Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joe Bauer

Members
  • Posts

    3,361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe Bauer

  1. BOOKSHELF READ REVIEW PASSPORT TO ASSASSINATION BY OLEG MAXIMOVICH NECHIPORENKO ‧ RELEASE DATE: DEC. 1, 1993 Aretired KGB colonel tells of his career as a spy—and, particularly, of his meetings with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 in Mexico City. Nechiporenko details his schooling in domestic and then foreign intelligence; his life as a spy in Mexico; and the expulsion, in the early 70's, of his espionage team from that country after officials ascertained that the Soviet embassy was a nest of secret agents. But the greatest interest here lies in Nechiporenko's discussion of Oswald. To lend credence to his ideas about Oswald's Russian ties, the author reveals the mind set of KGB and Western intelligence and counterintelligence agencies: To his surprise, he says, he found himself named in two American books— KGB (1974), by John Barron, and L.B.J. and the J.F.K. Conspiracy (1978), by Hugh MacDonald and Robin Moore—as Oswald's KGB ``manager'' in Mexico City. Nechiporenko contends that both books were drawn in part from information supplied by Western intelligence agencies, and his review of Oswald's life in Russia and later activities in Mexico City—drawn from Russian intelligence files as well as from the public record—makes clear that the KGB had no desire to tie in with an uneducated, neurotic young idealist. Oswald's surprise talks with Nechiporenko in the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City (where Oswald was applying for a visa to return to Russia) underscored that the American—paranoid about the FBI and fearful for his life—was highly unstable. Nechiporenko finds Oswald too undependable to have been a likely cog in a conspiracy—though his psychological portrait of him makes a fairly strong case for his being the lone gunman. Moreover, the author spends considerable space discounting the claim by KGB defector Yuri Nosenko that Oswald was working for the Russians. Frank talk that's of middling interest for spy-fans, of greater interest for assassination buffs. (Photographs) Here we go with the PsyOp term... "assassination buffs." A tip off regards the true agenda of the reviewer? Writer Nechiporenko says..."Oswald was too uneducated, neurotic, idealist, undependable, paranoid, and fearful for his life ... to be a cog in a conspiracy." Would not that exact psychological profile be the ideal one in finding, manipulating, using and setting up a hapless, take the blame patsy in an almost suicidal killing project? Think Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Mehmet Ali Acga and so many others as the actual triggermen in highest political level and importance assassinations. Psychologically together people would not allow themselves to be manipulated and used like that. This Nechiporenko fellow was a lifelong highest level spy trained to lie at every turn. A kind of Russian E. Howard Hunt? A fact of reality which ( like E. Howard Hunt ) really destroys his truth telling credibility for the rest of his life imo.
  2. The Russians always knew and appreciated the value of beautiful young Russian women in the spy game. Honey pots? A far cry from the U.S. promoted pictures of most Russian women looking like big boned, weather beaten oxen in dust covered Babushkas behind field plows. I do not think it was mere coincidence that Marina was placed in Oswald's social world and specifically the party dance that evening. A truly attractive young woman can make herself be seen and available to targeted men if this is intended. Marina was the hottest young thing in Minsk. A brilliant blue eyed beauty, even to our standards. I'm sure Oswald couldn't believe his hot and bothered luck when this doe eyed Cinderella just appeared in front of him at the communal dance. If Oswald had returned to the U.S. with a Russian wife who looked like one of those plow pushers in the standard U.S. photos of typical Russian women, nobody would have given them much thought or attention in regards to helping them and inviting them to parties and into their homes like they did with the pretty young thing Marina, imo. I first saw and watched Marina in her first televised interview on national TV. The "Marina, what do you do all day?" one. The "I don't want to believe, but facts tell me Lee killed Kennedy" one. I was achingly smitten. What a beauty! That young Lee Remick face! Those big and intelligent thought expressive yet scared eyes. I'm sure her natural innocent looking beauty for all to see helped generate a good portion of the huge donation fund that began pouring in right after that interview. If Marina truly was a Russian spy game honey pot, I have to give her handlers credit for finding such a beauty for this role.
  3. Trump should be prosecuted for refusing to order any assistance in quelling the January, 6th Capital building attack and siege. Instead watching it grow into a murderous mob action for two hours, apparently with glee.
  4. Of all the most well known JFK killing predictions the most detailed as exactly happened one was by wealthy, violent segregation activist Joseph Milteer just two to three weeks before Dallas, 11,22,1963. Milteer is on tape telling Miami police informant Will Somerset: "Oh, yes. It's in the workings." Answering Somerset's question of whether "they are really going to try to kill him ( JFK? ) Sommerset: "How they gonna do it?" Milteer: "from an office building with a high powered rifle." Milteer: They'll pick up a patsy a few hours later. How...HOW... AND WHY in the world was Milteer not immediately picked up and gruelingly interrogated once the Miami PD released this two week prior tape of him to the federal authorities describing the method and action of JFK's killing down to details beyond coincidence? Somerset even claimed Milteer called him right after JFK was killed ( same day or next?) bragging about his earlier JFK killing claim for it's veracity! Dallas was the super wealthy power center of the most rabid haters of JFK in America. The Murchison family of Dallas "celebrated" JFK's death according to 35 year long Virginia Murchison house keeper May Newman who was right there in the family gatherings. Newman: "Like the champagne and cavier flowed for a week" after JFK's death. Newman claimed the only person who was grieving for JFK and his widow...was her!
  5. For those who aren't inclined to click on links: John Martino's Confessions John Martino: electronics expert, mob associate, anti-Castro activist, author of I Was Castro's Prisoner, promoter of stories about Lee Harvey Oswald, and confessor to involvement in the JFK assassination. Flo, they're going to kill him. They're going to kill him when he gets to Texas. The wife of John Martino, after denying to the HSCA that her husband had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination, told author Anthony Summers about her husband's statement the morning of the murder and the series of phone calls he received that afternoon. John Martino, whose statements are the starting point for Larry Hancock's book Someone Would Have Talked, was deeply enmeshed in anti-Castro activities in the early 1960s. An electronics expert, particularly specializing in the gambling machines employed in Havana casinos run by organized crime. Martino was arrested in Havana in July 1959 and spent three years in prison there. On his return to Florida, he became associated with Frank Sturgis, Eddie Bayo, and other anti-Castro activists. Martino also mentioned the not-well-known CIA officer Dave Morales in his book, I Was Castro's Prisoner. In the spring and summer of 1963, Martino was heavily involved in the Bayo-Pawley raid (aka Operation TILT), an operation intended to smuggle out of Cuba two Russian officers who, it was said, wanted to defect and alert the world to the presence of Soviet missiles remaining in Cuba after the Missile Crisis. A team was landed but never returned. Martino and an associated named Nathaniel Weyl were active in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, spreading a variety stories intended to tie Lee Harvey Oswald to Fidel Castro. Martino's confession was not confined to his wife and son Eddie. In 1975 he told Newsday reporter John Cummings about his involvement in the JFK murder, serving as a courier, delivering money, etc. He told a similar story to his business partner Fred Claasen that same year, as recounted in Tony Summer's book Conspiracy: The anti-Castro people put Oswald together. Oswald didn't know who he was working for--he was just ignorant of who was really putting him together. Oswald was to meet his contact at the Texas Theatre. They were to meet Oswald in the theatre, and get him out of the country, then eliminate him. Oswald made a mistake...There was no way we could get to him. They had Ruby kill him.
  6. Yes Doug. Ever since I first heard this song on the radio decades ago, it is still truly an epically sad and moving piece. All 3 men, all with a sense of moral humanitarian equality guidance and purpose, brutally, bloodily, savagely brought down by bullets...all in their under 50 prime - JFK 46, RFK 43, MLK just 39. A removal of the only men in our society who were not only courageously willing to promote these values into our "official" societal policies ( contrary to the corrupted military, Industrial, intelligence and even organized crime power groups in control ) and that had gained the popular support of a majority of Americans. They had to go. And when they were taken out, so went a collective hope, trust, faith, inspiration and innocence with most of our society. With no one since ever coming close to these good and moral men's popular backing influence. No more saviors. And every savage shooting by a lone gunman with no connections to anyone else. As Gerald Posner stated "Case Closed."
  7. Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, authors of the new book I Alone Can Fix It, chronicling former President Trump’s tumultuous last year in office, joined Anderson Cooper 360 Wednesday, where they shared exclusive audio from an interview with Trump for the book. In the audio, which was chock full of rehashed falsehoods and conspiracies, Trump revealed that he and the January 6 insurrectionists at the Capitol shared a common goal. “I wanted — I mean, personally, what I wanted is what they wanted,” Trump said. “They showed up just to show support, because I happen to believe the election was rigged at a level like nothing has ever been rigged before.” Trump went on to once again lament the fact that former Vice President Mike Pence didn’t personally overturn the election the day of the insurrection, a power that a Vice President does not have under the Constitution. It seems obvious and easily provable that Donald Trump watched the violent mob January 6th insurrection live on TV from it's beginning and was also being kept well informed of it's happening and ever increasing intensity ( with much destruction, traumatic fear, injury and even death just as regular Americans could see for themselves on TV as well ) and yet "purposely" delayed using his power, authority and especially his constitutional duty "responsibility" to immediately stop it. Any rational person in this country knows Trump clearly and aggressively incited that mob to violently attack our most sacred institution Capital Building full of members of our congress and police. Including his own Vice President! The action of Trump in purposely delaying his means to quell and stop the extremely violent January 6th mob attack on our Capital building and everyone in it to save lives, property damage and serious emotional trauma to them, is the most outrageous high level crime he committed in his entire presidency imo. Trump not being charged with aiding and abetting these murder and mayhem causing attackers along with purposely abrogating his authority to stop their terrorist attack for personal political gain or any other reasons is just another of the most headshaking crazy "why nots" of our current times. If Trump not only watched what 10's of millions of Americans were watching on national TV in real time from the very beginning of the terrifying violent siege and for the next two hours after, and then purposely refused to take any action to stop it for that time until much damage and injury and even killing occurred ( and allegedly even ignored pleas to take quelling action sooner by his own family?) what would or should anyone call this action? If Trump were actually charged with crimes in his purposeful non-action to stop the Capital building attack and had to face a trial by jury, I would think the jurors would consider Trump's quoted public documented statement above saying "he wanted what the Jan 6th, Capital Building attackers wanted" as just about the most self incriminating piece of testimony that would force them to find him guilty of aiding and abetting. Especially in a civil trial involving claimants who filed personal liability lawsuits against him for his responsibility in the injuries and even deaths of the January 6th Capital Building attack and seige.
  8. North Beckley housekeeper Earline Roberts was described very derogatorily by her boss Mrs. Johnson as not a great worker ( she was old and tired ) and a "teller of tall tales." Johnson just ripped Earlene Roberts. So, here's the "tall tale" Earlene Robert's made up about her 1:pm November 22nd, encounter with a returning Lee Oswald. Full of embellishments like a gossiper would add? To the Warren Commission: BALL. And Friday was the day the President was shot? Had you seen him at any time that Friday before the officers came up and knocked on your door?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. Hadn't he been home?Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, let's see--that was the day.Mr. BALL. That was on a Friday---Mrs. ROBERTS. Wait a minute, let me think of it.Mr. BALL. That's on a Friday.Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. You were working with the television?Mrs. ROBERTS. I was trying to clear it up to see what was happening and try to find out about President Kennedy.Mr. BALL. Why did you say to this man as he came in, "You are in a hurry,"why did you say that?Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, he just never has come in and he was walking unusually fast and he just hadn't been that way and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry."Mr. BALL. You mean he was walking faster than he usually was?Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.Mr. BALL. When he came in the door, what did he do?Mrs. ROBERTS. He just walked in---he didn't look around at me---he didn't say nothing and went on to his room.Mr. BALL. Did he run?Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.Mr. BALL. Then, when you saw him, did you see any part of his belt?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. There is some suspicion that when he left there he might have had a pistol or a revolver in his belt; did you see anything like that?Mrs. ROBERTS. No; I sure didn't.Mr. BALL. Now, I show you Commission Exhibit No. 150--it is a shirt-have you seen that before?Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have. Now, that looks kind of like the dark shirt that he had on.Mr. BALL. Now, when Oswald came in, he was in a shirt--does this shirt look anything like the shirt he had on?Mrs. ROBERTS. It was a dark shirt he had on-I think it was a dark one, but whether it was long sleeve or short sleeve or what--I don't know.Mr. BALL. Does the color of this shirt which I show you here, Commission Exhibit No. 150, look anything like the shirt he had on?Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm sorry, I just don't know.Mr. BALL.. You are not able to testify as to that--to tell us that?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say becauseMr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or walking?Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty fast.Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you as he went out ?Mrs. ROBERTS. No, sir.Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him ?Mrs. ROBERTS. Probably wouldn't have gotten no answer.Mr. BALL. What is the only thing you said to him from the time he came in the house until he left?Mrs. ROBERTS. "You sure are in a hurry."Mr. BELIN. Is that all?Mrs. ROBERTS. That was all.Mr. BALL. That's all you said to him ?Mrs. ROBERTS. That's all I said to him.Mr. BALL. Did he say anything to you ?Mrs. ROBERTS. No.Mr. BALL. Nothing.Mrs. ROBERTS. He didn't say nothing-he wouldn't say nothing-period. He walked in kind of fast like, didn't look at her or say anything. Roberts says to Oswald "you sure are in a hurry." Oswald says nothing back. He goes in his room. 3 or 4 minutes later he leaves his room. As he does, he doesn't look at or say anything to Roberts and walks quickly out the door. Yup, a tall tale there. Full of embellishment. And Roberts said she couldn't remember almost every detail Ball was quizzing her about regards Oswald. She could have added all kind of gossipy details if she wanted to. But she was instead very sparse, totally non-embellishing in her answers as she honestly answered them. This is one reason I believe her police car parking and quick "Tit Tit" honking story just in front of her residence yard while Oswald was in his room. This thought just occurred to me: Earlene Roberts testified that Dallas police officers occasionally came to her residence. She would even talk to them as they sat in their patrol car. She even thought she knew the car number of one of the cars. They'd ask typical "anything unusual" questions. Made sense as she would see the comings and goings of the many residents of her rooming house. Typically transient people that stay in pretty low income places like hers. Now, the afternoon of 11,22,1963, when a marked Dallas Police car came up to and stopped in front of her residence yard and honked twice ( tit tit ), you might think that because of the Earth shaking, city stopping news of JFK's shooting Ms. Roberts might have been a little more motivated to go out and meet these two officers in their stopped car. To ask them about this JFK shooting event. If anybody would know more about the shooting it would be the police. However, if she had done so, it would have been several minutes of talking with them They would have had to stay parked there a least longer than a minute or two. And they pulled up before Oswald had left his room. Could you imagine Lee Oswald bustling out his room, and then out the front door of the main house and seeing this police car sitting right in front of him with Ms. Robert's talking to the officers through their open door window? Obviously, he would have turned and made a beeline back in. Easily could have happened. and it would have totally changed the time line for Oswald's alleged walk where he was confronted by Officer Tippit. Just a "what if" contemplation.
  9. Robert. These famous still photos of Jackie standing next to LBJ in her husband's blood covered dress while LBJ was being sworn in on Air Force 1 will be known and shown to millions for perhaps even centuries from now. They are perhaps the most powerful photos of that tragic day in their depiction of the deepest emotional trauma shock, horror, grief and pain on Jackie Kennedy's face almost beyond psychology and even common language term description words. The photos of Jackie here are truly, epically haunting. More than any others I can recall, they capture the brutal and bloody tragedy in it's deepest and fullest soul wrenching pain and personal loss essence. And what will also forever add to the emotional wrenching power of the photos is the mind boggling surreal juxtaposition of the main focus characters in them - Jackie, LBJ, Lady Bird ( and in the most truly perverse one the smirking smile Albert Thomas "ata boy Lyndon" one ) and knowing that just 2 hours previous, JFK was alive ,vibrant and happily waving to screaming fans just before his head was brutally blood spraying blown apart just inches from Jackie's eyes and in front of hundreds of close up eyewitnesses in broad daylight public. These LBJ swearing in on Air Force One pics of Jackie will be one of our nation's most famous ones forever. And even if LBJ lackey good-ole-boy Albert Thomas's wink was just a normal eye shutting caught in a fast pace shutter click, there is no misinterpreting that perversely out of place sick and cold blooded smile of his, right in the middle of what was one of the most sad and personal pain suffering times in our history. Where was Thomas's appropriate somber and respectful empathy for not just Jackie, who was mere feet from him, but also for JFK whom he supposedly was friendly with? Heck, Thomas gave Lyndon a look of congratulatory glee! Like LBJ just kicked the winning field goal in a Texas against Oklahoma conference title game! ATABOY LYNDON ... YOU DID IT BABY!
  10. Ms. Jackson, hello. How long have you been trying to find the missing film? Why do think the film has disappeared? I'm not informed at all regards the Nix film. Could you maybe share what you have been told regards what your grandfather's film might have shown that was possibly so important versus the other known films? Possibly even earth shaking?
  11. Exactly Robert. And it's all still highly placed and aggressively operational when it needs to be. Stone casts " dark shadows on LBJ and Allen Dulles." ??? The truth is those two characters are 10 times darker in reality than our society has been allowed to know! J.E. Hoover too! The credibility attacks on Stone are so obvious and shameless! Most Europeans see right through these phony attack pieces and their ridiculous misdirection silliness and true agenda. Americans by and large tend to be much more uninformed, gullible and naive imo.
  12. Just read this article Doug. Just another reality check on the real level of corruption in our highest circles of world wealth, privilege and power. Maxwell. Jeffrey Epstein. People like the royals ( of many countries ) and many persons of our highest elective offices fawning over and selling themselves out to the super rich no matter how much of their new found friend's wealth is acquired through the sleaziest and most despicable criminal actions. Robbing the poor mostly. The Bush's with the Saudis, Trump with the Russians and money laundering banks and Saudis too. The Clintons too. Reagan too. Reagan pockets "two million CASH" from the Japanese for a two or three speech jaunt right after he is out of office? Two million? Please, that was a pay off. Hillary Clinton pockets what ... $625.000 for two short question and answer sessions with Goldman Sachs people. All those Insanely high paid "Speaking Fee" engagements are payoffs. Wake up people. Hillary Clinton Cozies Up to Crony Capitalists at Goldman ... https://thenewamerican.com/hillary-clinton-cozies... Records show Bill and Hillary Clinton made over $125 million from giving paid speeches since 2001. In particular, critics question why Hillary Clinton received over $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, an... Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
  13. Anyone who doesn't think Pricilla Johnson's real, long term and extensive intelligence connections had no meaningful importance in the Marina and Lee Oswald story is choosing to be irresponsibly blind. Where as Marina really didn't personally like Ruth Paine beyond a sincere appreciation for her very needed help during her pregnancy and birth with her second child, it appears that she did like P. Johnson and her company for many years afterwards. P. Johnson's extensive first hand knowledge of and actual long term living experience in the Russia Marina knew along with a more worldly and urbane charm ( whether sincere or not) seemed to have greatly appealed to Marina. Johnson probably seemed like a very much more interesting world traveled ( especially Marina's Russia ) person to Marina. And it seemed Johnson was a professionally practiced charmer, building up those she wanted to interview to get closer to. She knew how to handle difficult and cynical Lee Oswald with the skill of a practiced interrogator or psychologist who needs and knows how to put their interview subject at ease. When I saw Priscilla Johnson Interviewed on the Dick Cavett show many years ago with Marina by her side, I swear it seemed Marina was so taken and dependent upon PJ that she often would pause after a direct question from Cavett and first look at PJ as if seeking approval before she answered. And Johnson would mutually look back at Marina often. Their unabashed affection for each other was a little too animated and obvious and frankly kind of creepy imo. Johnson gave me the creeps as well. She had this animated big eyed, almost child like speaking manner. I immediately thought I was watching someone performing an exaggerated Carol Channing impersonation. After the nightmare of the JFK murder and then her husband Lee , Marina, ironically, got to live the higher standard of living American life she probably only imagined, dreamed about and envied after seeing magazines depicting American women this way. Fine clothes, hair do's, shopping at better stores than K-Mart or thrift shops and only having other women's clothing hand me downs to wear. She acquire a lot of money through donations from sympathetic people all across America. She got to live the good life for once in her life. She blossomed and began to be free with her life. Probably had a few affairs. She dressed and made herself into a beautiful American woman. Luckily, Marina was born already attractive. She was a double for the beautiful American actress Lee Remick. A life a million miles removed from the struggling and unhappy one she had with Lee. She met many interesting people through Pricilla Johnson who appears to have become her mentor, even living with her. Life was good around PJ for Marina.
  14. Why are some saying we might not be able to see the film ourselves here in the states? Certainly not in theaters. But what about TV and video release?
  15. WOW! I got chills of inspired feeling ( truly I did ) seeing this incredibly prolonged warm, electrically charged and animated and loudly cheering audience reaction to Stone's introduction. Shouts of "BRAVO!" The man and his lifetime portfolio of film work is respected and admired in Europe like you wouldn't believe. Almost heroically.
  16. I know that many members here for many reasons don't always click on new forum topic threads and even more often, topic expanding links provided in responding posts by other members. That is why I am posting this following review of Jim Di's and Oliver Stone's new 2021 Cannes Film Festival JFK revisited film "Through the Looking Glass " in it's full printed entirety versus just a link. In my opinion, the film is so important to us all and the entire world really and this particular review is an extremely thought provoking must read that ( in the least ) really draws you in to want to see the film. I really feel almost an obligation to make this review more readily available to more of our members via it's own separate thread versus a link in the original thread that many might miss. I can't wait to see the film. I'm guessing reading this review will inspire others ( like it did me ) to do the same. Oliver Stone returns to the scene of the crime SOURCE: ALTITUDE FILM SALES JFK REVISITED: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS’ Dir/scr: Oliver Stone. US/UK. 2020. 118 mins. It’s edging ever-closer to sixty years since US President John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, and it’s exactly three decades since Oliver Stone released his film JFK. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that the Warren Commission’s report on the cold-blooded murder of this popular head of state was a whitewash: neither, though, do audiences want to endlessly revisit a stain on America’s soul that can never be cleaned. Oliver Stone doesn’t have the definitive answer to ‘Who Killed Kennedy?’. That’s not a surprise. What he does, have, though, is his well-honed craft as a film-maker and an enduring determination to expose the mendacity of those who surrounded the president, both of which make JFK Revisited an unexpectedly fascinating watch. If Through The Looking Glass underscores anything, it’s how time hasn’t lessened this crime against the American people. Stone is a knowledgeable, thoughtful guide to events, albeit one with a strong point of view, and this film is a cut above the streaming service doc standard which also plays very well on a big screen. Stone has become America’s conscience on the subject of JFK. As so many of the key actors featured are either dead or frail, this may be the last chance for audiences to appreciate the scale of the deception involved. JFK, which prompted a move to release classified documents in the US, noted the effect Kennedy’s death had in prolonging the Vietnam War, in which Stone served as an infantry soldier. The director’s early, most garlanded feature work harks back to events in that theatre which were an indirect result of Kennedy’s assassination - Platoon, and Born On The Fourth Of July, both made in the mid-eighties. So Stone has always had skin in the game: Kennedy’s death had the greatest personal effect on him and his generation. This documentary does not sink down the what-might-have-been trap, but holds itself to the facts throughout. It’s precise and direct in its dealings, naming names, examining depositions, and, every now and again, flashing up post-mortem photography and the famous 8mm Zapruder film taken on Dealy Paza, which still has the power to shock. The effect of Stone’s rigorous selection of archive footage is to bring the period back to life, which can be eerily effective. Even the intro, which moves from Kennedy’s ‘peace in our time’ speech to Jack Ruby’s murder of prime suspect Lee Harvey Oswald and the eternal flame at Kennedy’s internment, features well-known footage juxtaposed with close-ups on faces as a devastated population receives the news. This continues throughout a dense download of information, vivifying what happened and underlying the fact that the savagery of the execution of the US president is still almost unimaginable today. The risible magic bullet gets a rigorous debunking. The Bay of Pigs is re-examined. Former head of the CIA and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles’s reputation, or what was left of it, is sunk. (Donald Sutherland, who played Mr X in JFK, narrates much of JFK Revisted alongside Whoopi Goldberg.) Even though so many questions can’t be fully answered, credible scenarios swim into view - although Stone has no real interest in the mafia, stressing more the political conspiracy (thus excluding Kennedy’s personal weaknesses, such as his indiscriminate philandering). It may seem like we’ve heard it all before, but we certainly haven’t, or won’t ever, hear it all. Stone is right to burn this eternal flame, and if Through The Looking Glass underscores anything, it’s how time hasn’t lessened this crime against the American people or his personal quest for the truth.
  17. I know that many members here for many reasons don't always click on new forum topic threads and even more often, topic expanding links provided in responding posts by other members. That is why I am posting this following review of Jim Di's and Oliver Stone's new 2021 Cannes Film Festival JFK revisited film "Through the Looking Glass " in it's full printed entirety versus just a link. The film is so important to us all and the entire world really, and (in the least) this particular review is an extremely thought provoking read that really draws you in to want to see the film. I really feel almost an obligation to make this review more readily available to more of our members via it's own separate thread. I can't wait to see the film. I'm guessing reading this review will inspire others to do the same. Oliver Stone returns to the scene of the crime SOURCE: ALTITUDE FILM SALES JFK REVISITED: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS’ Dir/scr: Oliver Stone. US/UK. 2020. 118 mins. It’s edging ever-closer to sixty years since US President John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, and it’s exactly three decades since Oliver Stone released his film JFK. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that the Warren Commission’s report on the cold-blooded murder of this popular head of state was a whitewash: neither, though, do audiences want to endlessly revisit a stain on America’s soul that can never be cleaned. Oliver Stone doesn’t have the definitive answer to ‘Who Killed Kennedy?’. That’s not a surprise. What he does, have, though, is his well-honed craft as a film-maker and an enduring determination to expose the mendacity of those who surrounded the president, both of which make JFK Revisited an unexpectedly fascinating watch. If Through The Looking Glass underscores anything, it’s how time hasn’t lessened this crime against the American people. Stone is a knowledgeable, thoughtful guide to events, albeit one with a strong point of view, and this film is a cut above the streaming service doc standard which also plays very well on a big screen. Stone has become America’s conscience on the subject of JFK. As so many of the key actors featured are either dead or frail, this may be the last chance for audiences to appreciate the scale of the deception involved. JFK, which prompted a move to release classified documents in the US, noted the effect Kennedy’s death had in prolonging the Vietnam War, in which Stone served as an infantry soldier. The director’s early, most garlanded feature work harks back to events in that theatre which were an indirect result of Kennedy’s assassination - Platoon, and Born On The Fourth Of July, both made in the mid-eighties. So Stone has always had skin in the game: Kennedy’s death had the greatest personal effect on him and his generation. This documentary does not sink down the what-might-have-been trap, but holds itself to the facts throughout. It’s precise and direct in its dealings, naming names, examining depositions, and, every now and again, flashing up post-mortem photography and the famous 8mm Zapruder film taken on Dealy Paza, which still has the power to shock. The effect of Stone’s rigorous selection of archive footage is to bring the period back to life, which can be eerily effective. Even the intro, which moves from Kennedy’s ‘peace in our time’ speech to Jack Ruby’s murder of prime suspect Lee Harvey Oswald and the eternal flame at Kennedy’s internment, features well-known footage juxtaposed with close-ups on faces as a devastated population receives the news. This continues throughout a dense download of information, vivifying what happened and underlying the fact that the savagery of the execution of the US president is still almost unimaginable today. The risible magic bullet gets a rigorous debunking. The Bay of Pigs is re-examined. Former head of the CIA and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles’s reputation, or what was left of it, is sunk. (Donald Sutherland, who played Mr X in JFK, narrates much of JFK Revisted alongside Whoopi Goldberg.) Even though so many questions can’t be fully answered, credible scenarios swim into view - although Stone has no real interest in the mafia, stressing more the political conspiracy (thus excluding Kennedy’s personal weaknesses, such as his indiscriminate philandering). It may seem like we’ve heard it all before, but we certainly haven’t, or won’t ever, hear it all. Stone is right to burn this eternal flame, and if Through The Looking Glass underscores anything, it’s how time hasn’t lessened this crime against the American people or his personal quest for the truth.
  18. Jim, I don't think our San Francisco Chronicle film critic Mick LaSalle likes to get into the JFK thing...but did he happen to do a critique? Also, what parts of the film are you most excited about in the final cut regards revealing what you feel are the most important new aspects of this production? Did you notice any new and somewhat consensus positive audience reactions over-all?
  19. I just read Whoopi's wiki. WOW! I am blown away by her incredible life-time body of work, achievement and success. I never knew she had accomplished so much and in so many areas of interests. She is a "super" achiever. Obviously a person of incredible personal strength, courage and drive. I also never knew how she acquired the stage name "Whoopi" until reading that others around her in her early club stand up comedy act time, compared her to a whoopi cushion because of her well known habit of letting loose on stage because as a performer on stage she just "didn't have time to go to the bathroom and shut the door."
  20. Yes. He was good. Edward Morrow was something in his day. I always liked Robert McNeil. Sutherland was and is certainly a speaker of wonderful capturing dramatic authority. Who could forget Orson Wells? Probably the best of them all? Anyone who could convince hundreds of average citizen radio listeners to frantically pack their bags and kids into the family car and speed away for the rural hills to avoid a "made up" Martian invasion is one great "Voice Of Authority." There is a woman who used to be on the "Coast To Coast AM" late night radio talk show a lot. She was an investigative journalist by the name of Linda Moulten Howe who was the best and most compelling female guest that radio show ever presented. Yes, her main subject area of investigation and reporting was what many would call "fringe" paranormal such as cow mutilations, alien presence and even alien abductions of humans, secret government programs centered around alien ET technology and interactions with humans etc. For some suspicious reasons this national radio show dropped her as a guest, but she had a wonderfully compelling speaking ability. Very dramatic without being over-the-top. A very intelligent and well toned and paced speaker. You never got bored with her, even after listening to her speak for two hours straight ( with commercial breaks .) She would have been a great narrator for this JFK film. Better than Whoopi imo.
  21. I'm imagining a typical well known male "voice of authority" type narrating the film. Older liberal types like Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, George Clooney, Al Pacino. I like Stacey Keach, narrator of the financial fraud crime investigation television show "American Greed." But like others here, I listened to Goldberg and after some thought realized how logical it was to have a woman narrating this new film. Doing so adds a dimension of needed "refreshing" newness and broader audience inclusivity imo. Broader for women, younger persons etc.. Having the same , male "old fogies" doing this would keep this story locked into it's past and just bore the hell out of new younger generations and even most women imo. What about Goldberg? Well, she's been an aggressive national stage commentator for social causes for decades. She's got some gravitas not only with us of the baby boomer generation but the next two besides. Sometimes famous stand up, stage and film comedians develop into national consciousness spokespersons. Often their acts are centered around cutting through the false reality lies ( bullshit ) in our daily lives with biting witty humor. Goldberg has a serious acting and social activist resume ( national stage ) and reputation more than one would first imagine. Could there have been any other female "voice of authority" that could have taken this role? Not sure. Meryl Streep? Kate Blanchett? Robin Wright? Naomi Watts? Ellen DeGeneres? Tina Fey? Angelina Jolie? Frances McDormand would have been a good choice imo. She's got gravitas...for sure.
  22. Wow, what a fascinating read. What great research effort. Just a thought: Could Marguerite have stolen that Wallet belonging to Byron Phillips...and with it already containing the 180 dollars? How else could it and the substantial amount of cash inside have turned up in the possession of Marguerite Oswald / Lee Oswald without Byron Phillip's knowledge and consent? This part of Bleau's essay also caught my eye regarding the aspect of Oswald's reportedly extreme "frugal" nature with money contrasting with Oswald's actual spending of it from the Summer of 1963 when he was in New Orleans ( when his only income was a brief employment stint at Reilly Coffee and minimum unemployment checks ) through his return to Fort Worth and his adventure trip to Mexico City. Was the cash left on Marina’s dresser by Oswald really the 180 dollars the FBI reported being in the wallet? Did this 180 bucks belong to Byron? How on earth does a lone drifter, father of two, minimum wage earner, or often unemployed person for some 18 months since his penniless return from Russia, how does that person save the equivalent of 1600 dollars today? When he squanders some of his own money for his mindless FPCC adventure, travels to Mexico City, buys gifts for Marina, acquires expensive photographic equipment, moves several times, hires lawyers, buys guns and ammunition, pays for communist literature, etc.? White Russians even paid Oswald’s YMCA fees because he was so destitute. And add onto Oswald's expenditures him paying others to help him pass out FPCC leaflets in N.O. The cost of paper and printing of his leaflets ( whose printing machine did he use for this?) Obviously Oswald had access to extra funds, even if small, to finance his two FPCC projects. Wasn't this when Ruth Paine had taken in Marina and Junie and was literally paying for their basics back in Irving. TX? Did Oswald ever send RP any money to help with those basics for his wife and child? I once read a statement reportedly made by Dean Andrews where he personally ran down and confronted Oswald while Oswald was passing out his FPCC leaflets in downtown NO. Oswald still owed Andrews legal fees. Andrews asked what this action of Oswald was all about? and Oswald reportedly told Andrews "it was just a job."
×
×
  • Create New...