W. Tracy Parnell

Fact Checking James DiEugenio (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Wrong. Again, if you will just read the article I linked you will see that he suggested that McDonald's people could have misread the document and saw the words "domestic contact" and turned that into "contract agent." It makes no sense that Shaw would be a "highly paid" agent during the time he was working for the International Trade Mart. He wouldn't have had the time to do enough work to be "highly paid." In any case, if someone will just produce the document McDonald referenced, I'll gladly admit that Shaw was a paid agent. But I still won't believe he killed JFK.

He should say "I'm sorry that I depicted the gay characters in a bad light compared to the heterosexual ones solely for the purposes of my film." That would be a good start. As I noted above, it is obvious that no one here has read the two books I mentioned or even the blog articles at Fred's site. If they had, they wouldn't need to ask these questions. A good example of this is the criticism that Morley directed at Alecia Long when it was obvious that he had not read her book. If he had, he would have known that she takes no stand on the JFK murder. She doesn't even talk about if LHO is guilty or not. And Morley tried to say she worshiped at the church of the lone gunman or something like that. And that was a false statement that he could have avoided making. So, everyone-at least read a few articles on Fred's blog so you understand both sides of the issue. Then make up your mind. But don't ask me to spoon feed the information to you-I have done all I am going to do.

I have no credentials at all. I am reporting what the experts say and I hope I am doing it accurately. Fred will let me know, I'm sure, if I make a mistake.

He had a relationship with the CIA as a domestic contact. But he was asked if he "worked" for the agency. Working means being paid. Now, there is the matter of the claim by CIA historian McDonald who said he was a "highly paid contract agent." But McDonald relied on a review of documents in the HSCA CIA Segregated Collection. Those documents are now available, and no one has been able to produce a document that matches McDonald's claim. But there is another document saying that Shaw was not a paid agent. This is explained by Fred at the link I posted above. So, the issue is still open. I tend to think that if the document were there, someone would have found it. So, the explanation provided by Fred-that McDonald's researchers made a mistake-is the most plausible. But even if Shaw worked for the CIA and was paid, according to McDonald the relationship ended in 1956. So, I don't see how that has anything to do with a CIA-backed plot to kill JFK in 1963.

If you would read the articles at the links I posted before, you could find out. I think that is much of the problem here-no one is looking at the other side of the issue. Fred has posted newspaper clipping and so on documenting concerns that the gay community had back in 1991.

No, it's disputed: Clay Shaw, Perjurer: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK assassination investigation: Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination (jfk-online.com) Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) David Ferrie | On The Trail of Delu (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

The apparent (I have not seen the film so I am relying on your characterization) depiction of a homosexual relationship in Alexander may be there to partially atone for his past missteps and because there is at least some historical evidence to back it up. I did not read the relationship in Platoon the same way as you did but maybe I am naive. But it would be best for him to issue an apology for JFK-that would be the most helpful thing he could do because that was very hurtful to the gay and lesbian community.

Pat and Sandy, My reply would be that the experts say that Garrison's case was built on homophobia. I think we should listen to the experts who have studied the matter in this instance, and we can all learn. I have posted some links in this thread and mentioned two books on the subject. Doubters should avail themselves of that material. Aside from the issue of homophobia, I can't think of a thing to recommend the Garrison investigation. I believe it was 100 percent wrong and financially destroyed an innocent man for no reason. As for Stone, it is primarily the over-the-top orgy scenes which the experts find homophobic. The argument is that the homosexuals are portrayed as crazy and amoral while Garrison (who was effectively declared crazy in real life at one point) is the guy on the white horse. The current film, as I mentioned above, is dishonest in its omissions and uses dubious witness statements made years after the fact. Pat, I do appreciate that you are aware of at least some of the problems with Garrison and willing to admit that.

The story goes that someone gave Stone a copy of Garrison's book. But Sandy, Jim is misleading you. There have been two books written now on the Garrison homophobia. Jim is correct that there is no memo, but he doesn't tell you about the rest of the evidence. Check out this series by Fred: Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Wacky stuff from Lisa Pease: "Guilt by Orientation" - The CIA Strikes Again, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Here are the omissions I am referring to. JFK Revisited states that Shaw was arrested, "on charges that he was part of the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy …” But the film does not mention that Shaw was acquitted of the conspiracy changes. But it does make a big deal out of the fact that LHO never "had his day" in court. Nor does the film mention the Christenberry decision that prevented Garrison from prosecuting Shaw further and noted the violation of his constitutional rights. Finally, there is a lineage here from Garrison to JFK to JFK Revisited. If the grandfather is rotten (rotten meaning based on homophobia which is proven now by two books) then the father and son are rotten as well.

Phillips' job was anti-Cuban propaganda, so it certainly was no coincidence. No evidence that this "crusade" had anything to do with Oswald though. He was just a one-man operation that nobody paid attention to until he presented himself to Bringuier. Phillips did not "start" the DRE. By Morley's own account, he met with one or two of the DRE leaders in his office in Havana. He helped them get to the US. When they got there, they were met by Kent and Crozier who helped them start the DRE after a series of meetings. Phillips soon changed jobs and went to Mexico and had little to do with the group thereafter. This will be covered in my book.

My opinion is Garrison's probe was based on homophobia for the reasons given by Fred, Kirchick and Alecia Long. Stone's 1991 film was homophobic and he faced protests at the time. The current film is homophobic by omission since it is not honest with the viewer and does not repudiate the homophobic elements of the previous film. Anyone can read the articles I linked to find out more or read the books by Long and Fred. Kirchick has been criticized for denying that Shaw worked for the CIA but not mentioning the statement by CIA historian McDonald that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" until 1956. I agree to the extent that Kirchick would have been better off to include this information and Fred's rebuttal of it. This would have averted criticism on that issue. Otherwise, I agree with him.

Stone wouldn't dare do it overtly as he did in 1991. It is explained here: Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"Guilt by Orientation" - The CIA Strikes Again! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Jim D has evidently been bashing James Kirchick on Twitter. So, I think it is only fair that I post a link to Kirchick's article here. The Homophobia at the Heart of Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited" - Air Mail

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the ARRB's Quest for Dr. Burkley's Lawyer's Papers (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Recklessly Accuses George Burkley of being Involved in a Cover-Up (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Hitler was never tried for his crimes. He may be said to be legally innocent, but I believe the verdict of history indicates he is guilty. Same with Oswald and I think it is terrible that so many people absolve him of guilt for his horrible crime.

I know David Von Pein has written about some of the things Bugliosi said that he considers not quite accurate shall we say. I think most of that was on the SBT if I remember correctly. And I co-authored a series on Posner in which we mentioned a few things that could be called mistakes or whatever term you like. Granted, our primary purpose in that exercise was to defend him. I suppose we "nutters" think that there are enough people attacking the individuals you mention so we tend to defend them. And, of course, we agree with them most of the time. But I agree with you-if someone says something that is not accurate, then call it out. Because everyone makes mistakes.

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral Burkley and the HSCA (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

I must say, if such a debate were to be limited to JFK Revisited and provided it was a formal debate with a moderator, I don't think it would be difficult to do very well against Jim D. I am basing this on the number of points that Fred Litwin has been able to score already in his series on the film. Fred Litwin's JFK Revisited Archive ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) Now, mind you, I am not volunteering to debate Jim D. That is just not my thing-I prefer to work behind the scenes.

Fact Check: whowhatwhy and JFK Revisited ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

I believe that the investigations by the WC and HSCA were imperfect since human beings conducted them. But I think that they reached the proper conclusion-Oswald was guilty. There will always be data that points away from a specific conclusion. It happens all the time in criminal cases and investigators, lawyers etc. know this. In the JFK case there are over five million records in the JFK collection. I have no data to back this up but let's assume that one percent of the collection contains information that could be interpreted as pointing away from Oswald's guilt (I suspect it is more). That would mean that there are 50,000 records that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating Oswald's innocence. That can keep many people busy for a long time and indeed it has.