Author Topic: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg  (Read 1120 times)

Offline Fred Litwin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« 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

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #1 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

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.

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2021, 03:59:41 PM »
Standing ovation for Stone’s 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.



Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 10:22:08 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #4 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".


« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 05:34:10 PM by Jon Banks »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #5 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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 07:44:45 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #6 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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 08:25:51 PM by Jon Banks »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5446
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2021, 07:32:16 PM »
Standing ovation for Stone’s 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
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 07:34:30 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2021, 07:48:15 PM »
Standing ovation for Stone’s 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.

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
« Reply #9 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...
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 08:41:25 PM by Jon Banks »

 

Mobile View