W. Tracy Parnell

No, I didn't ask him. But his position is probably similar to this: JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

My purpose in posting these links is to simply make people aware of articles offering different viewpoints regarding JFK Revisited. Steve can reply directly here (or not) if he wishes. Regarding specific issues on the rifle, anyone can go to David Von Pein's site and read the old threads where this has been discussed ad nauseam. EDIT: Let me add that Steve, Fred and others probably feel that debating issues here directly is not an efficent use of one's time since you are immediately bombarded and facing a 20 to 1 situation. Much more sensible to write an article stating your position and post a link to it.

JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries (wixsite.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Steve Roe's latest: JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs (wixsite.com)

"Coup in Dallas" - More Conspiracy Nonsense! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

This will be the great "last gasp" for the CTs. Then, when the documents come out and there is no "there" there, that will be the end. Finally.

JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Two new pieces: JFK Revisited Lays an Egg (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? (wixsite.com)

Or maybe they have looked at everything in it and simply don't believe it. Let's take an example. Jim D. says that JFK was killed because of Vietnam. He was going to pull out and the "powers that be" couldn't allow that. This, according to past debates with Jim right here, is an incontravertible fact. I, on the other hand, have asserted that no one can see the future and we don't know what JFK would have done. Alecia Long agrees with me saying: "The problem with this theory is that it is counterfactual. Despite suggestive evidence of Kennedy’s intention to draw down the number of military advisers in Vietnam, no one can know with certainty whether he would have started an active ground war, as Johnson did. Such thinking fuels conspiracy theories with an entirely unprovable assertion about what might have been." Also agreeing with me that we can't know what JFK would have done is Mark White, a history professor from England. Note that White uses sources such as John Newman in his article that lays out the case for both sides of the debate-a debate that Jim D. insists is settled: Without Dallas: John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War | American Diplomacy Est 1996 (unc.edu)

Alecia Long weighs in: Americans’ continued fascination with John F. Kennedy’s assassination - The Washington Post

Tell that to Tim Weiner who happens to be Morley's hero. He just posted a devistating critque of JFK Revisited: The Origin Story of Oliver Stone’s Loony JFK Conspiracies – Rolling Stone

What nonsense. Oliver Stone and Jim D. are apparently worried because JFK Revisited is not getting the reception they thought it would. My page features Fred Litwin's rebukes of the film and some of the negative press: Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

I can: The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) Some highlights for those who don't want to read the whole piece. Mark Zaid quote: "… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now." So, it is in the national security interest of the United States to honor agreements made with sources to keep their identity secret. And there are methods of intelligence gathering that they also want to shield.

Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Well said Steve. Here is a link to Fred's latest: JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Handy index to criticisms of the Stone film: Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

No comment by Jim, so he must have us back on "ignore."

I hate to say anything but ... Wynne Johnson? He is billed as a "witness and logic expert." Here's his story-maybe some responsible researcher can use this to challange him: My Final Word on Wynne Johnson ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Quite the contrary, I was very concerned and that is what led me to study the situation. I just arrived at a different conclusion. There will be more articles coming in the next days and weeks I'm sure. And I'll probably be providing links for those who are interested.

Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination (onthetrailofdelusion.com) A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone (wixsite.com)