JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on February 04, 2023, 04:57:01 PM
-
I have been working with Steve Roe and Paul Hoch on this story for months. Oliver Stone used a fake Oswald handbill in his film JFK. That is fine because it was just a fictional film. But he also used a fake Oswald handbill in his so-called documentary series - JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
The handbills that Oswald gave out on the street in New Orleans were NOT stamped with the 544 Camp Street -- he only stamped them with his home address or with his P.O. Box.
Here are the four parts to our story:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills)
An analysis of the handbill used in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-two (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-two)
An examination of where the fake handbill came from.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-three (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-three)
A look at James DiEugenio's use of the fake handbill.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-four (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-destiny-betrayed-misleads-viewers-on-oswald-s-hands-off-cuba-handbills-part-four)
Jefferson Morley is the latest researcher to use a fake Oswald handbill.
Oswald only stamped a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets with the 544 Camp Street address.
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/camp-st-stamp.jpg)
-
Uh, big deal? This is one more example of people ALWAYS worrying about the minutiae of this case without stepping back to look at the big picture. And the big picture is this - Oswald was led by others to do this purely to set him up for later in the year. He was led to act like a Communist while still wearing his Marine Corps ring. He was led to be hired at the book building. He was led to the theater where he'd be arrested. And he blurted out the truth - that he was nothing but a patsy. And he still had his ring on. You know, the America-hating Commie leftie wearing a military ring that represents all that's right with America. Talk about contradictions.
-
Not sure who needs to hear this but the 1991 film, ‘JFK’, is a Hollywood movie, not a documentary.
There’s no requirement or expectation that movies or novels based on historical events be 100% accurate.
-
A fake handbill was used in Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
-
A fake handbill was used in Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
Doesn’t change the fact that the 544 Camp St address appeared on some of Oswald’s handbills. It was significant because that address had been associated with anti-Castro organizations.
-
Have you not read any of my blog post? Oswald did NOT stamp 544 Camo street on any of his handbills. NONE!
He only stamped them with his home address or his P.O. Box.
fred
-
From the HSCA report:
”The address had been stamped with a home printing kit in the same manner Oswald had stamped other literature with his alias "A. J. Hidell" or "L. H. Oswald," (11) indicating it was by Oswald's own hand that the 544 Camp Street address was printed on the pamphlet”.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pdf/HSCA_Vol10_AC_13_544Camp.pdf
-
Yes, 544 Camp Street was stamped on a few Corliss Lamont pamphlets. That stamp did not include Oswald's name.
The handbills that Oswald handed out on the streets of New Orleans was NOT stamped 544 Camp Street.
I strongly suggest you actually read my posts. All of this is in those posts.
fred
-
Either Oswald stamped the Camp St address on the handbills or someone else did it.
Neither scenario erases the fact that Oswald was somehow associated with an address linked to rightwingers and anti-Castro activists.
-
I guess you are determined not to read my posts. Oswald never stamped 544 Camp Street on his handbills. I challenge you to find one.
fred
-
What difference does it make which particular items had the Camp St address stamped on?
-
If it doesn't make a difference, then why did Oliver Stone use a fake handbill twice? And why are people
like James DiEugenio denying.
I answer the question in my posts, which I assume you haven't read.
fred
-
Stone hasn't been relevant in decades. I didn't even realize he was still alive. I do give him some credit for at least questioning the government even if he makes a fool of himself. Something most of his kindred will no longer do. In fact, they advocate censorship and worse for anyone who dares to question any official explanation.
-
Stone hasn't been relevant in decades. I didn't even realize he was still alive. I do give him some credit for at least questioning the government even if he makes a fool of himself. Something most of his kindred will no longer do. In fact, they advocate censorship and worse for anyone who dares to question any official explanation.
Stone doesn't question US government policies, he's hostile to them. Every single time. He uses the same thinking on American foreign policy that he does with the JFK assassination: that is, conclusion first - a conspiracy happened/the US is wrong - and then finds facts to support those views.
It's a judgment first, facts second world view. Is there a single US policy that he doesn't think was wrong? Just one? He thinks that if the US elected Henry Wallace as president in 1948 that the Cold War wouldn't have happened. Even though Wallace himself later admitted that his views about Stalin and Moscow were completely wrong, that he was duped by the Soviets (several of his campaign advisers were actual Soviet agents including one John Abt; yes, Oswald's Abt). Likewise, is there a single people piece of evidence that he thinks implicates Oswald? Just one? Answers, no and no.
-
Stone doesn't question US government policies, he's hostile to them. Every single time. He uses the same thinking on American foreign policy that he does with the JFK assassination: that is, conclusion first - a conspiracy happened/the US is wrong - and then finds facts to support those views.
It's a judgment first, facts second world view. Is there a single US policy that he doesn't think was wrong? Just one? Is there a single people of evidence that he thinks implicates Oswald? Just one? Answers, no and no.
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.
-
Stone doesn't question US government policies, he's hostile to them. Every single time. He uses the same thinking on American foreign policy that he does with the JFK assassination: that is, conclusion first - a conspiracy happened/the US is wrong - and then finds facts to support those views.
Questioning all governments is a good practice because all governments lie or deceive their own citizens. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Stone's 1991 JFK film led to the ARRB which was good thing. Government transparency is good.
It's a judgment first, facts second world view. Is there a single US policy that he doesn't think was wrong? Just one? He thinks that if the US elected Henry Wallace as president in 1948 that the Cold War wouldn't have happened. Even though Wallace himself later admitted that his views about Stalin and Moscow were completely wrong, that he was duped by the Soviets (several of his campaign advisers were actual Soviet agents including one John Abt; yes, Oswald's Abt). Likewise, is there a single people piece of evidence that he thinks implicates Oswald? Just one? Answers, no and no.
Oliver Stone produced but didn't write the source material for "The Untold History of the United States". It was mostly written by historian and college professor, Peter Kuznick. So no, you can't simply dismiss the content of that series as if it was entirely based on Stone's knowledge of history. In reality, Stone isn't a historian. He typically works with real historians to help him produce his projects.
There's usually more than one side of the story for all historical events. Professor Kuznick, Howard Zinn, and others of their ideological persuasion tend to offer an alternative view of American and world history. It's just a different point of view. You can take or leave their spin on historical events like any other group of historians.
-
If it doesn't make a difference, then why did Oliver Stone use a fake handbill twice? And why are people
like James DiEugenio denying.
I’m not their spokesperson. And yes I did read it. What difference does it make?
-
Here's the thing. Oswald was recorded handing out these leaflets. Some may have had the Camp address, some may not. The Camp address is very well-known for being where a bunch of right wingers hung out, including Banister and Ferrie.
If Oswald was handing out leaflets and they were stamped Main Street and that address was linked to Commie left wingers, then it would surely bolster his Red sympathies. But that's not the way it happened. It was Camp Street, where Banister and Ferrie were known to haunt. Ferrie knew Oswald too as seen in the photo.
So again - big deal about whatever Stone did. It's the bigger picture that matters, Fred. You're just here trying to get more views for your blog and whatever else you're trying to sell.
-
You are making things up. NONE - I repeat ZERO - of the Oswald handbills had 544 Camp Street stamped on them. Banister's office
was not at 544 Camp Street - he was at 531 Lafayette street, just around the corner. The two offices were NOT connected. Anybody
going to 544 Camp Street in the summer of 1963 would just find the offices of two unions.
fred
-
Oswald handed out materials with the Camp St address. Why is Fred deliberately trying to obfuscate this?
-
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.
-
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:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9931922376/Key7oossmoyv2hf/banister.JPG)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9946555071/Keyrqamd29v80uc/Hersh Stone.JPG)
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9946555071/Keyrqamd29v80uc/Hersh Stone.JPG)
Unlike Oliver Stone, Sy Hersh is not a fan of JFK. He wrote some pretty gossipy stuff about Kennedy.
However, Hersh has been as critical of the US national security state as Oliver Stone (if not more) and most recently accused the Biden administration and CIA of blowing up Germany's Nord Stream pipelines.
-
Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy. Maybe it makes them feel better.
In some cases, that may be true. The world is complicated and in some ways, conspiracy theories help us make sense of complicated events that are difficult to explain.
However, JFK assassination conspiracy theories persist due to the evidence and the lack of transparency from the US government. I mean, if Oswald was just a "nobody" and the case is so "straightforward", why is there so much secrecy around the JFK files almost 60 years later? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that question.
-
In some cases, that may be true. The world is complicated and in some ways, conspiracy theories help us make sense of complicated events that are difficult to explain.
However, JFK assassination conspiracy theories persist due to the evidence and the lack of transparency from the US government. I mean, if Oswald was just a "nobody" and the case is so "straightforward", why is there so much secrecy around the JFK files almost 60 years later? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that question.
Because the CIA were up to some really dodgy sh1t back then and some of the people are still alive and/or have families.