the assassination to meet with his handler who wasn't there. So he left a note. That note was burned at the direction of the Bureau Chief, who had in the interim called J. Edgar Hoover, several hours after Oswald was captured.

Many people have been grinding this non-conspiracy axe for a long time. Too bad they just can't get it off the ground. The facts are overwhelming.

Shall we also discuss the fact that Oswald, who did not complete High School, went into the Marine Corps and came out speaking perfect Russian; that there is a gap in his military record equal to the 6 months it would have taken to learn Russian at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. Immediately after getting out of the Marines he "defected" to the USSR. Then, a year and a half later, after denouncing his citizenship, and marrying a Russian, he asked to be returned, and the State Dept. sent him the funds to come home.

Or shall we talk about the fact that the CIA will still not release Oswald's tax returns for the year of the assassination and just prior thereto--though they released the ones prior to that--despite repeated FOIA actions.

I mean the evidence is just so overwhelming, it's not funny. Anybody who thinks Oswald was a lone gunman, and not serving as an informant in what he though was an extra-governmental cabal, just hasn't done his homework.

[jobycom]

44. See, Julka?

As I said. The evidence will be ridiculed, not examined. No point.

[julka]

46. uhhhh, what does that prove?

you can cite people like mcadam all you like and I can cite as many people who'll refute his assertions at as great a length as he debunks the canards with which he chooses to deal.

It took me less than a minute to come up with several sites that are at least as convincing in their dismissal of McAdam as he is in his of EVERY single piece of evidence that contradicts the Warren myth.


so where does that leave one?

matters of faith?

I'm going through mcadam, BTW, to see what he has to say. but I'll do it along with other sources, to see whose ground axe cuts closest to the bone.

can't wait to learn more about McAdam, his CV, his associations, his sources, his FUNDING.....things like that

bet you were in the army?

did you study this, for your post #42? http://archives.mcad.edu/POLITPROP/palace/library/proptech.html

I'm an historian, I've read all evidence on both sides of the argument. I've spoken to witnesses of the assassination. I worked for one for a while, someone in the motorcade. I'm good at and trained in analyzing evidence. I've looked at the subject from both sides. My basic finding is that those who claim there was a conspiracy cite a lot of details that have been dealt with, disproven, or were just made up somewhere down the line. There is a religious fervor to those who believe in a conspiracy, and it is pointless to argue it for me.

you may have set a record for employment of the greatest number of basic propaganda techniques in the least amount of space that I can recall in quite some time.

not that there's anything wrong with that......good work!

let anyone interested check it out.

sounds to me like you know where your bread has been buttered

[Terwilliger]

62. funny, I think Merlin has quashed any lone-nut notion

just on this thread alone

[DiverDave]

55. You think Oswald

Did it??!!...ALONE??!!
You are wrong. I don't care if you liked the movie or not, FACTS are FACTS.
Our president was killed by our government.
And you sounded so intelligent before.

[Dr Fate]

67. Joby- as I lay person, even I can question at least one of these points...

"Camp Street and Lafayette Street entrances went to different offices — Guy Banister's office could not be reached from 544 Camp"

This has often repeated by conspriracy skeptics- they claim that Stone "made up" the 544 Camp St. connection.

How did they come to this conclusion? I'll tell you- because Guy Bannister's (A SUSPECT) former employess SAID SO!!! Wow! What conclusive evidence that is, the suspects friend says it aint so!!!

Problem #1- if this is true, why did the defense not bring this out in the discovery phase of the trial?

Problem #2- I personally visited the sight- and guess what- It's been torn down for 20 years or more!!! I guess than mean we can refute Garrisson and we will just have to take the Bannister employee's word for it, huh?

The point is- we have Jim Garrisson's claim, which was challenged only on the word of Guy Bannister's employee, and then we have this web site that back's up the Bannister story. Who are we to believe- I disctric attorney who allowed the defense to challenge this claim- or a web-site from 30 years after the fact?

I wonder why this site you give us fails to link it's many refutations (like the one i took on)-

I think Garrison/Stone got a lot of things wrong, but they also got many things right...

We need to be just as skeptical of the skeptics, is what I am saying.


Your site gives less than satisfactory refutation of this one little claim that I happened to research- what other refutations are questionable?

[ChadCoffman]

35. Garrison played Earl Warren in the movie!

[robcon]

56. Stone was deceptive.

He gave a quote in the movie from Kennedy that hinted that Kennedy might not pursue the Vietnam War. When Stone was challenged in an interview, and shown a later quote from Kennedy showing that he was very committed to Vietnam, Stone admitted he knew about it, but he did not use it in the movie.

This blows Stone's whole rationale in the movie: that the military had Kennedy killed because he was would prevent the U.S.from going to war in Vietnam. Stone seemed non-plussed by his chicanery.

[Gringo]

64. I think it was a memo, not a "quote"

signalling a change in Vietnam policy. If he made statements RE his commitment to Vietnam, and then reversed them in the memo, so what? It wouldn't be the first time a president did that. At any rate, there seems to be little to suggest that JFK would have stepped Vietnam up into the mess that LBJ did.

For those that suggest LBJ had foreknowledge, I think that's a bit of an unfair smear. I didn't care much for LBJ, but I think it's more likely that he "got the hint" after the fact and acted accordingly so as not to endanger himself. If JFK was a high-level spook conspiracy, it stands to reason that they would not let the Vice-President/soon-to-be-President know what they were planning. Not a good idea.

[Dr Fate]

66. I agree in part...

I think Stone got the motive all wrong. It really does not matter if JFK was pro-Vietnam or not.

Remember: Clinton also agreed with the Republicans on many issues- yet they still tried to destroy him- it's about pure POWER- that is the only motive we can be 100% sure of.

Erase Vietnam escalation as a motive for the crime, and we still have literally hundreds of bizzare "coincidences" and just as many unanswered questions.

[Eloriel]

77. There were plenty of other things that JFK did that pissed off the wrong

people, so the Vietnam thing (which I believe is true nonetheless) isn't all there was to it.

Eloriel

[Dr Fate]

78. Even if JFK was not going to pull out of Vietnam, there is still...

...the question of weapons contracts, and whose friends gets them, and for how much.

The motive is not the main issue- we know of plenty of motives- the issue is the literally hundreds of strange, unanswered questions.

[Merlin]

83. Nonsense. It is ABSOLUTELY true that JFK ordered us out of Nam..

There is solid, incontrovertible evidence to that effect. Oliver Stone produced that evidence on the screen in the movie. The argument that he backed away from it later is apochryphal.

What was that evidence? It was National Security Action Memorandum 263 (NSAM 263), signed by JFK (actually by McGeorge Bundy for JFK) on October 11, 1963, 5 weeks before he was murdered. It formally accepted the recommendations made of the McNamara/Taylor Report which said the US should pull out of Vietnam completely by 1965, beginning with a withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, but directing that no formal announcement be made.

NSAM 263 was reversed by NSAM 273, signed by LBJ at a meeting of the Joint Chiefs 2 days after JFK's funeral.

NSAM 263 was a device JFK had decided to use to effect a withdrawal from Vietnam, but avoid giving the right wing an opportunity to engage in McCarthyism against him for it--especially prior to the '64 election. So he ordered McNamara and Taylor (Maxwell Taylor, Chmn of the JCS) to Nam on a fact-finding mission. Then on their return, he ordered them to issue a specific set of recommendations.

Here's what Fletcher Prouty says about it. (Prouty has been villified for his courageous outspokenness. But it's indisputable that he was a lifelong high-ranking military officer and that he manned a very strategic desk in the heart of the Pentagon during that critical period. Prouty was a friend of mine. He passed away last year.)

"Actually this so-called McNamara-Taylor Report, (for accurate reference see Volume IV, August-December 1963 of the Foreign Relations of the United States series 1961-1963 by the Department of States and published by the U.S. Government Printing Office), was compiled and written in the Joint Staff offices of General Victor H. Krulak from almost daily notes and instructions from President Kennedy himself. It was printed, bound and flown to Hawaii by an Air Force jet to give both distinguished travelers, then returning from Saigon, the opportunity to become familiar with its content during their 9 hour flight, Oct 2, 1963, back to Washington from Honolulu. This is a pivotal period of the Kennedy "1,000 days" as President of the United States, during which strong opposition against him solidified.
Gen Krulak was the Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962-1964 and my immediate boss. I was the Chief of Special Operations on the Joint Staff and I wrote sections of this NSAM, along with a few other members of his staff."

Fletcher Prouty
"Essays on NSAM 263 and 273"

<more>
http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/273_1997(by%20Prouty).HTM

[deutsey]

57. I think Stone overdramatizes parts and takes some liberties

but overall I think the basic story of powerful reactionary factions in this country killing Kennedy rings true.

I HIGHLY recommend buying a copy of the script...Stone released it shortly after the film came out. It has tons of footnotes and, unlike the mainstream press coverage of the film, Stone generously includes a wide variety of mainstream columns and articles in the volume with viewpoints ranging from those who supported the film to those who trashed it.

[theboss]

58. Artistic license

JFK is a brilliant movie.

But Stone took a whole lot of artistic license.

- He intercut scenes from the Zapruder film with scenes that he shot himself.
- The entire Garrison-Mr. X scene (the best in the movie in my opinion) never happened. Stone claimed that he had that conversation himself.
- Stone's entire theory hinges on the idea that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam after '64. This is a huge leap of faith on Stone's part. The buildup in Vietnam was actually continuing and a lot of analysts believe that Kennedy would have kept us involved. He likely would not have taken things to the level Johnson did. But Stone treats the coming pull-out as an article of fact, which it hardly was.
- The closing statement didn't happen. Stone wrote that.

So, the basic complaint is that Stone attaches a policy to Kennedy that he did not actually set and then altered and created evidence to back up that theory.

Of course, as a filmmaker, that is his right. But you will see from time to time that people often use his movie as a primary source for evidence of a conspiracy. I personally believe there was a conspiracy but don't think Stone builds a credible case for the reason "why?" But he does get you ask "why?" which is very important.

So, use it as a jumping-off point. Don't use it as "history."

[Gringo]

65. I don't think

that the Stone scenes intercut with the Zapruder film, the scenes with Fletcher Prouty (who corroborates much of what is said in the film) or the closing statement (which reflect sentiments expressed in Garrison's books) are being cited as evidence of anything. They are examples of dramatic device, used to great effect.

As for the national security memo signalling a change in policy, I agree that there is something of a leap of faith there as to what Kennedy would have done.

I also agree that looking at JFK as a documentary is a bad idea. It is speculation that can't be verified. There is, however, a lot of factual eveidence in the film that can't be disputed, and it is one of the single greatest films in cinematic history, IMO. One of the most effective tools for waking people who believe in the idea of America for their stupor, and spurring their curiosity into exactly what kind of people are steering our ship of state.

This film was largely responsible for feuling my curiosity into progressive politics, and has endowed me with a healthy skepticism for everything that comes out of Washington and the press.

[Dr Fate]

59. Do a google- parts of the movie are right on, others are embellished...

..I've personally visited some of the sites in New Orleans myself...

The more you research the JFK murder, the more questions you will have.

[Allah Akbar]

68. Comments made during the shooting 22 Nov 1963

John Connelly was hit in the same car as JFK. When he was shot, he cried out, "My God, they're going to kill US ALL!"(emphasis mine)

I find this highly suspicious. It sounds to me like someone who knew JFK was supposed to be killed and when he was hit thought there was a double cross and they ALL were going to be killed.

After the final shot to JFK, Jackie cried out "THEY have killed my husband" Sounds to me like she thought there might be a conspiracy.

At the end of the film JFK it says "The Past is Prologue" and "Dedicated to the Young". This is in reference to JFK, Jr. He was in contact with Stone over this film and he was going to run for office, this is the truth.

I believe he was assassinated, just like RFK was, to make sure they never got to the bottom of JFK's murder.

We still have many of these same criminals running our country today, so it IS topical.

[Terwilliger]

69. which is why I think LIHOP/MIHOP is entirely feasible

even though Greg Palast debunks that idea

[Gringo]

70. I don't care how good the snipers are

You do NOT go riding in a convertible with a man you know people will be shooting at from a distance. That Connally knew beforehand is such a silly, pointless idea.

[Allah Akbar]

71. I guess that is your reasoning as to why it had to be a lone nut then

Watch the Zapruder film sometime, REALLY watch it. The limo actually slows down as the shooting takes place and comes to nearly a complete STOP when the final head shot comes, the driver looking back over his shoulder.

You can say this is "silly" too, but I don't believe for a second a TRAINED driver/security agent will SLOW DOWN while they are under attack, they are trained to FLOOR it at the first sign of trouble.

Christ, they were going so slow an agent from the car behind was able to run up to the car and climb on the back of it and the driver didn't start to accelerate until JFK's brains blew all over the car.

That driver knew JFK was supposed to be killed too as far as I'm concerned and he climbed in the convertable with him.

[Gringo]

75. Huh? I never said that!

I subscribe to much of the Stone/Garrison theory about a conspiracy, and I think that the "lone gunman" scenario is unlikely to the point of being ludicrous.

However, I also find it highly unlikely that LBJ and Connally had some fort of foreknowledge that this was going to happen. I've seen no compelling evidence for that.

[rman]

74. comment made before the event

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."
- JFK, 10 days before he was assasinated

[WilliamPitt]

81. The Bible for the 2000 Selection was written by Vincent Bugliosi

"The Betrayal of America." Bugliosi went on in that book - as an exercise in demonstrating fact-checking - to shred the idea that this movie was in any way factually accurate. My father, who studied JFK's assassination the way monks study sacred texts, also thought the movie was a lot of hokum.

Good flick, though. Gets your blood boiling.

[Merlin]

84. Sorry, but both Bugliosi and your father are wrong on this subject.

Bugliosi--a curious character--had invested himself in the issue much earlier than his book on Selection 2000. I saw him play the role of Oswald's prosecutor during a mock trial sponsored by the ABA in the mid 90's. His prosecution consisted of nothing more than a character smear of Oswald. He, like most defenders of Specter's single bullet theory (the ONLY possible scenario in which Oswald could have been the lone shooter), he failed to deal with any of the reams of controverting information, some of which I presented in a post (#33 "What a bullshit link") above.

I, too, studied the assassination for a solid three years in the mid 90's, reading practically everything of value that had been written (except for the repetitious books of those who have made a cottage industry of it). I've read every issue of the scholarly journal "Third Decade" (now "Fourth Decade") through 1999, and seen every film I can find on the subject. The facts are overwhelming in favor of conspiracy and against the Warren Report's "pablum" (as Senator Richard Schweiker (R-PA) once called it).

There is a huge effort to silence the conspiracy theorists, to consider this case closed, and to ridicule anybody who thinks contrary to the establishment position on it. Fortunately this effort has failed, as more than 80% of the public believe JFK was killed in a conspiracy, at least according to a Gallup pole about 5 years ago.

[RummyTheDummy]

87. Shit...

Everyone knows Lee Harvey acted alone. Nothing to see here. Move along.

(sarcasm off)

[carolinayellowdog]

88. Intellectual dishonesty

Here's a thread in The Meeting Room that I think addresses what Jobycom is up against, being accused of being *part* of the conspiracy precisely because he doesn't believe in it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=356&mesg_id=356&page=

As my sig line suggests, the more intensely people believe something and the more personally aggressive they are to those who disbelieve, the more suspicious I am of their intellectual honesty. It seems to me that there is a fundamental issue of intellectual honesty in how Stone mixes fact and fiction. His defenders say on one hand, "it's just a movie, he has artistic license, give him a break" but on the other hand tend to attribute a kind of reliability to him that would only properly be found in a nonfiction documentary.

CYD

[Dr Fate]

89. Actually, when it comes to the "facts", we rely on D.A. Garrison...

Stone just threw all the mud on the wall- a huge percentage of his evidence comes from Garrison.

I see Stone's movie for what it is- a gadfly. I also see Garrison's true-life investigation for what i believe it was- an honest attempt to untangle a web of unanswered questions...

I dont know who killed JFK or exactly why- but I do know that many non-Stone originating sources (used by Stone, though) bring up so many unanswered questions that it seems to go beyond the realm of coincidence.

The web-site that Jobycom linked to debunk the various theories is flawed itself- most of the assertions are un-linked- and Dr. Fate, a mere layman-Sherlock Holmes wanna-be found a huge out-right error in one of the unsourced allegations against Stone/Garrison. (see my above post in reply to Joby) If i can find errors in this debunking of conspiricies, then I'm sure real researchers can too...(but then that goes for both camps, eh?)

[Eloriel]

90. I think that's an unfortunate characterization, CYD

As my sig line suggests, the more intensely people believe something and the more personally aggressive they are to those who disbelieve, the more suspicious I am of their intellectual honesty.

I don't see it as an issue of intellectual honesty, but of personal (emotional) investment. You can be 100% right and still be quite personally invested in an opinion or even set of facts such that you take it personally that others disagree. Or 100% wrong yadayada. IMO, it's not about intellectual honesty but emotional investment.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental issue of intellectual honesty in how Stone mixes fact and fiction. His defenders say on one hand, "it's just a movie, he has artistic license, give him a break" but on the other hand tend to attribute a kind of reliability to him that would only properly be found in a nonfiction documentary.


And I think there's a possibility (probability, IMO, actually) that it's not an either/or (as little in life is), but somewhere along the continuum. I have no problem with Stone putting words in Garrison's mouth for the closing argument, tho I like the idea that much of it was drawn from Garrison's own words elsewhere. I have no problem with Stone melding several informants into one in the Sutherland character. I also have no problem with his "speculation" about some things, esp. since he filmed those parts in b&w, which is a very nice touch, IMO.

If he got the broadview correct along with many of the details that contribute to that broadview, I'm content. I never expected to see a documentary. I think what he presented is somewhere in between pure fiction and documentary truth. I also believe HE may not even know where on that continuum his movie actually fell.

Eloriel

[aquart]

91. Applause Books published the annotated script.

Sourced and footnoted.