On The Trail Of Delusion

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bottom line - the photos are genuine.  They depict Oswald holding the murder weapon and Commie literature (the relevant point).  There may be some debate about who wrote the "Hunter of Fascists" note on the back but it likely wasn't Oswald.  Most believe it was Marina and contrary to your claim she has not been ruled out.  If she didn't do it, that only leaves a couple of folks who had access to this photo and could write in Russian.  Big deal.  What difference does it make unless you think some fantasy conspirator wrote it for some inexplicable reason?  How is that relevant to what the picture depicts?  This is just more rabbit hole nonsense to deflect from the important point.  The photo is genuine and Oswald is holding the murder weapon.   There was understandable reluctance by George DeM and Marina to be associated with these photos.  Awareness of Oswald's bizarre behavior could lend itself to criticism that they should have known he was a potentially violent kook and reported him.  George DeM wanted nothing to do with that.  So maybe he socks his picture away and plays dumb.

Bottom line - the photos are genuine.

No, the bottom line is that there is sufficient reason to consider the story of their making in the official narrative is highly suspect. I had my picture taken once holding a rifle, which belonged to a friend. That photo was not only genuine but also benign. It's all about context and that's where the official narrative is lacking substance.

They depict Oswald holding the murder weapon and Commie literature (the relevant point).

There is no conclusive evidence that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is in fact "the murder weapon". Even if the HSCA photographic experts concluded that the rifle in the photo and the one found on the 6th floor are similar that does not mean they actually are the same one.

There may be some debate about who wrote the "Hunter of Fascists" note on the back but it likely wasn't Oswald.  Most believe it was Marina and contrary to your claim she has not been ruled out.

By repeating this same old BS are you somehow hoping it becomes true? Once again, if Marina had written that text, a simple comparison of her handwriting would be sufficient to make that determination and we would have known about it by now. I'm not sure who these "most" are that you claim believe it was Marina. They are likely a figment of your imagination.

If she didn't do it, that only leaves a couple of folks who had access to this photo and could write in Russian.  Big deal.  What difference does it make unless you think some fantasy conspirator wrote it for some inexplicable reason?

Big deal? Yes, it's a big deal when there is an unknown person involved as it clearly points to the involvement of more persons in a case you claim is a lone nut affair. You understand this, because otherwise you would not keep pushing the BS that Marina wrote the text.

How is that relevant to what the picture depicts?

Pray tell... what does the picture depict that is so important to you? It's just a guy holding a rifle and some magazines, months before the President was assassinated. So, what makes the picture so relevant?

There was understandable reluctance by George DeM and Marina to be associated with these photos.  Awareness of Oswald's bizarre behavior could lend itself to criticism that they should have known he was a potentially violent kook and reported him.  George DeM wanted nothing to do with that.  So maybe he socks his picture away and plays dumb.

I agree that George DeMohrenschildt (and Michael Paine) had good reason not to mention the pictures to the WC or the investigators, but I seriously doubt you and I are thinking about the same reason.

Oh well, at least you have now accepted that George DeMohrenschildt had at least some sort of involvement in matter of the BY photos. 

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

[Fred Litwin]

Bad faith? Where am I wrong in this blog post?

fred

[Jon Banks]

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 Stone’s 1991 ‘JFK’ movie.

[Jon Banks]

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 hasn’t 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-done…

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.

Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?

Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred

Usually Oswald defenders here don't like it when people make claims about him that make him look bad. They examine the claims under the proverbial microscope.

Here we have Stone making claims about Oswald and some alleged connection to a racist like Banister and all of a sudden their high standards of evidence against him disappear.

I know, I know, it's the internet <g>.