Anthony Thorne

Dylan Avery's new film, online in a few days.

From the clips it looks like the title points back to James Douglass' JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, redirecting the focus towards the events of 2001.

The hardcover is here if you need to look further.

https://archive.org/details/legendsecretworl00epst/page/n7/mode/2up

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Good question, why is Vox doing this at this time?  Also, why did Abrams publish his book now and why did Woolsey publish his book now.

 

Good question.

The narrator and director of the piece is Coleman Lowndes. He worked (2013-2015) for Media Matters for America, a non-profit org (funded by somebody) that specialised in attacking conservatives. Fair enough.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/colemanlowndes

Hany Farid, the 'Professor at University of California, Berkeley', is also a 'Senior Advisor' to the Counter Extremism Project. The CEO of that outfit, Bush appointee Mark Wallace, is also the CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which has Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo, and R. James Woolsey as members.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20171025/106544/HHRG-115-FA13-Bio-WallaceM-20171025.pdf

Hany Farid is also an advisor to the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity, which I'm sure means well for everyone. The Executive Director of that, Ann Cleaveland, was previously a director for the Climateworks Foundation, which has Nancy Lindborg on the board. Lindborg is CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, set up by weapons profiteer and Team B funder David Packard, who spent a lot of the early 80's on boards and reports and commissions urging new weapons expenditures. R. James Woolsey was on a lot of those commissions alongside him.

So nice company Farid keeps. Without being able to pinpoint exactly who said what to Vox, or who asked Farid to give his expert opinion, I think the Vox piece is junk with an agenda, which everyone here guessed already.

That stuff is typical of The Guardian.

Dylan Avery's new feature film THE UNSPEAKABLE releases online next week. I'm not sure if this is the forthcoming Avery feature I heard about on the grapevine. He may well have another one on the way besides this one. Rosie O'Donnell will be doing a live Q&A with Avery and some of the interviewees when it launches.

https://www.ae911truth.org/theunspeakable?fbclid=IwAR1rtncDN6LDM1Uw3pyx15Iflmm04ax_k1qr0IsvZCLqv5Y4ImseW3fcd9w

Zelikow was also on the National Security Council Principals Committee (NSC/PC) when Allison was involved in the NSC as well, and he then followed Allison to the same department at Harvard. The NSC/PC is the 'senior interagency forum for consideration of policy affecting national security', which should give you an idea of their outlook on planning the future directions of the Pentagon, the national security state, and the military industrial complex, all of which had reps deeply wired into Allison's group at Harvard.

The NSC/PC also has the autonomy of making decisions without Presidential approval. It was set up as an adjunct of the regular NSC, so it could cover stuff in a hurry without having to bother the President about it. In reality, this also gave the group free reign to go behind the President's back, if they wanted to. 

The rewrite was co-written with Philip Zelikow, a protege of May’s who became a fixture in Allison’s department.

From the discussions of it I saw when it came out, it doesn’t go that route. Lee’s 30 minutes on AE9/11 was clearly much more explicit on the topic, until Lee was attacked and forced to censor his work.

I still find it amazing that an Oscar winner’s follow up documentary was largely derided by a group of people who have never made a film in their lives.

To my knowledge, Stone still hasn't had a public moment in the sun disputing the official 9/11 story. Which I don't mean to note as a slam against him, as it's been that way for a while. But if he's ever said anything beyond the above, I missed it. And even Spike Lee managed a paragraph or two of dissent against the official story before his documentary took a hit.

I'll need to (re) dig up the references and data to cite it accurately, but when I was going through the post WW2 background of Dulles, McCloy, the CFR, the Rockefeller Foundation and various WW2 armaments interests late last year, the who-was-doing-what-and-when stuff I wrote down had McCloy higher up the chain, for decades, than Dulles was, and Dulles was frequently working for various interests where Dulles was on a panel of ten guys, but McCloy was the chair. This was the pattern for a great long while. And if you view Dulles (as some have already suggested) as being the front guy for a bigger group of interests, it makes sense, as does the smirking presence of McCloy on the Warren Commission.

A couple of years after the JFK assassination, the Pentagon and a few folk put together a study group to discuss (over a long year or two) what had gone wrong during the Cuban missile crisis. Andrew Marshall, later the 'Yoda' at the Pentagon who gave the neocons top level advice for decades, was a key figure. The group settled down at Harvard, and conducted sessions run by Ernest May, who had been the official historian for the Joint Chiefs during the 50's, and who remained a trusted Pentagon advisor for decades afterwards. The group was informally known as 'the May group', as he was nominally the head of it.

May's assistant during the sessions, the guy who kept notes and took records and opened discussions, was Graham Allison, and the Pentagon was so happy with his work that they funded a special new department at Harvard, paid for a new building there, let Allison approve the architecture, and put Allison in charge of the department, where he remained as head or co-head or Dean for the next three or four decades, in-between his stints on the National Security Council and serving as a top advisor to Dick Cheney.

Edward Epstein's (later) Harvard advisors were involved in the study group discussions, and Epstein, the INQUEST author who later became the turncoat who attacked JFK assassination researchers, was then taken under their wing when he went to Harvard in the late 60's. 

John McCloy was a high-level supporter of Allison's department at Harvard - the Kennedy School of Government - and appears (by name and photographically) in offical histories of it. Thereafter through the 70's and onwards, the Kennedy School served as a training ground for incipient Pentagon folk who were picked to have a bright future ahead of them, guys who understood the party line and the overall thrust of what the military industrial complex was pushing for. Allison thereafter also had his pick of retiring Pentagon folk to serve on the staff there, with a lot of applicants putting their hands up. And Allison's coterie of specialised experts wired into the national security state were kept busy in an active advisory capacity through the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and beyond.

I was curious to find out what the African American community thinks about the censorship of one of their most prominent filmmakers.

I've found it nearly impossible to encounter any commentary from that area discussing it. EBONY and VIBE magazine show nothing. Youtube either has mainstream news headlines announcing that Lee was criticised for covering the topic, or nothing. Twitter is the same.

Youtube used to feature lots of channels of people discussing current events. Possibly it still does. But individual commentary on the censorship of Lee seems to be absent, possibly because it has also been censored.

I don’t think HBO cared either way, initially. From memory, they allowed or screened one or two of Dylan Avery’s Loose Change films, which are 100% truther content. But these are easily categorised away by debunkers, and were at the time.

Lee has won an Oscar, has a following, and is now a major filmmaker that demands attention. That’s a different kettle of fish. I follow alternative media reasonably closely and I don’t think anyone was aware Lee had gone down the 9/11 conspiracy rabbit hole until Lee mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. This required an immediate response from the foot soldiers of the mainstream media, which is what happened.

It takes many weeks, months, to put together a quality documentary. I’m guessing Lee would have spent quite a while immersed in the AE9/11 side of things to give them a major closing position in his documentary. As would his editors, sound mixers, color graders, camera people, crew. (Many of those people likely still have copies of the final extended cut btw, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the full version circulates privately). 
 

But we’re less than a fortnight away from probably a thousand anniversary articles commemorating the anniversary, and having Lee initiate a major conversation on what went down that day wasn’t at all welcome. So pressure came from somewhere, and he was stopped. 

Lee should have let the critics just have access to the first three episodes. And the final episode should have premiered for the critics and the public on the night of 9/11. 

I wondered the same thing. And you have to wonder how many film reviewers out there (perhaps even for smaller publications) are alert and sensitive to what Lee was detailing in his overall story about NYC, versus those who are just trying to put their hands up for bigger paycheques from the national security state. I'm assuming we'll see the episode eventually, but I'd like to see it sooner rather than later.

Since the segment was edited and completed, it'd be a real shame if we never get to see it.

Lee's documentary on Katrina had (from memory) extra material on the DVD release.

HBO should indulge Spike and let him put the full version on physical media, for either DVD or Blu-Ray. Or if not, someone should leak it.

David. I'm sending you a PM.

43 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Anthony,

      Thanks for making my point.

      I specifically mentioned IndieWire and Deadline in my lead post on this thread.  And by, "mainstream media," I'm referring to the major media corporations in the U.S.-- including major newspapers like NYT, WaPo, LA Times, USA Today, Huffington, et.al., along with mainstream news sources like Time, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, et.al.  

      All of these major media corporations have blacked out any references to things like CIA Operation Timber Sycamore, (in Syria) with the exception of a single unedited comment on MSNBC by Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

     The real question I'm raising here is whether the 21st century iteration of CIA Operation Mockingbird, as described by the late Udo Ulfkotte, is still operational in the mainstream U.S. media.  I think it is.

     In the case of 9/11, the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years.  The American public is living in a bubble of unreality.

     Blogs and alternative news websites have focused on these blacklisted issues, but, as in the case of the bona fide JFK assassination research, they have been marginalized and misrepresented by the major media corporations.

    

    

Do Huffington, USA Today, CBS etc usually do coverage of documentaries premiering at Cannes? Not too often, I would have thought. Film journals do. Those film journals have covered it. 

More to the point, do those same mainstream outlets usually - or ever - cover CIA operations like the one you cited? I'm not sure what you're anticipating from them. They probably employ lots of CIA assets, and occasionally print stories that have been vetted or approved by the CIA. By the same token - who still reads them, or watches them? The Joe Rogan show on Youtube has been receiving 3 million or 4 million views per episode, and he's given a couple of hours uninterrupted to Oliver Stone, to Abby Martin, to the author of CHAOS, and to other counter-cultural figures. The younger generation are far more likely to watch him, than they are to watch ABC or NBC. There's a funny clip online where Bill Maher is on Rogan's show, and Maher basically begs Rogan to appear on his Real Time show, and Rogan chuckles and isn't that enthusiastic about it.

If (probably when) Stone's documentary comes out in the US, I'm sure there will be more coverage of it, including a few of the big traditional outlets you cited. I'm sure the reviews will be very mixed, but I wouldn't rule out a couple more mainstream journalists coming over to Stone's side. It's happened here and there. In general though we're probably in agreement on most things here and I'm just stirring the pot a little bit. But I can drop some news that hasn't appeared online anywhere else that you may find of interest, and it links to your comment about 9/11 evidence being blocked by the mainstream media.

A friend of mine worked with two of the three LOOSE CHANGE filmmakers just a couple of weeks ago - including director Dylan Avery. They have a new documentary on the way, on 9/11 (not their recent WTC7 doco, but something bigger).  It does have new evidence, it will probably create a few headlines when it appears, and it already has a major US distributor. My guess is it will be out within the next 12 months, hopefully sooner rather than later. So funny times ahead.

The film hasn't had a screening in the US yet. It had a European screening. When a film screens at Cannes I expect IndieWire and Deadline to cover it. Both of them did and they're at the top of the front Google News page when I search the term 'Oliver Stone', talking about the movie. Deadline is the major film news outlet online, and in its review of the movie their leading critic agrees with the thesis of the movie and says Stone has won him over.

I'd also expect major blogs to cover the film. One of the biggest film blogs is Hollywood Elsewhere. The guy who runs that site, Jeffrey Wells, did a big post on the movie and said he wished he could be in Cannes to cover it. When the movie eventually comes out I'm sure he'll do more coverage.

If the film gets a release in the US I'm sure we'll see more US coverage about it, unless people are expecting media outlets to essentially cover the film's story twice.

My prediction. When the film comes out you'll see some honest, accurate coverage of it, and likely an equal number of hit pieces slamming it, and the latter will appear among the bigger outlets where the journalists essentially act as puppets, and the former will probably appear in regional outlets where some people are able to have their say. There were some 9/11 stories of note that were ignored by the mainstream outlets in LA and NY, but the regional versions of those same outlets covered them.

The visit to the Farm was discussed in Talbot’s book. 

Less noted - can’t remember if Talbot brought it up - mid ‘63 Dulles was given a good excuse to travel around the country conducting appearances and meetings with various big wigs. His CRAFT OF INTELLIGENCE had just been published, and he decided to go on a wide ranging book tour. 

Allen Dulles was a friend, supporter, and associate in public and private life of many high ranking people from politics, the military and big business. Certain people from all those three categories wanted Kennedy gone. It's quite possible that a plot involving other people could have used Dulles as a supporter or facilitator, or Dulles could have supported and helped out a plot once he'd heard about it, or Dulles jointly worked on a plot that was begun outside the CIA, or people outside the CIA approached Dulles and gained his assistance.

So while it's obvious that the CIA still maintains an interest in covering up the event, it's less clear to me that the CIA was the only group or org that put together and oversaw the plot. And I don't think everyone here has been arguing precisely that. But stating 'It was the CIA' seems to overlook those other groups of interest just a tad.

The most recent date on Book Depository was October. I imagine it'll be out before the anniversary in November.

Pete - Australian author John Morgan (who I believe has since passed away) released something like a dozen books on the Diana Spencer killing. They're all on Amazon UK and Book Depository, but the cheapest method to read them is to get the Kindle versions, or Kindle for Mac/PC if you don't have that device. The books get very deep into the case, contain a lot of data, documents and food for thought, and are worth a read. You may have already read them.

Morgan even names the guy who he believes ran the assassination - Sherard Cowper-Coles - based in part on the timing of Coles' appointment as a Political Counsellor to Paris just before Diana's death. Coles later became British Ambassador to Israel, then took up a cushy, high-paying job with armaments company BAE Systems. Coles now works as a Senior Advisor to HSBC, the British bank accused of money laundering for drug cartels and terrorist groups.

I don't see any foreign government or institutions willingly assisting an investigation into the JFK case anytime soon.

Jim - is there a PDF or link online for Jackson's phony hearings? Most congressional testimony is online somewhere but I can't immediately see a link to it. I just want to read up on who else was involved in the hearings.

A lot of home video releases are coming out on Blu-Ray (the HD format) these days rather than DVD (standard definition), and the excellent trailer for the film is in HD format. So I'm hoping we see a good Blu-Ray release of the film. And in this instance, the more extra features and interviews (and maybe commentary tracks) the better.

Edited for now.

The second and third links work fine for me when browsing on my iPhone - very cool article, looks like a lot of work went into it - but for some reason don't open when I'm sitting here on my iMac using Safari.