Breaking News: Oliver Stone Used Fake Oswald Handbills - Twice

[Ted Shields]

The Camp address is very well-known for being where a bunch of right wingers hung out, including Banister and Ferrie.

And the Carlos Bringuier more importantly.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

At the time Oswald handed out the flyers the building at the 544 Camp Street Address was, according to its owner, largely unoccupied. There were no "right wingers" in the building during that time. The owner of the property, Sam Newman, was interviewed by the HSCA. He said this:



Banister's office was located in a different building around the corner on Lafayette Street. But it wasn't at the 544 Camp Street Address. And again, according to the owner of the building, no "right wing" or anti-Castro groups had offices at the 544 address when Oswald was handing out the flyers.

Fred shows this at the links he provided, links that apparently some people are unwilling to read.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And the Carlos Bringuier more importantly.

I think - just a guess - that Oswald was being "provocative" by putting that address on some of the pamphlets (as you know, he tried to provoke Bringuier as well). The Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), a major anti-Castro group, once had offices in the building at the 544 Camp Street address. The CRC was a CIA supported group that coordinated anti-Castro activity from the US. But they had reportedly left shortly after the missile crisis was resolved in October of 1962. One of the group's leaders, Sergio Arcacha Smith, left New Orleans for Miami at that time and apparently he closed the office that was there. I'll guess that Oswald knew the CRC had offices there and thought by putting their address on the pro-Castro pamphlets he could cause some mischief. Then when he found out they had moved, he stopped (why put it on a handful of pamphlets - not the handbills - and then stop?). Again, lots of guessing and spit balling.

As the owner of the building testified, at the time Oswald was handing out the pro-Castro material there were no anti-Castro Cuban groups with offices there. It was largely an empty building. Banister's office was located around the corner at a different address. If you read the HSCA's investigation they go into some detail explaining all of this.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I'm not saying that I agree with any of his opinions (or even care what they are) just that in these days it is refreshing for someone to still question the government.  In the old days, leftists were advocates for free speech and protested wars.  They no longer do that.  In fact, they are among the most ardent supporters of censorship and endless war.

Here is Seymour Hersh on his relationship with Stone. "In Reporter [Hersh's autobiography], he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off."

In Stone's world, Hersh couldn't be just wrong, or used, or ignorant, or misled. No, the only answer is that he must be a CIA agent. It is interesting that how one views JFK - Stone sees him as some sort of Henry Wallace type who would have ended the Cold War; Hersh see him as a liberal Cold War hawk - influences so much of what one thinks happened. In an odd way that makes sense. If you believe in this large conspiracy involving so many people then it must have been because JFK was such a threat to them. If, on the other hand, you see JFK as a supporter of the Cold War, as a pragmatic anti-communist, then the idea is, as Hersh said, preposterous.

It really does come down in many ways to the question of not "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but "Who was JFK?"

Added: Here's Hersh's account from his book. He was working with Stone on Stone's script for his movie on Noriega/Panama. Hersh is scathing about the Kennedys and the covert war on Cuba and the assassination attempts. He says that Church simply covered up for JFK's knowledge about the plots. The idea that they were sincerely trying to find some sort of rapprochement with Castro is, in my view, nonsense. They had concluded, correctly I think, that there was no middle ground/agreement to be found with him. Their efforts were a ruse.

[Richard Smith]

Here is Seymour Hersh on his relationship with Stone. "In Reporter [Hersh's autobiography], he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off."

In Stone's world, Hersh couldn't be just wrong, or used, or ignorant, or misled. No, the only answer is that he must be a CIA agent. It is interesting that how one views JFK - Stone sees him as some sort of Henry Wallace type who would have ended the Cold War; Hersh see him as a liberal Cold War hawk - influences so much of what one thinks happened. In an odd way that makes sense. If you believe in this large conspiracy involving so many people then it must have been because JFK was such a threat to them. If, on the other hand, you see JFK as a supporter of the Cold War, as a pragmatic anti-communist, then the idea is, as Hersh said, preposterous.

It really does come down in many ways to the question of not "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but "Who was JFK?"

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.  Maybe it makes them feel better.  At least someone is pulling the strings even if they are bad guys instead of completely random nuts who can kill even the most powerful person in the world.  That kind of arbitrary world can be unsettling.  Maybe it complies with some psychological or ideological need to believe there was a conspiracy behind JFK's death that conforms or promotes their world view.  Maybe it is just fun to play the contrarian to accepted conclusions.  The flat Earthers.  A way to gain attention by taking an opposing side from the status quo.  Ironically, not unlike Oswald himself.  I think Stone legitimately believes his own nonsense, though.  He is not just trying to make a buck or garner attention like Mark Lane.  There are people in black helicopters behind all these events in his world.  He is likely a control freak who can't allow for random factors to be the explanation of important events.  It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.  Maybe it makes them feel better.  At least someone is pulling the strings even if they are bad guys instead of completely random nuts who can kill even the most powerful person in the world.  That kind of arbitrary world can be unsettling.  Maybe it complies with some psychological or ideological need to believe there was a conspiracy behind JFK's death that conforms or promotes their world view.  Maybe it is just fun to play the contrarian to accepted conclusions.  The flat Earthers.  A way to gain attention by taking an opposing side from the status quo.  Ironically, not unlike Oswald himself.  I think Stone legitimately believes his own nonsense, though.  He is not just trying to make a buck or garner attention like Mark Lane.  There are people in black helicopters behind all these events in his world.  He is likely a control freak who can't allow for random factors to be the explanation of important events.  It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.

And some people are in desperate need of there not being a conspiracy.

One thing is for sure, both sides have in common that neither looks at the evidence honestly.


It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

Says the guy who can not produce that so-called "conclusive" evidence nor can he present an argument about the evidence without misrepresentations and outright lying. 

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps it fulfills some deep psychological need for “Richard” to arrogantly feign certainty without any substantiation, or even any understanding of the evidence, while hiding behind an alias.