D'uh History Channel set to air Right-wing smear job of JFK

[Joseph Backes]

Hello,

See - http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010...-air-right.html

Joe Backes

[John Simkin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/k...g_n_464656.html

[Michael Hogan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/arts/tel.../17kennedy.html

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Very interesting, if not surprising in that the worst excesses of JFK are all likely true. This, though, shouldn't define the person historically.

In the NY Times article the screenwriter says he is "drawing upon nonfiction works, including books by Seymour Hersh, Robert Dallek, David Talbot and others. “If I’m wrong,” he said, “I guess all of them are wrong.”"

So he reads these guys and then produces Jackie Collins - that's a decent trick!

Edited February 17, 2010 by Gary Loughran

[John Simkin]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

[Michael Hogan]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

Sounds as if Gary Mack is not aware that Oliver Stone received a lot of criticism from both sides for his movie JFK.

That notwithstanding, Stone's movie ultimately had a lot to do, either directly or indirectly, with advancing interest in the study

of President Kennedy's murder; The ARRB, a host of books and an increased awareness, particularly in a younger generation

for example. Stone's movie surely resulted in increased attendance to the Sixth Floor Museum.

Maybe Surnow's film will help get the Joannides files released.

[Dean Hagerman]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

[David Andrews]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

[Joseph Backes]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

That should tell you all you need to know about Gary (not his real name) Mack.

Joe Backes

[Martin Hinrichs]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

Thats disturbing and revealing at the same time. /o\

[John Dolva]

If I understand this correctly then: anyone is disreditable. JFK is based on the earlier vcr garrison tapes and tells that story. Obviously Stone thought it worth telling, and so did a remarkable host of distinguished actor and in doing so also portrayed a loved and hated president. What did the average man and woman feel with regards to Kennedy? Kennedy showed people all over the world a different way of being in regards to that which most impacted on their livelihoods and well being, peace and equality. To pick through his garbage bins and present it as a montage of the man can in no way be compared with stones telling of the garrison story. The impact however is important. On the one hand a powerful movie that reminded and revitalised many to the point where democracy almost got a grip on government again.

Any attempt to belittle the man must be seen in that context.

In a way it forebodes the future for otherwise what reason could there be to throw mud at him? God forbid there should ever be a president like him again, and that is only a measure of the reverberating contrast he presented us with and we see because it is within us already and it's what we as human beings naturally posess. We all also posess aspects that can disarm us, and these are usually the aspects we can recognise within our selves but usually deny. So, associated with that process Kennedy, who was what he stood for, becomes less, which in turn allows even grosser defects. Those with a modicum of understanding will sigh and probably feel even more disenchanted and others will seize on it to rally to their cause.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Message from Gary Mack:

I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow?

Gary Mack

-----

I thought those deus ax Mechanical jobs were supposed to chop from higher than Mr. Byrd's sixth floor.

[Michael Hogan]

http://stopkennedysmears.com/

[David G. Healy]

http://stopkennedysmears.com/

thank you....

[William Kelly]

I disagree with the attempt to boycott the Hitler/History Channel.

I know for a fact that a number of very reputable assassination researchers have approached the History Channel about serious, objective and conspiracy oriented documentaries and have been turned down.

If this goes through, it just gives those who disagree an opportunity to point out the falacies and go in the right direction.

As Ted Sorrensen has already pointed out, having read the screenplay, all those conversations said to have taken place in his presence never happened.

In addition, since JFK recorded most of the converstations in the Oval Office and on the phone, as well as ORDERING the coversations from radio transmission from AF1 be recorded, there's no need to make up coversations as they are all recorded and transcribed - see: the movie 13 Days, based entirely on the recorded conversations. Just as the movie 13 Days was a pre-quil to Stone's JFK, this can be shown not only to be a false history, but one that establishes the reasons why JFK was killed.

Just as the Bugliosi/HBO production on Reframing Oswald should not be halted, but a real documentary and history set up to compete with it for the 50th anniversary, this production should proceed and be exposed for what it is - establishing the motive for those who killed JFK.

Bill Kelly