Peter McGuire Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 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 have a hard time with that assertion, since it has been shown countless times on this board to my satisfaction that most of what is shown in the movie "JFK" is what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 ....., 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 I agree. An unfit president is a president who could be killed. JFK was in a word "killable" And he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 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. ------------------------------------------------------- Took the mots right out of my mouth. There's simply no analogy there. Garrison and Stone each broke ground, did something couragious and certainly stood up to the hits that followed. Besides, I don't mind it a bit whenver the Times, Ms Huffington or Mr. Mack get offended. BTW, has Stone ever made an appearance at COPA or other gatherings in Dallas or been to The Museum? JG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Gary Mack needs to remember that without JFK there would be no JFK Act. Mind you, given what Doug Horne is saying, Gary probably wishes there were no JFK Act.nor would he have his job at the tsbm... b Edited February 18, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) "I was amazed to find reading those pages that every single conversation with the President in the Oval office or elsewhere in which I according to the script participated, never happened. There were no such conversations... A minimum amount of research could've avoided the remarkable number of obvious errors of that kind in this script." -- Ted Sorensen Everyone seems to have it right. If you don't have film that would support the official story, make one up. If the patsy doesn't have a weapon, plant one on him. If you need a stooge to direct a museum to ignore or obfuscate the evidence, hire one. If you want to trash the man's reputation so no one cares any more, find some hack to write a script that smears him! Anyone familiar with "JFK", especially THE BOOK OF THE FILM, knows that Olive Stone and Zackary Sklar went to extraordinary lengths in their research. The film affords the most accurate, complete, and comprehensive presentation of what actually took place in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever provided through the mass media--even though it is still too simple by half! 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 have a hard time with that assertion, since it has been shown countless times on this board to my satisfaction that most of what is shown in the movie "JFK" is what really happened. Edited February 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Well, apart from according to a rip every third frame showing what happened that day, yes. (I assume you now accept the Zapruder film as genuine, apart from the excicing of frames here and there, Jim.) As far as the staged presentation it has its flaws, but as far as telling the Garrison Story it can't be denied as a great film (with artistic licence of course, (they can be listed as a sequence of cinematorgraphs leaps of faith enforced by directorial-editing-soundscore) quite apart from the stellar acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Response to Message from Gary Mack. Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories. Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened. And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history. That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Response to Message from Gary Mack. Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories. Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened. And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history. That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not. Bill Kelly ABSOLUTELY, BILL!!!!! Excellent. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Response to Message from Gary Mack. Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories. Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened. And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history. That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not. Bill Kelly ABSOLUTELY, BILL!!!!! Excellent. Jack Note from Gary Mack: The show is NOT a documentary but the Hitler Channel is now doing a DRAMATIZATION, which gives them the liberty to dramatize whatever they want. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Response to Message from Gary Mack. Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories. Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened. And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history. That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not. Bill Kelly ABSOLUTELY, BILL!!!!! Excellent. Jack Note from Gary Mack: The show is NOT a documentary but the Hitler Channel is now doing a DRAMATIZATION, which gives them the liberty to dramatize whatever they want. BK dramatization, now its an WCR disnfo trick, eh? The trolls are getting boring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) If I had Stone's talent and opportunity, I'd have made "JFK" about Vincent Salandria, not Garrison. No one has penetrated to the core of the case with more clarity than the lawyer from Philly. Edited February 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Message from Gary Mack:I'm confused. It's apparently OK for Oliver Stone to distort JFK history, but not Joel Surnow? Gary Mack Response to Message from Gary Mack. Gary, the difference between Oliver Stone's JFK and Joel Surnow's History Channel Documentary is that Stone was making a major motion picture for entertainment purposes, a fictional account of an historical event that acknowledges using composite characters and made up dialog. Sometimes such fiction is closer to the truth than documented histories. Joel Surnow is supposed to be making a documentary film about the Kennedy White House, but Ted Sorrensen, who has read parts of the script, says that the conversations in the film that he was party to never happened. And since Kennedy secretly taped the conversations in the Oval Office, the ExCom meetings and his phone conversations, the transcripts of these tapes are accurate dialog so there is no need to make up conversatons - it's all right there and in the public domain and free to use, as they were used in the film "13 Days" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Surnow can distort JFK history, make up dialog that was never spoken and spin the story any way he wants, but he can't call it a documental history. That's why it's okay for Oliver Stone to distort history to get at a greater cinematic truth, while it's not okay for Surnow to distort history and falsely claim its the documented truth when it's clearly not. Bill Kelly ABSOLUTELY, BILL!!!!! Excellent. Jack Note from Gary Mack: The show is NOT a documentary but the Hitler Channel is now doing a DRAMATIZATION, which gives them the liberty to dramatize whatever they want. BK Gary Mack has asked me to correct the record, as it appears to him that the above quote implies that HE refers to the "History Channel" as the "Hitler Channel," when in fact, that is my call completely. He exhibits no concern whatsoever however, for the misperceptions that the "History Channel" promotes under the guise of history when in fact they are presenting "dramaization" of what is perported to be a real, historic and documented event. Nor does Gary Mack seem a bit concerned over the historical impression the Sixth Floor Museum gives that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy, when in fact it can be positively demonstrated that Oswald was no where near the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest at the time of the assassination and was set up as the fall guy and Lone Patsy. And I continue to argue against the effort to prevent the production of this program and the History Channel to show it, as I think it is more important to get these issues up front, and any in the program that is wrong can be used as an opportunity to expose the program for what it is - false propaganda and not real history. When the History Channell first got started, they primarly promoted WWII "documentaries," but now, apparently, they are presenting "dramatizations" of historical events, certainly giving a lot of leeway to those who want to use history to promote a false political perspective. Usually, history is written by the winners, but in this case, the facts of what happened, what people really said, what people did and the outcome are clearly established facts, and those who maintain that the cover story will follow it as it unfolds - from the Cuban-Commie conspiracy, the Lone-Nut scenario, the renegade CIA/Cubans, and the Mafia, eventually get around to those who really killed him, and what they have to say is simply JFK was an evil, liberal bastard who got what he deserved. The last back up cover story is the truth - those who killed him, when backed up in a corner, just admit the truth - the bastard got what he deserved. But you really got to nail them to the wall for them to admit that, except for those who have sold their souls, like Blakey, Holland, Russo, et al... BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) HI GARY POO I SEE YOU LOGGED ON BELOW BILL GOOD POST MAY I ASK IF IT IS KNOWN IF GARY IS TO BE IN THIS NEW SO CALLED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY OR IS INVOLVED IN ANYWAY..ENQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW...GARY YOUR HERE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR POST A REPLY AS I AM SURE OF COURSE YOU WILL STRAIGHTEN ME OUT AND HAVE A NONE POSTED BY YOU REPLY...B Edited February 22, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 HI GARY POO I SEE YOU LOGGED ON BELOW BILL GOOD POST MAY I ASK IF IT IS KNOWN IF GARY IS TO BE IN THIS NEW SO CALLED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY OR IS INVOLVED IN ANYWAY..ENQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW...GARY YOUR HERE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR POST A REPLY AS I AM SURE OF COURSE YOU WILL STRAIGHTEN ME OUT AND HAVE A NONE POSTED BY YOU REPLY...B Gary tells me that he has nothing to do with this production, other than try to compare it to Oliver Stone's "JFK," and to make sure that its not him, but others who call it the Hitler Channel, and to try to confuse what is clearly two distinct classes of film - historical documentary and fictional drama. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 BILL...PERHAPS THE HITLER CHANNEL NAME WILL COME INTO IT'S OWN IF THEY DO KEEP UP THIS KIND OF DISTORTION..OF HISTORY.....ONE NEVER KNOWS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now