Oliver Stone's "JFK"

[smirkymonkey]

I wasn't around during the Kennedy Assassination, and I was still a silly party girl when this movie came out. I watched it for the first time last night and was STUNNED by the similarities between the Power elite then and now. This time, instead of the Mafia & the Cubans it's the Saudis and the Neo-Cons.

I would say this "Vast Right Wing" conspiracy has been going on since at least the Kennedy Administration, if not earlier. And what really struck me is how easily they get away with it and how it is nearly impossible to stop them. It almost makes one want to give up entirely.

First of all, how factual is that movie? Is most of it based on fact or did Stone take "artistic liberties"? Secondly, what are some of the things you remember from the film that seem especially pertinent or poignant during this particular time in our history?

[cheshire]

1. Bush Sr. was in the CIA at that time. They're not called the Bush Crime F

Family for nothing. They are behind many things. I think there is more fact to the movie than fiction.

[smirkymonkey]

6. I know, but there was no mention of him in the film - of course

he is the only one questioned who does not remember his whereabouts on that momentous day in history.

Did Stone not mention George H.W. Bush because he feared retaliation? He must have know about the connection.

[Octafish]

29. Poppy's name was mentioned by De Mohrenschildt...

... the fellah the CIA tapped to monitor and handle Oswald in Dallas. In fact, Poppy Bush and LH Oswald's names, addresses and phone numbers both were listed in De Mohrenschildt's address book. When Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, went to ask him what he knew about the assassination in 1976, De Mohrenschildt took a shotgun to his mouth and blew his brains out.

Regarding Bush, check out this FBI memo dated MINUTES after President Kennedy had been declared dead:



Here's another FBI memo from a few days later in which a "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" briefed J Edgar Hoover about his discussions with pro- and anti-Castro Cubans in Miami regarding the assassination. Wow. Another co-incidence.



SOURCE:

http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm

[UdoKier]

2. It's a lot of both.

If you get the special edition DVD, there is a lot of good documentary stuff.

He took some liberties in the film, but not on the important stuff. And I like the way he sort of leaves it up in the air who was the guilty party(ies) while still giving you a pretty good idea.

I'm surprised he picked this year to do something as apolitical as "Alexander".

[smirkymonkey]

7. Yes, especially when there is such an abundance of

material out there that seems so "up his alley" so to speak.

[bemildred]

3. Since reconstruction, actually.

But you are right, nothing new here.
We are DINO (Democracy in name only).

[zulchzulu]

4. Definite links now go back to November 22nd, 1963

The movie was a bit more entertainment than fact, but it raised many issues that are indeed creepy.

[Morning Dew]

5. CHeck out Robert Groden's JFK Assassination films

you can get it at Best Buy, probably (I did) - it has an extremely clean copy of the Zapruder film.

Watch that and you'll never believe in the "lone gunman got him from the Book Depository building" theory again.

You don't have to listen to anything, just watch. You'll believe your own lying eyes.

[smirkymonkey]

8. Actually, they showed a grainy version of the Zapruder film in

JFK, over and over in slow motion. There is absolutely no way anybody could think it was a lone gunman after watching that. No way.

For some reason, this film just hit me in a way that made me see MIHOP and rigged elections more probable than not. That's just me though. The government is not on our side, that's for sure.

[Morning Dew]

9. I should watch JFK again, it's been a long time.

I bought the Groden documentary just because i happened upon it. I don't really know much about him so I'm not talking him up. This documentary has loads of footage from others on the scene of the assassination that I've never seen before. Very interesting film.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. "Back and to the Left" right?

Sorry but the Zapruder film gives no indication of a second gunman. Conspiracy fantasy.

[demodewd]

52. re:physical evidence

Physical evidence of a gunman(gunmen) to the front of limo is splashed all over the place including on the two police escort motorcyclists riding behind the limo.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. You reserect this post for that?

All of the supposed "evidence" of mulitiple gunmen has been effectively debunked. Most is based on falsehoods and missconseptions anyway.

[Slit Skirt]

67. you do not know the facts...

the only people who are debunking the information as "conspiracy theorists" are the people who have a reason for this info to die...just like now with vote fraud, 9/11 etc...

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. What about the fake moon landing theorists?

So they hava a reason for that info to die too?

[Slit Skirt]

69. what about a fake moon landing?

or how about little green men, or the man on the moon or whatever............what are you possibly talking about...

to clump theories into all one category is ridiculous...

JFK and 9/11 and much of this administration has everything to do with the military/industrial complex....

and YES...people have died over these investigations.

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. Excuse me?

Who's "clumping theories into all on category"????

[tngledwebb]

54. OCT fantasy #1? Film shows JFK'S head snapping backwards and blood

spraying from the back of his skull, and his wife scrambling over the rear of the limo frantically as if searching for something. Otherwise nothing of interest.

[Abe Linkman]

59. Your views seem to be those of someone who is not very familiar...

with the known facts of what happened in Dallas. It might take you a fairly long time to get up to speed on the volumnious research into the assassination of President Kennedy, but I'm 100% confident that your views will change if you do so. Actually, once you become even somewhat knowledgeable, your views will quickly change and your confidence in the
Warren Commission Report will vanish completely.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. But I digress

Abe I admit I don't know much about all the supposed wheeling and dealings that supposedly went on with Oswald the CIA, the Mafia, the Cubans, ect. None are most likely provable and just conjecture, so I focus on the forensic claims that point towards a conspiracy. In almost EVERY case the "evidence" of multiple shooters, magic bullets, and shots from the grassy knoll are all easily debunked. Does that mean there is NO conspiracy? No, but it does mean that those that try to use it as proof of a conspiracy are at best misinformed, and at worst frauds.

[HamdenRice]

10. JFK's assassination is kind of like a Rorschach test

The very existence of the controversy I find creepy, because the leading experts all state unequivocably that Oswald acted alone and was the lone gunman.

Then once you don't believe in the lone gunman theory, then you have to believe so many other things -- like that the greatest Supreme Court justice of the century could be bribed or threatened or convinced to whitewash the assassination, that the CIA was in bed with the mafia, that the entire upper echelons of government could conspire to cover up the assassination, that powerful people still in politics as diverse as Bush sr, Arlene Specter, Gerald Ford, could be involved, etc, etc.

You either believe in the lone gunman theory or you believe in a vast conspiracy. It's like there's no in between.

[bemildred]

11. Actually, that overstates the case.

You can have a small "conspiracy", an effective cover-up, and
a good deal of willful denial and moral cowardice, and you get the
same result. Further, the history of governments is just chock
full of this sort of stuff, and there is plenty of reason to think
our government is just like all the others.

[Morning Dew]

12. Maybe they thought we should "heal and move on"

Sound familiar?

[smirkymonkey]

14. Exactly, and watching that film made this concept very clear to

me. This is why I think Americans are so blind to the possiblity of MIHOP or LIHOP or rigged elections or political assassinations, etc.

Because it is not just the ACT that is in question, it is the ENTIRE power structure, and it is too painful for most people to get their minds around. The whole thing has a way of making one very nihilistic.

[Eloriel]

23. It doesn't really require a vast "conspiracy" -- a lot of what you

identify and name are merely people who were too cowed or perhaps in denial (as so many of our Dems are these days) that they became complicit in the cover-up (intentionally or indadvertently).

After all, put yourself in the place of one of your average, not especially brave of statesmanlike Congressmen: would YOU want to be responsible for the whole country going through an incredible, devastating Constitutional crisis like that? Could the people of America EVER trust their government again if the truth came out?

Further, the forces who were responsible for Kennedy's assassination weren't just isolated, not-very-well-connected, otherwise powerless people at all. If they could get Kennedy, they could get ANYbody, and all the other anybodies with considerable more ease.

It was just a bunch of basically cowardly people thinking they were doing the right thing for the country as a whole, OR perhaps some of them (reacionaries) even glad it happened.

[Minstrel Boy]

37. "you have to believe...that the CIA was in bed with the mafia"

Where have you been?

Do you remember the revelations in the mid-70s of CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro? In 1960 Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell contacted Sam Giancana to get the assassination ball rolling. Lots of made men, like Johnny Roselli, did contract work for the Agency. Roselli told some of his part in the anti-Castro plots to the Church Commission.

Remember what became of Roselli before he was due to testify for a second time? Strangled, cut into pieces and stuffed into a drum off the shore of Miami.

The network of spooks, mobsters and Cubans which came together to kill Castro was turned on Kennedy. It wasn't an ad hoc conspiracy of unlikely partners. It was already in place.

And the strategic allegiance of spooks and crooks goes way back. Think of how Lucky Luciano was sent to Sicily to build up the Mafia after the fall of Mussolini to be a counterweight to communism.

The best book on this nexus is Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK.

[Barney Rocks]

13. It is a fun flick, but

not historically accurate--definitely not to be taken as historically true. If you want to know the facts--read some of the many well-researched books on the subjects--or documentaries.

(What Stone did was just take bits and pieces from several of the most popular conspiracy theories--and he wove them together into a story that sounds pretty entertaining--but does not fit with historical fact--lots of contradictory things--between the different theories he cobbled together and from fact.)

Stone does not attempt to spin his works as historically accurate--he admits that they are entertainment first.

A funnny fact--Stone also did a documentary on Nixon that (like the one on Kennedy) was full of distortions. The two Nixon girls and two Kennedy children (John Jr was still alive at that time) actually talked--they considered getting together and suing Stone for defamation! But the bar is so high for a public figure to prove defamation that they decided not to do it. Wouldn't that have been funny though? The Kennedy and the Nixon kids working together to sue the filmmaker who lied about their families. That would have been a real winner on court tv for sure! (I have a family member who is an attorney--he works for the law firm that considered taking the case!!!)

[Chomp]

15. "JFK" is almost entirely garbage!

Please, don't believe anything in that movie - truly it is a travesty of the truth and is really a quite shockingly innacurate and irresponsible film.

There was a remarkable documentary on BBC TV in the UK last year to mark the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assasination. It completely and authoratively ripped "JFK" to pieces.

Firstly, all the "technical" stuff Garrison/Costner comes out with about the assassination is garbage.

For example, there was no magic bullet. The courtroom scene where Costner is explaining how the bullet had to move in mid air to hit both tagets runs completly contrary to the facts of the case. The relative seating positions of Kennedy and Connolly makes it perfectly possible a single bullett went through both of them in a normal straight line. Any suggestion otherwise is pure fantasy.

Oswald a poor shot? Nonsense. He was a remarkably fine marksman, receiveing glowing reports in his US Army days. Indeed, shooting a gun accurately is about the only thing the miserable sod was any good at in his entire life.

And impossible to get off the requisite number of shots in the requisite time? Again, nonsense. An adequete army marksman could easily, easily get 3 shots off in 7 seconds (or whatever the exact time was).

All that stuff about the bullett planted on Kennedy's stretcher? Garbage. Never happened. No evidence.

Clay Shaw was not the spooky caricature portryed by Tommy Lee Jones. He was fitted up by the maniacal Garrison, who was obsessive and unstable. He willfully suppressed evidence that would have cleared Shaw earlier and which eventually destroyed a decent man.

The film gets fact after fact wrong - the stuff about the Cubans and Shaw, about Ruby and on and on, all garbage.

I'm not saying there aren't strange things about the assassination, but Stone's movie is not the place to start finding the answers.

[Minstrel Boy]

18. You make so many unsupported statements, and get so much wrong,

I don't know where to start. But because I don't have the time, I won't. (And for a first post, no less!)

JFK is a movie. A fictional treatment, and by necessity a simplification.

For those serious about investigating the plot to kill Kennedy here are some titles I recommend:

Probe Magazine anthology - The Assassinations
Peter Dale Scott - Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
John Newman - Oswald and the CIA
Dick Russell - The Man Who Knew Too Much
Gaeton Fonzi - The Last Investigation
Claudia Furati - ZR Rifle: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Castro
Charles Crenshaw - Trauma Room One
Martin Scholtz - History Will Not Absolve Us

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

24. Tsk, tsk

Not a very, um, fortuitous debut at DU. I join Minstrel Boy (who is far more knowledgeable about the details than I) in condemning your take on this. In fact, I have to admit I broke out giggling about halfway through your post.

Smirkymonkey --
I was a sophomore in h.s. when Kennedy was killed. Even tho I wasn't much of a "conspiracy theorist" as we are now called when the Warren Commission released its findings, even I, a naive young woman, thought it was complete bunk.

I myself didn't see Stone's JFK until about a year ago, which was well after I'd seen and participated in many, many JFK assassination threads right here at DU, AND plenty of Bush Crime Family (or Bush Family Evil Empire) threads as well.

While the details may be wrong or inaccurate or fudged or exaggerated, my very, very strong take on the movie (after all my "education" here at DU) was that in overview it was absolutely right on -- stunningly, shockingly so. But then I tend to be a more "overview" or big picture sort of person and don't get too hung up on the details.

Here's another wonderful book to add to Minstrel Boy's list, available online in fact:

Farewell America
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html

It's organized in a somewhat unusual way (which can be a little off-putting), but by a certain point in the book the way it's organized becomes quite an elegant feature of the book, IMO. Well worth reading. In fact, I ought to read it again. The first time around I could only "handle" a little bit at a time -- it weighed very heavy on me emotionally.

[smirkymonkey]

30. Thanks - I was mostly wanting to know if the premise was

basically on track. I expect the details to be a bit off, but I too did not believe the movie was a complete fiction.

It is so much easier for me to believe in a sinister, corrupt government than a benevolent one. Call me cynical, but I pretty much believe along the lines of Stone's version of events, even if he did take some liberties to make it a more coherent story.

Great site, by the way.

[vincent_vega_lives]

47. The problem is

Most of the "facts" presented that the conspircy is based on are faulty.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

[Minstrel Boy]

36. Eloriel, here's another online book you may find interesting:

"The Taking of America, 1-2-3" by Richard E Sprague.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/

Sprague was a consultant to the General Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and served the duration of the committee's life. His expertise was photographic analysis.

While the JFK assassination is the spine of the book, it's really about what Sprague calls the "Power Control Group" which has hijacked America, without most Americans realizing it.

It's about 30 years old, and things have only worsened.

Here's an excerpt from the first chapter (and remember, this guy was counsel to the HSCA):

The taking of America has been both a simple and a very complex process. It has not been the result of a coup d'etat, although some aspects of the process resemble a coup. It has not been a process similar to the dictatorship takeovers in Germany, Italy and other fascist regimes. It has not been a process like the Communist "uprisings" in Russia, Hungary and other Eastern European countries.

The taking of America has been a process unique in the history of the world. The one feature that makes it unique is that what was once the greatest democracy in the world has been taken over by a power control group without the knowledge of most of the American people, their congressional representatives, or the rest of the world.

The group has taken America in this fashion because manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential electoral procedure is enough to control America. Two fiendishly clever stratagems were used to keep the fact that control had been seized from being obvious to the people. The first of these was control of the established media in the dissemination of both true (blocking) and false (flooding) information. The second was the use of clandestine and secret weapons and techniques developed during World War Two and perfected during the Korean and Viet Nam wars. These techniques are so new and unusual as to be unbelievable to most citizens. Thus, the incredibility of such weapons as hypnosis, brainwashing and "programming" of patsies as assassins became a psychological tool in the bag of techniques of the power control group. The average American has shrugged off the possibility of the takeover with the belief that, "That's not possible here."

The use of such weapons, coupled with a tremendous campaign through the controlled media that both whitewashes any signs of conspiracies and spreads disinformation throughout the country, has successfully blocked any serious or official attempts to get at the truth. Unofficial investigators, private researchers, and even Congressional representatives have been ridiculed and completely blocked by both the power control group and their media allies.

[Octafish]

27. So how come Ruby knew that Oswald was in the FPCC?

During the press conference at Dallas Police headquarters, Lee Harvey Oswald was asked if it was true he was a member of the Free Cuba Committee. Jack Ruby, also present in the room, corrected the reporter and said. "No. Fair Play for Cuba Committee." Gee. How would an uninformed bar owner know so much about the newly arrived Oswald and two organizations -- one anti-Castro, the other pro-? Lucky guess, huh?



Jack Ruby at the press conference inside DPHQ.

[KBlagburn]

38. Where The Magic Bullet Theory Really Came From!!!!

If you want to know what garbage is, ask Sen Arlen Spector (Rep) of Penn. It was he, and he alone, who invented the magic bullet theory. He was one of the attorneys working for the Warren Commision. You want to talk about garbage, you only have to look @ the commisions report. Hell they didnt even interview 5 % of the people who were actually there and saw the whole thing. The one mistake stone made was trying to show Clay Shaw was involved. If he had focused soley on proving a conspiracy, he would have blown it out of the water. His focus was simply on the wrong goal.

[WoodrowFan]

42. agreed

most historians agree, it'd get a big fat "F" in any history class.

[smirkymonkey]

16. Wow, that's pretty interesting. However, I don't think the official

story is true either. Maybe somewhere in between the film and the US Government's version lies the truth.

Why would the Kennedy kids want to sue, I don't recall there being anything mentioned in the film that seemed particularly damaging to the Kennedy family?

[Chomp]

17. No Smirkmoney...

...the truth doesn't lie somewhere between the government's version and Stone's version. To concede that would be to wilfully indulge in intellectual dishonesty.

Stone's version has little to do with the truth at all.

In my opinion, the truth lies pretty close to the government version, albeit with a few oddities and inconsistencies floating around the whole sad affair.

While "JFK" might alert the observer to some of these areas of cover-up and inconsistency, almost every "oddity" it reveals has a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Is there is a conspiracy? I have no idea. But Oliver Stone's version? Complete rubbish.


Regards,

David

[smirkymonkey]

19. I will never believe the government's version.

You seem very passionate about this. Why? If you ask me, the conspiracy seems much more plausible than the truth. I'm just not buying it. Sorry.

[Blue_Tires]

20. so what do you think happened, wise sage??

if there was no cover-up?

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. There was a cover up

But not what CTs think. It was a CYA cover up by the SS and Dallas police. Very shallow and not very effective at that.

[WillyT]

34. Curious... What Books Have You Read On The Subject ???

When I saw the movie, I thought it a bit much, but decided to read the two books it was based on. Then I read several more. I don't believe the Warren Commission one whit. As a matter of fact... neither does Congress.

:shrug:

[Baja Margie]

22. I remember vividly

the Kennedy assassination, and my father was following Garrison moves, it was nightly discussion at dinner.

Garrison himself played the judge in the final courtroom scenes.

Stone caught the grist, whether each scene in the film was totally a chronologically correct is up for debate. He did catch the grist though, and they don't want you to believe it. But, I remember all those witnesses just plain vanishing into thin air, I remember the ones who suddenly died of heart attacks and could not testify. I remeber the reports coming out about testimony that was changed in the transcripts. His portrayal of Oswald & Ruby their backgrounds & connections were totally accurate. His portrayal of the Cuban Freedom Fighters was totally accurate. His portrayal of the witnesses was totally accurate. His assessment of why they wanted to get rid of JFK was totally accurate. His assessment of government, Mafia involvement was totally accurate. The portrayal of Oswald's movements prior to , during and apprehension afterwards were accurate, as was the locale of the government buildings.

People were really scared after the assassination, scared and they just couldn't believe it.They painted Garrison as a nut, pure & simple.

[Eloriel]

26. Good summation

IMO.

Do you mean "gist" instead of "grist" (not to be nitpicky or anything, LOL)?

[Baja Margie]

28. Yea, sorry, 2nd day of Migrane Headache.

[Eloriel]

33. Ooo, sorry to hear that

And I also apologize for the nitpickiness. As a rule I don't bother people about stuff like that, but in this case, it was such an astute and articulate post otherwise, you had me going, "What is that word? Is 'grist' something I don't know about?" LOL.

Feel better.

[smirkymonkey]

31. Thanks for your input - those are exactly the kinds of things

I wanted to know.

It must have been an interesting time to live through. And people were probably so much more trusting of government back then. I think Garrison was a pretty brave man to push for the truth. I also noticed his name in the credits and was quite shocked that he was still alive! :)

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Garrison was a media whore, and a NUT case

In 1952, Jim Garrison was relieved of duty in the National Guard. Doctors at the Brooke Army Hospital in Texas diagnosed him as suffering from a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis" which "interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked degree." The evaluation further said that Garrison "is considered totally incapacitated from the standpoint of military duty and moderately incapacitated in civilian adaptability," and recommended long-term psychotherapy. See Case Closed, p. 423.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon2.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon3.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon4.htm

[smirkymonkey]

50. Yeah, that's what they say about anybody who speaks out

against the establishment.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. Umm. When did he "speak out" In 1952???? n/t

You know of course that Kennedy was shot wellafter1952?

[vincent_vega_lives]

83. On Garrison

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bigjim.html

"For those who have forgotten or are too young to remember," Dallas Morning News reporter Jon Margolis wrote in May 1991, "Garrison was the bizarre New Orleans district attorney who, in 1969, claimed that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy by some officials of the Central Intelligence Agency." "Garrison even managed to put one hapless fellow on trial for his role in this alleged conspiracy," Margolis continued. "Having no case, Garrison lost in court."(1)

Washington Post reporter George Lardner, Jr., who had covered Garrison's JFK probe in the late 1960s, received an early draft of the JFK screenplay and promptly weighed in with his opinion. ". . . Oliver Stone is chasing fiction," he wrote. "Garrison's investigation was a fraud."(2)

In Time, Richard Zoglin called Garrison "a wide-eyed conspiracy buff," "somewhere near the far-out fringe of conspiracy theorists, but Stone seems to have bought his version virtually wholesale."(3)


Author and pioneering researcher Harold Weisberg had been one of Garrison's staunchest allies throughout the two years of the DA's assassination probe. Like countless others, he accepted at face value Garrison's deadpan assurances that the evidence he had chosen to reveal publicly, such as the testimony of Perry Raymond Russo, was only the tip of the iceberg. His real case, the DA asserted, was being preserved in secrecy for the trial.(7) When Weisberg learned on the eve of the Clay Shaw trial that, in fact, Perry Russo was and had always been Garrison's entire case against Shaw, the Whitewash author realized he had been conned.(8)

Weisberg made a vociferous effort to talk Stone out of using Garrison as his film's protagonist. When his direct entreaties failed, it was Weisberg who handed the first draft of Stone's script over to George Lardner at the Post.(9) In a letter to the filmmaker, Weisberg wrote bitterly, "You have every right to play Mack Sennett in a Keystone Kops Pink Panther, but as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."(10)

"Jim Garrison's investigation was a fraud," Weisberg would later tell CBS television.(11) For Oliver Stone "o do a mishmash like this out of love for the victim and respect for history?" Weisberg remarked to George Lardner. "I think people who sell sex have more principle."(12)

Such nonsense was the rule, not the exception, with Jim Garrison, who obsessed over what he called his "propinquity theory," his belief that conspirators could be identified because they lived in close proximity to one another (or, as Patricia Lambert describes it, "a geographical twist on guilt-by-association.") "Suspects" were called into the DA's office for questioning simply because they had once lived on the same street or block as Lee Oswald, David Ferrie, or Clay Shaw. If someone was acquainted with one of these men and once lived near another of them, it meant something, even if the DA never quite figured out what. Several such individuals are named in Jim Garrison's 1988 memoirs, despite never having been proven to have even a significant association with any of the DA's alleged suspects, much less a connection to the President's assassination.(36)

". . . Garrison had a peculiar attribute that became clear, with almost pathological enormity, in the two years before Shaw was taken to trial," writes James Phelan, who became one of Garrison's most damaging critics. "He had a lively imagination in postulating possible scenarios of what had happened in the Kennedy assassination, using circumstantial evidence and supposition. Such an approach is common among puzzle-solvers, whether prosecutorial or journalistic. In its simplest form, if A knows B and B knows C, it is sensible to examine whether C had any dealings with A, and if so, whether they had any bearing on the matter being explored. Where Garrison departed from the norm was that once he had established an ABC relationship, even by circumstance and without any substantive evidence, it became set in concrete. Instead of testing a postulate against the evidence, and discarding it if it didn't fit, he persisted in trying to hammer the evidence into a shape that would fit his postulate."(37)

Garrison himself helped clarify his line of reasoning in discussions he had with researcher David Lifton. He told Lifton that "his office had established an ironclad link between Ruby and Oswald. As evidence, he cited the fact that a Ft. Worth telephone number, PE 8-1951, was listed in Oswald's address book and also was found on Ruby's phone bill." Lifton looked it up and found that the telephone number, as indicated in Oswald's address book, was for television station KTVT, Channel 11, in Fort Worth, Texas.

When Lifton confronted Garrison with this fact the following day, Garrison "became very truculent and annoyed," Lifton reports. "David, stop arguing the defense," he told the researcher. "But what does it mean, Jim?" Lifton asked. "Is there someone at the TV station whom you can prove knew both men?" "It means whatever the jury decides it means," the DA replied, adding, "Law is not a science." "But what do you think, Jim?" Lifton persisted. "What is the truth of the matter?" "His answer is one I will never forget," Lifton writes. Garrison said, "with considerable annoyance and contempt": "After the fact, there is no truth. There is only what the jury decides."

Just some juicy tid-bits...

[tngledwebb]

55. All links to the same disinfo site!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tngledwebb]

57. And the same in return.

Or do you ALWAYS accept every OCT on the books w/o question? Btw JFK was my president, not yours, and I doubt you were even born at the time... So why don't YOU put up some evidence? Or let VVR answer.

Or better yet, just 'shut up' yourself, and be grateful you're still safe in ol' blighty, with good gun control laws, the BBC, a good NHS, and where fraudulent elections don't happen every four years- at least not yet.

[vincent_vega_lives]

58. convenient

A collection of pics, and original reports.

Feel free to debunk the "disinfo".

[demodewd]

62. Abe

Abe Lincoln suffered from severe depression bouts.Lets throw to the dogs his contribution and credibility also.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Thought you were talking about Abe Linkman

That would make sense.

[Octafish]

25. People of Peace lost its leader. Party of War won a battle.

Many important things about JFK movie: Stone called it "counter-myth" created in order to get people to think, consider and realize that the Warren Commission did not hold up. The movie made clear that JFK had many enemies inside the government as well as outside. Most of all, the film introduced the nation (counter to what Chomsky has said for 41 years) to the idea that JFK was a man of peace who was killed by people who wanted war.

The film covered the work of one important historian who did groundbreaking work on what happened in Dallas, Major John Newman (USA, ret.). A former West Point instructor and now a professor at U Maryland, Newman uncovered the National Security Action Memorandum 263 that showed JFK wanted US military OUT of Vietnam by the end of 1963. MacArthur had warned Kennedy the US could NOT win a land war in southeast Asia.

He also discovered another document, NSAM 273, dated a week after the assassination, that detailed a complete reversal of policy. LBJ made it official policy that the United States would do whatever was necessary to ensure the survival of the government of South Vietnam. Gee. When the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" rolled around we just HAD to bomb the North. The Marines landed the following year.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm

An excellent overview:

http://history-matters.com/index.htm

[smirkymonkey]

32. So essentially, they didn't just assasinate JFK, but the

soliders in Vietnam and the Vietnamese people. What sickness we have at the highest levels of government.

[Eloriel]

35. And let's not forget

They used to call LBJ "the Senator from Brown & Root."

B&R is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, still profiting handsomely because of THIS war...etc., etc., etc.

IOW: Same song, second verse, only worse.

[bobbieinok]

39. Brown and Root made a lot of $$ in VN+was investigated for poor

quality work

my recollection of my view at the time is that the media as a whole and thus the population turned against the war when the corporations decided they'd made all the $$ they could in VN

[smirkymonkey]

41. The plot thickens....

It's very depressing to feel so powerless against this right-wing octopus. I feel my idealism melting down into hardcore cynicism, and I really don't want that to happen.

[Eloriel]

43. Well, there's something to be said for REALISM

Unfortunately, that seems to require a little cynicism (or a lot).

You don't want to be some starry-eyed dreamer. But it is a rough road, from idealism to some sort of (cynical) realism, and I sympathize.

The most important thing is that we are NOT powerless. I assure you. And one of the first rules of negotiating is: you have as much power as you think you have; and the other side has as much power as you think it has.

We will NOT lose this fight, especially as we all educate ourselves, do that unhappy emotional work of letting go of our idealism (but NOT our ideals), and figure it out -- that it's up to us 'cause no one else is going to come "save" us or democracy.

You've got a lot of people to travel the road with you, smirkymonkey. We'll all do fine. And we WILL win, I promise:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Always. -- Gandhi

[smirkymonkey]

44. Thanks, that's heartening.

I think I am letting all the bad news really get to me lately and I am finding myself skidding toward nihilism. I just have to pull out of this tailspin. Thanks for your words of wisdom. :)

[tngledwebb]

60. Camus wrote- Despair is one sin we are not permitted.

The poet Basho wrote- 'Now that my house has burned down, I can see the rising of the moon.'

[Abe Linkman]

61. The late ROBBIE Basho created incredible music on his 12 string. n/t

n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

81. If you insist on beliving there is an octopus...

you are lost. When you realize people are just people, with good and ill intentions, hopes, dreams, families, flaws and failures like everyone else, liberal/conservative, left/right, then you realize the notion of a monolithic human entity is just an illusion.

[tngledwebb]

40. I remember in my pre-skeptic life

the film being trashed on Letterman or Leno by Penn and Teller as total lies. I wasn't a Stone fan so I passed on it for a few years. But after seeing it I found it put a lot of pieces together with more 'truth' than most history based fims. And because thousands of Americans finally saw the Zapruder film in glorious color, they wrote to re-open the investigation one more time. Now I like Penn and Teller even less than before and wonder how much JFK OCT'ers like them got paid to pan the film on national tv.

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. JFK: One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment

If you have time you should check out this info.


JFK, Oliver Stone's controversial movie on the murder of President John F. Kennedy, championed the assassination probe of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, and accused elements of the federal government of conspiracy in JFK's death.
But whether one believes that a conspiracy took the President's life or not, how trustworthy and accurate is the information presented in Stone's film?

The JFK 100 details one hundred of the most egregious errors in Stone's film, presented roughly in order of appearance.


http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

My bigest gripe is how Stone portrayed Clay Shaw.

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. Umbrella Man

Here's a good example of one!

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100tum.html

So Oliver Stone's theory is that an extra man was placed in plain sight in Dealey Plaza, pumping an umbrella open and closed over his head on a sunny afternoon, so he could signal the shooters when to shoot or not shoot, despite the fact that any shooter in an elevated position with a telescopic site would have a far better view of the President than anyone at street level.
For some reason, Oliver Stone does not inform the viewer that the "Umbrella Man," as he has become known, was identified in 1978 by the House Select Committee investigating the assassination. His name is Louie Steven Witt.

Mr. WITT. . . . It had something to do with . . . when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime Minister , some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. By association, it got transferred ot the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind. . . . This was in a conversation somewhere at work. I wish that I could remember now who brought the subject up and put this idea in my head. I am sure that I would have taken that umbrella and clouted him over the head somewhere in this last 2 or 3 weeks.(5)


Instead of beating a hasty retreat, Witt
sits down on the curb as newsmen appear

[MrSammo1]

45. Mr X

If you would like to hear more from "Mr X" from the JFK movie. You can here.

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives.html

Some interesting stuff here!

[Endangered Specie]

66. It is completely innacurate.

Artistic liberties and poetic license doesn't begin to describe it.

I am amazed at how people believe so much what they see in the movies, but then again they don't call America stupid for nothing.

[tngledwebb]

70. What's your take on the JFK assassination?

Or on RFK, or MLK, or Wellstone or any similar assassination CT? Any questions, any answers? I am certain that Oswald did not act alone, was not the lone gunman, and if the US government hasn't been able to figure out who else was involved after 3 investigations and forty years, we have a big problem.

[Abe Linkman]

71. Oswald was just a Patsy. He didn't shoot or shoot at JFK.

LHO was set up and framed beginning while he was stationed at Astugi, in Japan.

[tngledwebb]

73. Still wondering what ES thinks.

But I agree with LHO/patsy angle.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. Now I don't know if Oswald was on his own...

but one thing I am certain of is that he was the one that fired those three shots. And NO evidence of the contrary has ever held up with out the help of poor analysis and falsehoods.

[tngledwebb]

76. Any other questions ever give you pause?

Ever think that your Govt and/or its investigative bodies might tell us lies? Any recent examples spring to mind?

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Whether the "guvment" lies is irrelevant.

First off. The Federal "Govt" (I assume you are not referring to State and local) is not a monolithic body. It is made up of hundreds of agencies, all with competing agendas, loyalites, duties, budgets, oversight, authority, and responsibilty. Those agencies are made up of thousands of individuals, each with different backgrounds, levels of education, hopes, dreams, ambitions, loyalties, ethics, morals, and agendas.

Now take in fact that the government that was in place during the JFK assasination is NOT the same government that exists today.

Consider that it is impossible for the "Govt" to lie. Individuals lie. Agencies lie. But the fact that one individual or agency lied in the past does not accuratley imply anything when considered in the context from 1962 to 2004.

[tngledwebb]

79. You haven't answered the question.

A yes or no will suffice.

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. I could give you a simple yes or a no

But the question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

"does the government lie" is like asking, "do husbands beat their wives"

Of course they do but it does not mean all do.

[tngledwebb]

84. Dare I suggest the question IS relevant? Just do it anyway, for fun.

All us p/t 'amateur' investigators, even without legal or aviation experience, or a website link to Drexel U., or the exciting experience of f/t living working and driving in D.C, or even Cleveland, might just understand a simple yes or no answer.

Ask a yes/no question in return, if you wish. I'm ready.

[MercutioATC]

82. Wellstone? He wasn't assassinated, his plane crashed.

Oh, right....everything's a big conspiracy....

...sorry, I forgot.


:tinfoilhat: