JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on November 23, 2021, 02:23:31 PM

Title: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Fred Litwin on November 23, 2021, 02:23:31 PM
JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
There were several articles on the JFK assassination yesterday. My friend Alecia Long was in the Washington Post, and Tim Weiner had an excellent article in Rolling Stone. Links are in my post. Oliver Stone also had an article but it was in the Hollywood Reporter! His paranoia-riddled so-called documentary has laid an egg.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg)
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Richard Smith on November 23, 2021, 02:48:47 PM
JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
There were several articles on the JFK assassination yesterday. My friend Alecia Long was in the Washington Post, and Tim Weiner had an excellent article in Rolling Stone. Links are in my post. Oliver Stone also had an article but it was in the Hollywood Reporter! His paranoia-riddled so-called documentary has laid an egg.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg)

If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all.  Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2021, 03:59:41 PM
Standing ovation for Stoneís film at Cannes.


Rising User Review Ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.

Ordinary people who have watched the film have given it rave reviews.

More proof that Film Critics and the Mainstream media in general are irrelevant today.


Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 23, 2021, 04:06:20 PM
If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all.  Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.
He thinks the Cold War was a conspiracy caused by militarists in the US. Poor Uncle Joe Stalin didn't have a chance <g>. And that Hitler's rise was caused by American industrialists who funded the Nazi machine. It's always the US that is behind and the cause of every bad thing.

It's the Garrison vision of the US and the world: that is the "war machine" that was made fighting WWII took over power in the US and created a mythical communist threat to maintain power. JFK was going to end that all - Vietnam, Cuba, whatever - and it was for that they killed him.

If you believe in this then its makes sense that thousands of people were behind it all. And still are. It's why we see this odd coalition of the far left and far right who unite in a conspiracy belief. The far left sees right wing militarists and the far right see liberal internationalists behind these acts.

We've had two, three?, generations of Americans attain power since 1963. Literally tens of thousands of people have gone to Washington and in service to the government. In top positions and medium positions and throughout the bureaucracies administering policy. There is no chance - none - that these people, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, Kennedy haters and Kennedy lovers, would keep some large scale conspiracy quiet. None. One more time: none.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2021, 04:23:13 PM
He thinks the Cold War was a conspiracy caused by militarists in the US. Poor Uncle Joe Stalin didn't have a chance <g>. And that Hitler's rise was caused by American industrialists who funded the Nazi machine. It's always the US that is behind and the cause of every bad thing.

Just for clarification, not everyone, including myself, agrees with Stone that the entire Military Industrial Complex killed JFK due to his resistance towards escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. Stone is entitled to his own opinion but there's room for other points of view.

Beyond that, both sides are to blame for the start of the Cold War but the US is (arguably) more responsible for it lasting several decades. I'm sure there's more than one interpretation of Cold War history but the TV series you're referring to was written by Historian, Peter Kuznick. Almost all historical events have more than one interpretation and the consensus of historians can change over time. For example, President Ulysses Grant is experiencing a revival in popularity among contemporary historians after spending a century being called one of the worst US Presidents. So it seems perfectly fine and normal to read or watch Kuznick's alternative interpretations of 20th century world history.

Lastly, Stone's opinions on the MIC and US covert ops are based in reality.

It's fair to criticize how much Stone blames Defense and Financial institutions for the evils of the world but the criticisms aren't baseless. After all, it was none other than President Dwight Eisenhower who first warned about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and President Harry Truman after the JFK assassination who called for the CIA to be reined in.

Have you read any of the books on the Dulles brothers? They were the epitome of the "Deep State".


Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 23, 2021, 06:47:17 PM
Just for clarification, not everyone, including myself, agrees with Stone that the entire Military Industrial Complex killed JFK due to his resistance towards escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. Stone is entitled to his own opinion but there's room for other points of view.

Beyond that, both sides are to blame for the start of the Cold War but the US is (arguably) more responsible for it lasting several decades. I'm sure there's more than one interpretation of Cold War history but the TV series you're referring to was written by Historian, Peter Kuznick. Almost all historical events have more than one interpretation and the consensus of historians can change over time. For example, President Ulysses Grant is experiencing a revival in popularity among contemporary historians after spending a century being called one of the worst US Presidents. So it seems perfectly fine and normal to read or watch Kuznick's alternative interpretations of 20th century world history.

Lastly, Stone's opinions on the MIC and US covert ops are based in reality.

It's fair to criticize how much Stone blames Defense and Financial institutions for the evils of the world but the criticisms aren't baseless. After all, it was none other than President Dwight Eisenhower who first warned about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and President Harry Truman after the JFK assassination who called for the CIA to be reined in.

Have you read any of the books on the Dulles brothers? They were the epitome of the "Deep State".
Jon, you guys who suspect some sort of small "c" conspiracy involving perhaps a rogue element in the CIA should be furious at Stone's recklessness. He makes your side look foolish with all this nonsense. Instead of giving him a standing ovation you should be jeering him. The entire JFK conspiracy cause went haywire after Garrison's poison. And you've never recovered.

As to the Cold War: I think it's absolutely false to argue that the US caused the Cold War to last longer than it did. Did our policies unnecessarily contribute to it? Of course, our hands weren't clean. And absolutely false to say "both sides" caused it to start. The US dramatically dismantled the military after the war; if the MIC was so powerful how did they let that happen? It was only Stalin's betrayals at Yalta, the Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe, the attempted subversion of the West, that caused the conflict. Why did the countries in Western Europe go along with this? It wasn't just the US that felt threatened by Moscow. We had troops there with the approval of those governments; the USSR had troops in Eastern Europe after installing puppet governments.

During the war the Soviets had hundreds of agents and assets spying on the US, infiltrating the highest levels of the government, stealing atomic secrets. Meanwhile, FDR and the US had no covert agents at all in the USSR.

Shorter: No Stalin, no Cold War. Or a much smaller version of it.

You're reading what the US did - the Dulles et cetera (cf. Dulles and Beria) - and ignoring what the Soviets and Chinese were doing that precipitated those actions. This is like Howard Zinn's history where he cites what the US did and never includes the policies of Moscow and others. I certainly don't want to re-fight the origins and causes of the Cold War here <g>.

One final note: the idea that JFK was opposed to these policies, was some sort of critic of US opposition to the Soviets is frankly groundless. I don't think there's a whiff of evidence that as Stone and Garrison argue he was going to "end" the conflict. Or pull out of Vietnam. Or make nice with Castro. That's all part of this mythical JFK as Camelot. JFK was a hard-headed realist who, yes, wanted to avoid conflict with the Soviets, but who recognized the existential danger they posed to us.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2021, 07:27:23 PM
Jon, you guys who suspect some sort of small "c" conspiracy involving perhaps a rogue element in the CIA should be furious at Stone's recklessness. He makes your side look foolish with all this nonsense. Instead of giving him a standing ovation you should be jeering him. The entire JFK conspiracy cause went haywire after Garrison's poison. And you've never recovered.

The vast majority of the public disagrees, according to polling on opinions of the JFK assassination. Anywhere from 60-80% of Americans believe Oswald didn't act alone. I'm aware that there's a range of opinions among CT-believers about "Who" killed JFK (not everyone agrees with Stone's thesis). But the "who did it" doesn't really matter as long as the truth seems ambiguous to most people.

Now it's fair to say that Stone, and most JFK researchers on the CT side, has lost the respect of corporate media in the US but as I said earlier, the corporate or mainstream media isn't as relevant today as it once was.

In Stone's case, it's not just his opinions on the Kennedy assassination but also his coziness with autocrats like Vladimir Putin which has caused many Liberals in Hollywood to turn against him (especially since the 2016 election). Some of the mixed reviews on the new movie bring up Stone's films about Putin and Castro as if those things are even relevant to the new film.

So the fact that JFK Revisited is being ignored by most of the mainstream media (except for USA Today) doesn't surprise me at all.

One concern that I had about JFK revisited was that it would be mostly based on Jim DiEugenio's book, "Destiny Betrayed". I was pleased to see that there was only a brief mention of Garrison's investigation in the new movie.

As to the Cold War: I think it's absolutely false to argue that the US caused the Cold War to last longer than it did. Did our policies unnecessarily contribute to it? Of course, our hands weren't clean. And absolutely false to say "both sides" caused it to start. The US dramatically dismantled the military after the war; if the MIC was so powerful how did they let that happen? It was only Stalin's betrayals at Yalta, the Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe, the attempted subversion of the West, that caused the conflict. Why did the countries in Western Europe go along with this? It wasn't just the US that felt threatened by Moscow. We had troops there with the approval of those governments; the USSR had troops in Eastern Europe after installing puppet governments.

We'll have to agree to disagree on most of those points. I also think you're downplaying or underestimating the power of Threat Inflation in US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

It's the biggest flaw we have and contributed to the massive failures in US foreign policy since the Bush II years. heck, it contributed to most of the mistakes the US made abroad since the Vietnam war.

Afterall, the MIC is a huge bureaucracy and bureaucracies have to find ways to justify their existence.



You're reading what the US did - the Dulles et cetera - and ignoring what the Soviets and Chinese were doing that precipitated those actions. This is like Howard Zinn's history where he cites what the US did and never includes the policies of Moscow and others. I certainly don't want to re-fight the origins and causes of the Cold War here <g>.

Well I asked if you read any books on the Dulles brothers because that's the key to understanding the behavior of post-WWII US national security policy.

Even if you don't agree with Stone that the MIC killed JFK, those institutions did do a lot of bad things at home and abroad in the name of ideology and protecting the interests of American elites. So I think Stone is right to distrust those institutions but wrong to assume that they played a role in JFK's murder. Short of the JFK assassination (which remains unsolved imo), there's plenty to criticize regarding how MIC related institutions behave at home and abroad.

But JFK Revisited is still a great doc even if there's some things in it that I disagree with.

One final note: the idea that JFK was opposed to these policies, was some sort of critic of US opposition to the Soviets is frankly groundless. I don't think there's a whiff of evidence that as Stone and Garrison argue he was going to "end" the conflict. Or pull out of Vietnam. Or make nice with Castro. That's all part of this mythical JFK as Camelot. JFK was a hard-headed realist who, yes, wanted to avoid conflict with the Soviets, but who recognized the existential danger they posed to us.

That's a debate for another day. Regardless of why they were killed, I believe both Kennedy brothers were evolving by the early-60s and JFK showed sympathy towards anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia from the start of his Presidency beginning with his outrage about the murder of Patrice Lumumba.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 23, 2021, 07:32:16 PM
Standing ovation for Stoneís film at Cannes.

Rising User Review Ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.

Ordinary people who have watched the film have given it rave reviews.

More proof that Film Critics and the Mainstream media in general are irrelevant today.

Ordinary people don't give a crap about the JFK assassination
The people are standing because they are leaving
The clapping is token

You lot are the irrelevant ones
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Richard Smith on November 23, 2021, 07:48:15 PM
Standing ovation for Stoneís film at Cannes.


Rising User Review Ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.

Ordinary people who have watched the film have given it rave reviews.

More proof that Film Critics and the Mainstream media in general are irrelevant today.

The same folks who clapped for Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski.  A woke crowd enamored of fame rather a display of any merit with Stone's looney JFK theories.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on November 23, 2021, 08:40:56 PM
Ordinary people don't give a crap about the JFK assassination
The people are standing because they are leaving
The clapping is token

You lot are the irrelevant ones

Not as irrelevant as your goofy posts about Oswald...
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 23, 2021, 09:33:49 PM
Not as irrelevant as your goofy posts about Oswald...

Tell us us how posting sworn testimony is goofy
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Dan O'meara on November 24, 2021, 07:45:39 AM
Tell us us how posting sworn testimony is goofy

Sworn testimony?

(https://i.postimg.cc/tRK1c9hB/TOO-SOON.png)
   billchapman_hunter of trolls


Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 24, 2021, 11:14:28 AM
Sworn testimony?

(https://i.postimg.cc/tRK1c9hB/TOO-SOON.png)
   billchapman_hunter of trolls

It was Oswald

(https://i.postimg.cc/TPphLbXm/FINALFINAL-NEELY.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Dan O'meara on November 25, 2021, 08:02:34 AM
It was Oswald

(https://i.postimg.cc/TPphLbXm/FINALFINAL-NEELY.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

"It was Oswald"

You said it so it must be true.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Otto Beck on November 25, 2021, 11:41:32 AM
Fake genius.

Fake artist.

Fake quotes.

Next?

Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2021, 01:23:37 PM
"It was Oswald"

You said it so it must be true.

So Oswald didn't say that his head was pasted on someone else's body. Got it.
I saw/said.. you saw/fled.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2021, 01:36:05 PM
Fake genius.

Fake artist.

Fake quotes.

Next?

Fake genius.
_Just ordinary, until now
  You lot retain 'Almost'

Fake artist.
_Graphic design is one of the arts

Fake quotes.
_Artistic license

Next?
_You are, troll
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Otto Beck on November 25, 2021, 04:30:47 PM
ę Last Edit: Today at 01:42:22 PM by Bill Chapman Ľ

Edit?

ROFL
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2021, 09:56:03 PM
ę Last Edit: Today at 01:42:22 PM by Bill Chapman Ľ

Edit?

ROFL

Edit?
_Sure, but I charge $250/per hour

ROFL
_Still throwing up, I see
  Best see a vet

Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Paul May on November 30, 2021, 04:45:52 AM
Just for clarification, not everyone, including myself, agrees with Stone that the entire Military Industrial Complex killed JFK due to his resistance towards escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. Stone is entitled to his own opinion but there's room for other points of view.

Beyond that, both sides are to blame for the start of the Cold War but the US is (arguably) more responsible for it lasting several decades. I'm sure there's more than one interpretation of Cold War history but the TV series you're referring to was written by Historian, Peter Kuznick. Almost all historical events have more than one interpretation and the consensus of historians can change over time. For example, President Ulysses Grant is experiencing a revival in popularity among contemporary historians after spending a century being called one of the worst US Presidents. So it seems perfectly fine and normal to read or watch Kuznick's alternative interpretations of 20th century world history.

Lastly, Stone's opinions on the MIC and US covert ops are based in reality.

It's fair to criticize how much Stone blames Defense and Financial institutions for the evils of the world but the criticisms aren't baseless. After all, it was none other than President Dwight Eisenhower who first warned about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and President Harry Truman after the JFK assassination who called for the CIA to be reined in.

Have you read any of the books on the Dulles brothers? They were the epitome of the "Deep State".

In reality, Eisenhower was warning Americanís about the MICís new chief, JFK. It was JFK who campaigned on the phony missile gap with the soviets and was telling Americanís to build bomb shelters. In his short tenure as POTUS, the MIC became the largest in Americaís history. JFK was a staunch anti communist pillorying Harry Truman while a Senator for losing China to the communists. It would not happen on his watch he told aides.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Dan O'meara on November 30, 2021, 12:50:44 PM
So Oswald didn't say that his head was pasted on someone else's body. Got it.
I saw/said.. you saw/fled.

My bad.
When you said "It was Oswald" I thought you were referring to the false words you'd put in his mouth which you then claimed were "sworn testimony".
So, when you said, "It was Oswald", you weren't referring to your belief Oswald took the shots.
You were referring to what Oswald was reported to have said regarding the BYP.
Just to clear up any confusion - Oswald is reported to have said these things.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 30, 2021, 01:22:53 PM
My bad.
When you said "It was Oswald" I thought you were referring to the false words you'd put in his mouth which you then claimed were "sworn testimony".
So, when you said, "It was Oswald", you weren't referring to your belief Oswald took the shots.
You were referring to what Oswald was reported to have said regarding the BYP.
Just to clear up any confusion - Oswald is reported to have said these things.

I will spoof assassination lore as I please
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jerry Freeman on November 30, 2021, 07:17:43 PM
In reality, Eisenhower was warning Americanís about the MICís new chief, JFK. 
Whoa that's a laugher :D
(https://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Depositphotos_265384346_l-20151.jpg)
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on November 30, 2021, 08:14:49 PM
In reality, Eisenhower was warning Americanís about the MICís new chief, JFK. It was JFK who campaigned on the phony missile gap with the soviets and was telling Americanís to build bomb shelters. In his short tenure as POTUS, the MIC became the largest in Americaís history. JFK was a staunch anti communist pillorying Harry Truman while a Senator for losing China to the communists. It would not happen on his watch he told aides.

I agree that Kennedy was no ďdoveĒ but he also wasnít the biggest Hawk in his time.

It was perceived in Kennedyís time that Johnson was the bigger anti-Communist.

Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Paul May on November 30, 2021, 10:10:07 PM
Whoa that's a laugher :D
(https://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Depositphotos_265384346_l-20151.jpg)

Why?
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 30, 2021, 10:55:18 PM
Why?
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?

It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interests of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy too much.

In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

Not exactly a peacenik <g>.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 30, 2021, 11:17:19 PM
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?

It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interest of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy.

In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

Not exactly a peacenik <g>.

'atheistic in character'
_Sounds exactly like CTer fare:
  Nothing is knowable
  Nothing is provable
  Nothing is believable

Further:

Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Rick Plant on December 01, 2021, 01:20:15 AM
'atheistic in character'
_Sounds exactly like CTer fare:
  Nothing is knowable
  Nothing is provable
  Nothing is believable

Further:

Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham

When solid evidence reveals the truth people want to claim it's a "hoax". The same exact tactic Criminal Donald and the right uses when damaging evidence comes out against them. They claim "hoax" so they can dismiss the truth.       
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on December 01, 2021, 03:53:10 AM
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?

It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interests of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy too much.

In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

Not exactly a peacenik <g>.

As I mentioned in the other thread, Eisenhower gets too much credit for his reluctance the use military force. Covert Ops expanded under his Presidency and he played a big role in the US getting committed to Vietnam (and later lobbied for military escalation during the Johnson years).
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 01, 2021, 05:28:14 PM
In reality, Eisenhower was warning Americanís about the MICís new chief, JFK.
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?
That is because...in reality, he just made that up. The opposite is true however----

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/jfkambushexplanationv5-121227211136-phpapp02/95/jfk-getting-him-to-the-ambush-8-638.jpg?cb=1359235951)


Kennedy actually started off by firing these heads of the deep state but then they got even huh?
Quote
It was JFK who campaigned on the phony missile gap with the soviets and was telling Americanís to build bomb shelters.
Just made that up too.
 
Quote
In his short tenure as POTUS, the MIC Armed Forces became the largest most powerful in Americaís history.
The JFK military spending made the USA military forces second to none it's true ....so what?
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Dan O'meara on December 01, 2021, 06:43:34 PM
I will spoof assassination lore as I please

Fair enough and long may it continue  8)
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Michael Walton on December 01, 2021, 08:33:26 PM
To Jon Banks - everything you're saying here is great. You obviously have critical thinking skills and can analyze things instead of waving them away with a dismissive hand like others in this forum.

As I've said, too, for years is a lot of the folks who simply can't take their thinking further about this case is a result of extreme bias toward the Kennedys. It really does remind me of the ignorance in this country that led up to what happened last January 6. There's a lot of negativity and hatred in this country, on top of ignorance, resulting in folks simply not having the mental capacity to question things.

I just looked at that video and the vast majority of the comments are positive. The funny thing, too, is you don't have to like Stone or Kennedy to not at least question some of the more suspect evidence that was conjured up to railroad Oswald as the killer. You also don't have to accept every single conspiracy out there about this case, and as I'm sure you know, there are some real goofy whoppers out there.

But of course the usual cast of naysayers here say everything is goofy, everything is wrong. The funny thing though is if one of their own was murdered, then it'd be a totally different view. That's the real essence of this case.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 01, 2021, 11:02:59 PM
To Jon Banks - everything you're saying here is great. You obviously have critical thinking skills and can analyze things instead of waving them away with a dismissive hand like others in this forum.

As I've said, too, for years is a lot of the folks who simply can't take their thinking further about this case is a result of extreme bias toward the Kennedys. It really does remind me of the ignorance in this country that led up to what happened last January 6. There's a lot of negativity and hatred in this country, on top of ignorance, resulting in folks simply not having the mental capacity to question things.

I just looked at that video and the vast majority of the comments are positive. The funny thing, too, is you don't have to like Stone or Kennedy to not at least question some of the more suspect evidence that was conjured up to railroad Oswald as the killer. You also don't have to accept every single conspiracy out there about this case, and as I'm sure you know, there are some real goofy whoppers out there.

But of course the usual cast of naysayers here say everything is goofy, everything is wrong. The funny thing though is if one of their own was murdered, then it'd be a totally different view. That's the real essence of this case.

For one thing, there is utterly no evidence of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza

And here's the real essence of this case, Sport:

(https://i.postimg.cc/SRQVbvv9/WALKTALK-2.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on December 02, 2021, 01:04:37 AM
To Jon Banks - everything you're saying here is great. You obviously have critical thinking skills and can analyze things instead of waving them away with a dismissive hand like others in this forum.

As I've said, too, for years is a lot of the folks who simply can't take their thinking further about this case is a result of extreme bias toward the Kennedys. It really does remind me of the ignorance in this country that led up to what happened last January 6. There's a lot of negativity and hatred in this country, on top of ignorance, resulting in folks simply not having the mental capacity to question things.

I just looked at that video and the vast majority of the comments are positive. The funny thing, too, is you don't have to like Stone or Kennedy to not at least question some of the more suspect evidence that was conjured up to railroad Oswald as the killer. You also don't have to accept every single conspiracy out there about this case, and as I'm sure you know, there are some real goofy whoppers out there.

But of course the usual cast of naysayers here say everything is goofy, everything is wrong. The funny thing though is if one of their own was murdered, then it'd be a totally different view. That's the real essence of this case.

Thanks Michael. Great post
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Sean Kneringer on December 02, 2021, 06:30:10 PM
Saint Jack vs. the Eeeeeevil CIA. That about sums it up. And did you notice that they totally skipped the head x-rays when discussing the autopsy? Gee, I wonder why.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on December 02, 2021, 06:41:39 PM
Saint Jack vs. the Eeeeeevil CIA. That about sums it up. And did you notice that they totally skipped the head x-rays when discussing the autopsy? Gee, I wonder why.

I assume the omissions were due to time constraints not dishonesty. They wanted to produce a TV series but Showtime only wanted a two-hour film. There's an extended version coming in February.

Dr's David Mantik and Gary Aguilar, who appear in the film, have disputed the x-rays.

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on December 02, 2021, 10:29:56 PM
If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all.  Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.
I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.

I mentioned before that response by Stone when asked about the smearing of Shaw: he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." My guess is that this is what he and DiEugenio are doing. They think they're fighting a war against the secret "they" that really runs America, to wit, this mix of "deep state" actors and military industrialists and quasi-fascists in Wall Street and elsewhere. And so in such a battle if innocents get hurt that's just the price that will be paid. It's a nasty business; collateral damage will happen.

If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.

I guess if you believe the Cold War was caused by the US, by Truman's policies, by the "national security state" and "military industrial complex" and you think that JFK was going to end all of that - Stone, DiEugenio and the absurd Jim Garrison did - then it makes sense on some level that the assassination was engineered by them. That's providing a twisted sort of motive but never explains how.  In any case, it is sheer nonsense and completely false that the East-West conflict was caused solely or even predominantly by the West. I mean good lord, Josef Stalin a victim?
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Richard Smith on December 02, 2021, 10:39:13 PM
I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.

If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.


Careful or I'm sure some CTer will latch onto this and suggest the CIA is behind Stone's documentary.  I find it astounding as well.  But there are a lot of intelligent people who still believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.  There is no dissuading such people with facts, evidence, or logic because if those concepts had any impact they would not have come to these conclusions in the first place.  It is a faith-based belief system impossible to dissuade with reason.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 02, 2021, 11:07:35 PM
Careful or I'm sure some CTer will latch onto this and suggest the CIA is behind Stone's documentary.  I find it astounding as well.  But there are a lot of intelligent people who still believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.  There is no dissuading such people with facts, evidence, or logic because if those concepts had any impact they would not have come to these conclusions in the first place.  It is a faith-based belief system impossible to dissuade with reason.

The pot just called the kettle black!

There is no dissuading such people with facts, evidence, or logic because if those concepts had any impact they would not have come to these conclusions in the first place.  It is a faith-based belief system impossible to dissuade with reason.

The is one of the best definitions of an LN I have read in a long time.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Otto Beck on December 02, 2021, 11:34:08 PM
Deep discussions between Richard and his sidekick unintentionally produced something of value!
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on December 02, 2021, 11:38:21 PM
Clay Shaw and Jim Garrison are mentioned for maybe 1-2 minutes in the 120 minute version of JFK Revisited.

No one who has watched JFK Revisited can conclude that it covers the same exact stuff as Stoneís 1991 ĎJFKí movie.
Title: Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
Post by: Jon Banks on December 03, 2021, 12:31:47 AM
I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.

I mentioned before that response by Stone when asked about the smearing of Shaw: he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." My guess is that this is what he and DiEugenio are doing. They think they're fighting a war against the secret "they" that really runs America, to wit, this mix of "deep state" actors and military industrialists and quasi-fascists in Wall Street and elsewhere. And so in such a battle if innocents get hurt that's just the price that will be paid. It's a nasty business; collateral damage will happen.

If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.

I guess if you believe the Cold War was caused by the US, by Truman's policies, by the "national security state" and "military industrial complex" and you think that JFK was going to end all of that - Stone, DiEugenio and the absurd Jim Garrison did - then it makes sense on some level that the assassination was engineered by them. That's providing a twisted sort of motive but never explains how.  In any case, it is sheer nonsense and completely false that the East-West conflict was caused solely or even predominantly by the West. I mean good lord, Josef Stalin a victim?

Do I agree with everything Oliver Stone says? No.

But I appreciate how he has used his platform as a world famous Hollywood filmmaker to expose and elevate the JFK research community and other important causes.

After all, it was his 1991 JFK film that moved Congress to do the JFK records Act (which Biden voted for yet hasnít abided by as President).

Stone is an artist first and historian second. Art that gets people to think and discuss difficult subjects is well-done. Art that leads to important legislation is even better than well-doneÖ