Oswald's Ghost

[Terry Mauro]

What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?

-Bill

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.

This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.

I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.

If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.

The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?

BK

***************************************************************

Does anybody know who this guy is? I found this in my e-mail this morning.

Why couldn't he just post this on the forum to begin with, seeing as it's appropriate to the discussion.

No hard feelings, of course. I could care less what he thinks of my opinion.

See below:

From: "Paul May" < > Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: tmauro@pacbell.net

Subject: Oswalds Ghost

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:36 -0800

Ms. Mauro:

Although I infrequently visit the JFK site on the Education Forum, I

had the opportunity to read your critique on the film "Oswalds Ghost".

For myself personally, it was an extremely balanced story. Much time

was given to conspiracy theorists ranging from Jim Garrison to Mark

Lane.

I believe yourself and Mr. DiEugenio missed the point entirely.

The purpose of the film was not to spark debate over the events of

November 22nd, but how those events of that day infected or affected

the population and interests of the United States.

Mr. Stone is no doubt an "Oswald did it guy" but the balanced nature of the story

precludes those "of your ilk" [My emphasis. TM] from screaming "disinformation"

and then blaming PBS for airing the story.

Quite frankly Ms. Mauro, your comments on the Education Forum were

tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum over what snack he was given

after school. You then take the position if PBS does not show what you

believe they SHOULD show, you withdraw your support. How bizarre.

Did you by chance take this same position with the motion picture studio

that produced Oliver Stone's JFK? Oliver Stone essentially got three

things right in that film: The victim, the date and the location. If you are

indeed a seeker of the truth, you already know this.

You cannot have it both ways Ms. Mauro. The truth does not require

anybodys belief. PBS is surely under no obligation to broadcast

opposing points of view. DiEugenio stated "so clearly, with this

talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest

in divulging any new information or exloring any outstanding mysteries

of this case". Absolutely true. His sole purpose was the impact of

the events; not one more investigation of the events.

Why is this so difficult for conspiracy theorists to grasp? Whether one

chooses to believe in Oswalds guilt or in a conspiracy, when one throws their

objectivity into the garbage, they throw away opportunities for growth.

For you Ms. Mauro as a representative of the conspiracy side to actually

say...."I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into

perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a

more balanced view on the subject" is both immature and foolish.

It is however what I've come to expect from the conspiracy community when

faced with dwindling numbers of public support (according to a Scipps-Howard poll,

summer of 2007) that now 40% of the public believes in U. S. Government involvement

in the assassination itself. I suspect if the Tom Hanks production of Mr. Bugliosi's

"Reclaiming History" is actually made into a miniseries on HBO, that number will shrink

even further.

Paul L. May

[Pat Speer]

Terry, Paul May was on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, filling the role formerly held by David Von Pein: ardent LN supporter. He's but one guy offering his half-baked opinion. You needn't be worried that he represents anything larger.

As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc, and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are. Thus, he's now presented as a moderate.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky's (and/or Karl Rove's) theories regarding the building of a consensus should take notice.

[Terry Mauro]

You go girl!!

love ya,

Dawn

*****************************************************************

Just got this in from Tree Frog:

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/20...-alex-beam.html

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Oswald's Ghost? The truth is HERE, Alex Beam.

Alex Beam wrote a column yesterday that shows the poverty of knowledge in the anti-conspiracy press. He's discussing that propaganda coup "Oswald's Ghost," a masterfully presented, if wildly under-informed special on the Kennedy Assassination.

Beam, who obviously knows little about the case, finds the special persuasive. It doesn't occur to him that the special was a deliberately one-sided presentation designed to try to persuade conspiracy believers that there was no conspiracy.

How do I know he knows little about the case? Because he can write this:

Monday night U.S. public television aired "Oswald's Ghost," an elegantly crafted, 90-minute obituary for the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the one hand, filmmaker Robert Stone reports that about 70 percent of Americans still disbelieve the official investigation into Kennedy's killing. Veteran conspiracy jockey Mark Lane crows that, unlike the major networks and editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times, "I have been right all along" about the plot to kill Kennedy.

But a more impressive roster of experts, including Norman Mailer, Priscilla MacMillan, and Todd Gitlin, has arrived at a different conclusion. Edward Jay Epstein, who has criticized the official Warren Report on the assassination, now thinks there was no anti-JFK conspiracy. "As we cover decade after decade, not a shred has come out that would indicate what this conspiracy was," Epstein says. "After 40 years none of the theories pan out."

Does Beam really not know that he just used three CIA favorites and one guy who admittedly didn't follow the minutia of the case to rebut the notion that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Let's get rid of Gitlin off the bat. In his book The Sixties, Gitlin wrote:

From the national mélange of rational optimism and free-floating paranoia, and in the face of widely cited mysteries drifting foglike from cracks in the official accounts of the assassination, there emerged conspiracy theories galore. The Warren Commission Report, released on September 27, 1964, was shoddy enough, but something else was operating to discredit it: a huge cultural disbelief that an event so traumatic and vast in its consequence could be accounted for by a petty assassin. Popular books, starting with Mark Lane’s 1966 best-selling Rush to Judgment, punched holes in the Warren Commission’s finding that Oswald was the lone assassin. Serious journals like The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, and Ramparts, not to mention the more sensationalist underground papers, regaled their readers with tale after tale about exit wounds, gunshots from the grassy knoll, missing frames of the Zapruder film, the accuracy of Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, exotic Cuban émigrés, mysteriously murdered witnesses, double agents, double Oswalds. Many objections to the official line were convincing, but one had to become a full-time assassination obsessive to keep up with the intricacies.

In other words, Gitlin, through lack of interest or lack of obsession, couldn't keep up. So he really has no right to dismiss the evidence discovered by those who have kept up.

Next, let's dismiss Priscilla Johnson McMillan. By her own admission, and according to a sheet in her 201 file at CIA, McMillan was a "witting collaborator," meaning, not only did she do things in support of the CIA, but she knew she was working for the CIA (as opposed to others who serve the agency without realizing it, who are characterized in the CIA as "unwitting assets"). She was working for the CIA at the same time she was interviewing Oswald in the USSR, and when she was trying to befriend Marina. Draw the appropriate conclusions here. And I wish I had bought the tabloid in which McMillan was featured on a cover saying she had slept with President Kennedy. Had I known anyone would pretend to give her any credibility I would have paid for it and scanned it and posted it permanently on the Web.

In addition, Priscilla Johnson married George McMillan, author of a book about James Earl Ray who claimed, provably inaccurately, that Ray decided to kill King after watching him on TV in prison. His prison had no such TV viewable from Ray's cell, but facts don't seem to matter to either McMillan.

As for Edward Jay Epstein, come on. By his own admission, he was a protégé of James Jesus Angleton, under whose close watch the Oswald file was created and hidden away in Angleton's personal back-pocket group, CI/SIG - the "Special Investigations Group" within his CounterIntelligence department. So not only is Epstein close to the CIA, he was very close to the one man who had quite a lot of control over Oswald's pre-assassination CIA file, and likely, the man himself. I wrote a long two-part article laying out the case for Angleton's probable involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Get my book, The Assassinations if you want to read it.

And finally, let's talk about Norman Mailer. Mailer had, in his turbulent middle years, spoken out against the CIA quite loudly. Maybe a little too loudly, because I didn't buy it when I read about it later. It sounded more like he was running a false flag operation among the literary elite, painting himself as a CIA critic when he may have been working with them all along. Speaking of false flag operations, I think the fact that Mailer lived in an apartment directly below Rudolph Abel, a valuable Soviet spy we traded for the downed U2 pilot Francis Powers, at a time when Mailer was working on a book about a writer involved with a spy (Barbary Shore), is interesting. I find his latter day near boast, "I could have been a [spy],"1 even more interesting. I find his novel "Harlot's Ghost," (Harlot being James Angleton) in which he hints that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination, extremely interesting. And perhaps most interesting of all, even the New York Times was surprised when Mailer received a standing ovation at a speech he gave at the CIA, by invitation.2

So we have two CIA cheerleaders and one person who didn't care enough to follow the evidnece where it led telling us the CIA didn't kill Kennedy. Is it hard to understand why I can't take that seriously?

Beam went on to say:

I don't know what Stone's agenda was in making "Oswald's Ghost." I understood it as a fairly subtle commentary on time. If there had been more truths to reveal about the Kennedy assassination, time would have yielded them up. But it didn't.

But it did, Alex. Had you read Probe magazine in the 1990s, you would have seen revelation upon revelation stemming from the release of long sequestered files on the case by the Assassination Records Review Board. John Newman, himself a former intelligence analyst, to write Oswald and the CIA, a lengthy book in which he carefully, if perhaps too subtly, lays out the case that the CIA was controlling Oswald and moving him around like a pawn on a chessboard. In The Assassinations, I and others discuss many specific pieces of information that make a strong case for the CIA's involvement in the crime. None of this information, as Jim DiEugenio points out in his review of "Oswald's Ghost", is debunked, because none of it is even mentioned. Stone frames the case by keeping it locked prior to the release of the information that much more clearly makes the case for conspiracy.

Is the special persuasive? Sure, to the uninformed. But consider this. Would you be comfortable serving on a jury where the prosecutor was allowed to present both his case and the defendant's case? Absolutely not. But curiously, some, like Alex Beam, have no problem accepting it when the media does it.

I warned the readers of this blog that we were entering a year of disinformation on the assassinations because we're in a 'big' year, the 40th anniversary of the MLK and RFK assassinations, and the 45th year of the JFK case. "Oswald's Ghost" is only the opening salvo. Much worse is coming.

Notes

1. Mary V. Dearborn, Mailer (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), p. 409.

2. Elaine Sciolino, "Mailer Visits C.I.A. and Finds He's in Friendly Territory. Really." New York Times, February 3, 1992.

[Terry Mauro]

Terry, Paul May was on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, filling the role formerly held by David Von Pein: ardent LN supporter. He's but one guy offering his half-baked opinion. You needn't be worried that he represents anything larger.

As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc, and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are. Thus, he's now presented as a moderate.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky's (and/or Karl Rove's) theories regarding the building of a consensus should take notice.

**************************************************

"As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc., and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are."

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! I'm sorry Pat, but the statements made by those fools borders on hysterical absurdity.

Thanks for the clarification and I.D. on this guy, though. Seems I may have struck a nerve, perhaps? Oh well...there you go.

[William O'Neil]

What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?

-Bill

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.

This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.

I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.

If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.

The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?

BK

***************************************************************

Does anybody know who this guy is? I found this in my e-mail this morning.

Why couldn't he just post this on the forum to begin with, seeing as it's appropriate to the discussion.

No hard feelings, of course. I could care less what he thinks of my opinion.

See below:

From: "Paul May" < > Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: tmauro@pacbell.net

Subject: Oswalds Ghost

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:36 -0800

Ms. Mauro:

Although I infrequently visit the JFK site on the Education Forum, I

had the opportunity to read your critique on the film "Oswalds Ghost".

For myself personally, it was an extremely balanced story. Much time

was given to conspiracy theorists ranging from Jim Garrison to Mark

Lane.

I believe yourself and Mr. DiEugenio missed the point entirely.

The purpose of the film was not to spark debate over the events of

November 22nd, but how those events of that day infected or affected

the population and interests of the United States.

Mr. Stone is no doubt an "Oswald did it guy" but the balanced nature of the story

precludes those "of your ilk" [My emphasis. TM] from screaming "disinformation"

and then blaming PBS for airing the story.

Quite frankly Ms. Mauro, your comments on the Education Forum were

tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum over what snack he was given

after school. You then take the position if PBS does not show what you

believe they SHOULD show, you withdraw your support. How bizarre.

Did you by chance take this same position with the motion picture studio

that produced Oliver Stone's JFK? Oliver Stone essentially got three

things right in that film: The victim, the date and the location. If you are

indeed a seeker of the truth, you already know this.

You cannot have it both ways Ms. Mauro. The truth does not require

anybodys belief. PBS is surely under no obligation to broadcast

opposing points of view. DiEugenio stated "so clearly, with this

talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest

in divulging any new information or exloring any outstanding mysteries

of this case". Absolutely true. His sole purpose was the impact of

the events; not one more investigation of the events.

Why is this so difficult for conspiracy theorists to grasp? Whether one

chooses to believe in Oswalds guilt or in a conspiracy, when one throws their

objectivity into the garbage, they throw away opportunities for growth.

For you Ms. Mauro as a representative of the conspiracy side to actually

say...."I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into

perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a

more balanced view on the subject" is both immature and foolish.

It is however what I've come to expect from the conspiracy community when

faced with dwindling numbers of public support (according to a Scipps-Howard poll,

summer of 2007) that now 40% of the public believes in U. S. Government involvement

in the assassination itself. I suspect if the Tom Hanks production of Mr. Bugliosi's

"Reclaiming History" is actually made into a miniseries on HBO, that number will shrink

even further.

Paul L. May

Funny how he states, "The truth does not require anybody's belief ", and then two paragraphs later, sites an opinion poll about such beliefs ....

[Michael Hogan]

At least Oswald's Ghost showed high quality CBS clips of Oswald while he was in custody. Anyone with a discerning eye and ear can sense Oswald's anger, resolve, frustration and fear. All the psychobabble of McMillan, Aynesworth and Mailer could not overcome those haunting images of Oswald maintaining his innocence and his genuine confusion about the situation he was in.

In the corridor:

Oswald: I work in that building

Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: No. They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet Union.

I'm just a patsy.

And again in the corridor:

Oswald: These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: I didn't shoot anybody, no sir.

From the midnight press conference in the DPD basement:

Oswald: I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.

Reporter: (unintelligible)

Oswald: Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.

Reporter: Did you kill the President?

Oswald: No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall axed me that question.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

To me the most irritating thing about the movie is what I call "genre creep" (It is a relative of the late 1970s tax term bracket creep)

It starts out saying that its purpose it not to takes sides in the debate between LN's and CTers: its supposedly noble purpose is to show the delibilitating effect on the American "left" (Note that the rightwing doesn't seem to NEED such paternalistic gatekeeping)

Then it proceeds to give "both sides of the story" using outdated sources for the CT side.

Then, while clearly having won its own match-- umpired by itself it denies that any match occured at all and the intention was just to investigate a debilitating psychological state.

This is what is so gutless. It gives an biased point of "both sides of the story" and then denies it had any intention of passing gudgement. This might well be what disingenuous means.

[William Kelly]

At least Oswald's Ghost showed high quality CBS clips of Oswald while he was in custody. Anyone with a discerning eye and ear can sense Oswald's anger, resolve, frustration and fear. All the psychobabble of McMillan, Aynesworth and Mailer could not overcome those haunting images of Oswald maintaining his innocence and his genuine confusion about the situation he was in.

Thank you for that Michael. There were a few news film clips of Oswald in custody that I'd never seen before.

Following Oswald's Ghost there was another, older, previously released documentary Breaking the News, that focuses on the media coverage of the assassination, in which there were even more behind the scenes newsclips that I've never seen before. Gary Mack and the 6th Floor got co-credit for a lot of it, and I think they might have even more news reels that have not be repeatedly shown before.

Maybe Gil got it.

BK

In the corridor:

Oswald: I work in that building

Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: No. They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet Union.

I'm just a patsy.

And again in the corridor:

Oswald: These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: I didn't shoot anybody, no sir.

From the midnight press conference in the DPD basement:

Oswald: I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.

Reporter: (unintelligible)

Oswald: Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.

Reporter: Did you kill the President?

Oswald: No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall axed me that question.

[Terry Mauro]

At least Oswald's Ghost showed high quality CBS clips of Oswald while he was in custody. Anyone with a discerning eye and ear can sense Oswald's anger, resolve, frustration and fear. All the psychobabble of McMillan, Aynesworth and Mailer could not overcome those haunting images of Oswald maintaining his innocence and his genuine confusion about the situation he was in.

In the corridor:

Oswald: I work in that building

Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: No. They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet Union.

I'm just a patsy.

And again in the corridor:

Oswald: These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: I didn't shoot anybody, no sir.

From the midnight press conference in the DPD basement:

Oswald: I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.

Reporter: (unintelligible)

Oswald: Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.

Reporter: Did you kill the President?

Oswald: No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall axed me that question.

*********************************************************************

Yes, Mike. The one thing that was impressed upon me while watching Oswald, in Robert Stone's footage was the same feeling I got when I was 18 years old and watching the news reports coming in over the tube in November 1963.

He appeared innocent to me then, asking for counsel, it not being forthcoming, which was an excellent lesson in obstruction of justice and the blatant lack of Due Process being afforded, that day. And, the footage of Robert Stone's only reinforced those impressions upon me again, forty-four years later.

Thank you for bringing those points to the forefront.

[Terry Mauro]

To me the most irritating thing about the movie is what I call "genre creep" (It is a relative of the late 1970s tax term bracket creep)

It starts out saying that its purpose it not to takes sides in the debate between LN's and CTers: its supposedly noble purpose is to show the delibilitating effect on the American "left" (Note that the rightwing doesn't seem to NEED such paternalistic gatekeeping)

Then it proceeds to give "both sides of the story" using outdated sources for the CT side.

Then, while clearly having won its own match-- umpired by itself it denies that any match occured at all and the intention was just to investigate a debilitating psychological state.

This is what is so gutless. It gives an biased point of "both sides of the story" and then denies it had any intention of passing gudgement. This might well be what disingenuous means.

************************************************************

Something that just dropped into the box:

Served out of Lighterage division, Naval Support, DaNang. Seeking info on any officers or enlisted. LTjg Hal Henry specifically. LTjg Robert Moinester, KIA during Tet Offensive. Lived at Camp Tien Sha, worked often out of White Elephant, DaNang.

NAME = Paul L. May <EMAIL = PMay[ at ]Empireequity.com>

UNITs SHIPs BOATs = Operations Division

BASEs or LOCATIONS= Naval Support Activity, DaNang

YEARs in VIETNAM = June, 66 - Sept, 68

FROM WHERE = Massapequa, NY

REFFERED By = a friend

-

http://www.aboutus.org/EmpireEquity.com

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

PBS is rebroadcasting this chicken-sewage on Monday, nationally. I plan on responding by posting information from this site and Spartacus on Priscilla Johnson and Hugh A. on 15 big newspaper web sites around the country. We should use this as an opportunity to expose Mockingbird.

One side is given a vast audience.

The other must fight for it.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer