Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Oliver Stone's JFK accurate or credible?


John Wilson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Having not read widely about JFK's assassination, except having read some posts here, and having done a JFK College project over two decades ago, in the 90's I tended to think that Stone's epic JFK was a masterpiece.

But, although it's a fantastic piece of film-making based upon Garrison's own account of the investigation, now i am unsure about it's credibility or accuracy?

Did his offices really get bugged and a staff member betray him?

Did an 'inside man' advise him about black ops etc (Sutherland)?

Were witnesses and cops/agents alike still being 'found dead' as late as the late 70's, or still?

What are the current views by those more learned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's also give it a bit of a break as well John... the movie is almost 20 years old and was done without the benefit of the FOIA documents that have been found since.

Rather than the Leonardo movie the community at large wold have hoped to see a "JFK" size movie that adds all the new information and maybe even creates a push for a new level of disclosure.

Maybe Jesse V can get his TV series made into an all encompassing Conspiracy movie and bring everyone up to date... that interview with Vincent B is priceless - reminds me of when M Moore interviewed Charlton Heston....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having not read widely about JFK's assassination, except having read some posts here, and having done a JFK College project over two decades ago, in the 90's I tended to think that Stone's epic JFK was a masterpiece.

But, although it's a fantastic piece of film-making based upon Garrison's own account of the investigation, now i am unsure about it's credibility or accuracy?

Did his offices really get bugged and a staff member betray him?

Did an 'inside man' advise him about black ops etc (Sutherland)?

Were witnesses and cops/agents alike still being 'found dead' as late as the late 70's, or still?

What are the current views by those more learned?

While not an expert on Garrison, it's pretty clear to me that Stone's movie over-sold Garrison to some extent. Garrison kept changing his story, and kept pulling weird things out of his hat--such as Ruby's phone number being in Oswald's phone book, only in code. As a result, it's not hard to see how honest people wanting to know the TRUTH about the assassination might decide he was a fraud.

But that's only half the story. The other half is that, whatever Garrison's intentions, the documents released over the decades have confirmed, over and over, that the Federal government conspired to embarrass and shut down his investigation. Now, that's pretty wild. A local DA decides to investigate a murder plot involving men living within his jurisdiction, and the Federal government pulls out all the stops to make sure this investigation is derailed.

Now, whatever its motivations--whether in the interest of "justice" or simply to avoid the possibility Garrison would embarrass the Johnson Administration--this smells pretty bad.

When you take into account that--as part of its effort to derail Garrison--the "Justice Dept." pressured both Kennedy's chief autopsist to LIE through his teeth about Kennedy's back wound on national TV, and 4 civilian doctors to re-interpret Kennedy's head wounds--it moves beyond smelling bad, and becomes nausea-inducing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the aftertaste in my mouth regarding US Politics remains as bitter as ever despite the film parts I now like/dislike!

I can't believe that the US authorities 'got away with it' (then and/or) still?

I suppose at least the extreme-right has had it's nose rubbed in it by the election of a black President, whatever else happens behind the scenes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that interview with Vincent B is priceless.

What I don't understand is why Vince Bugliosi let that conspiracy-happy kook (Jesse Ventura) in his house to film an interview with him in the first place? Unbelievably stupid on Vincent's part.

Vince surely had to know that everything of an evidentiary nature that he'd be telling Ventura about Oswald's lone guilt was going to end up on the cutting-room floor. (And it did--of course.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that interview with Vincent B is priceless.

What I don't understand is why Vince Bugliosi let that conspiracy-happy kook (Jesse Ventura) in his house to film an interview with him in the first place? Unbelievably stupid on Vincent's part.

Vince surely had to know that everything of an evidentiary nature that he'd be telling Ventura about Oswald's lone guilt was going to end up on the cutting-room floor. (And it did--of course.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

Dave, do you have inside information on the length and extent of the interview? Or are you just blowing smoke? To all appearances, the conversation never got that far. Bugliosi started spouting crud about there being no ties between DeMohrenschildt and the CIA, etc, and Jesse cut him off. Bugliosi then demanded they shut off the cameras.

As far as Jesse being a "conspiracy-happy" kook, what you are apparently incapable of understanding is that Bugliosi is quite cozy with the conspiracy crowd. He's one of its LEADERS. I mean, think about it--what other public figure called for a re-opening of the RFK case in the 70's AND called for the impeachment of 5 members of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Bush v Gore AND called for the prosecution of George Bush for war crimes?

Your hero is a CT. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that interview with Vincent B is priceless.

What I don't understand is why Vince Bugliosi let that conspiracy-happy kook (Jesse Ventura) in his house to film an interview with him in the first place? Unbelievably stupid on Vincent's part.

Vince surely had to know that everything of an evidentiary nature that he'd be telling Ventura about Oswald's lone guilt was going to end up on the cutting-room floor. (And it did--of course.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html

Dave, do you have inside information on the length and extent of the interview? Or are you just blowing smoke? To all appearances, the conversation never got that far. Bugliosi started spouting crud about there being no ties between DeMohrenschildt and the CIA, etc, and Jesse cut him off. Bugliosi then demanded they shut off the cameras.

As far as Jesse being a "conspiracy-happy" kook, what you are apparently incapable of understanding is that Bugliosi is quite cozy with the conspiracy crowd. He's one of its LEADERS. I mean, think about it--what other public figure called for a re-opening of the RFK case in the 70's AND called for the impeachment of 5 members of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Bush v Gore AND called for the prosecution of George Bush for war crimes?

Your hero is a CT. Deal with it.

According to Jesse Ventura, Vince Bugliosi is a good friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[bugliosi] is a CT. Deal with it.

Not as far as the JFK case is concerned.

And I think VB has changed his tune about the RFK "conspiracy", too. I'm not positive about that, however, since Vince never once mentioned the RFK case (and his involvement in it in the 1970s) during his

hundreds of radio and TV appearances in 2007 while promoting "Reclaiming History". And I don't recall him talking about it to any extent in "RH" either.

But I don't understand the thinking of CTers regarding Bugliosi. It's obvious that if Vince thinks something is a conspiracy, he'll come out and say so (such as with the RFK case in the '70s). So why isn't that a GOOD thing and a feather in VB's cap (from a CTer's POV)?

~shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Jesse Ventura, Vince Bugliosi is a good friend.

Yes. And that's probably how Vince got suckered into appearing on a kooky conspiracy-oriented show in the first place.

Maybe Jesse made Vince believe he'd come off looking okay. Beats me. But I'm still surprised Vince would appear on a program that he surely had to know would be attempting to make all lone-assassin advocates look like idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm still surprised Vince would appear on a program that he surely had to know would be attempting to make all lone-assassin advocates look like idiots.

And yet you continue to come to the Education Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having not read widely about JFK's assassination, except having read some posts here, and having done a JFK College project over two decades ago, in the 90's I tended to think that Stone's epic JFK was a masterpiece.

But, although it's a fantastic piece of film-making based upon Garrison's own account of the investigation, now i am unsure about it's credibility or accuracy?

Did his offices really get bugged and a staff member betray him?

Did an 'inside man' advise him about black ops etc (Sutherland)?

Were witnesses and cops/agents alike still being 'found dead' as late as the late 70's, or still?

What are the current views by those more learned?

JFK is a movie. It works as a movie. Stone called it 'myth-counter/myth' to the WCR. He takes dramatic license when he deems it necessary to make the plot move better. Ironically, I think the family segments with Garrison just bog the action down. Stone created composite characters and took liberties with known information. As others have pointed out, there is a lot more information available now than when JFK was made.

On the other hand, the Garrison investigation was a monstrous mess. It defies description and the treatment of it by the press has added to the issues of determining its strengths and weaknesses. That Stone chose to resurrect Garrison after so much time and that he was able to do so successfully, though of course with lots of controversy, is amazing. Garrison's was the only investigation through due process of the assassination. Of course, that was a terrible threat to the Ongoing Cover-up. So, I am pleased that Stone made JFK and accept it for the dramatic wonder that it is -- the first half at any rate, and for the fact that he has interested a new generation in finding out what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi john; in case you have not seen nor heard them as yet here are the video's of the Garrison tapes...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vdsEN4rC5M<BR> also you may be interested in the book of the jfk film...i am sure it can be bought used on the book sites, if interested,,,great first post btw...b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

The answer is YES, Oliver Stone's movie JFK is very credible and very accurate. The movie calls the JFK assassination a Coup d'Etat which is exactly what it was. I highly recommend this movie. As for Jim Garrison: kudos to him. He was going on national TV in 1967 crowing at the top of his lungs that the CIA murdered John Kennedy. Bingo! That is right on the money. And Garrison was telling folks that Lyndon Johnson and the FBI were covering up this murder.

In my opinion, Lyndon Johnson was at the CENTER of the 1963 Coup d'Etat, both as a participant and cover up artist. I think Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy.

Jim Garrison, God Bless him, did not have enough evidence to go to trial and Clay Shaw perjured himself all throughout the trial when he said he was not intelligence and that he did not know David Ferrie. Garrison was a dangerous man to the murderers of John Kennedy; he was uncovering quickly much of their plot even if did not have enough evidence to convict Clay Shaw.

Send me an email to Morrow321@aol.com and I will send you my "LBJ and CIA killed JFK" file.

There are a lot of good web links and other info in this file. I would SKIM it first and see what catches your eye. Also, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to call me at 512-306-1510. Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy in the 1963 Coup dEtat. (People like HL Hunt, Clint Murchison Sr., Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, top Nelson Rockefeller aide Henry Kissinger, George Herbert Walker Bush and Gen. Edward Lansdale all are excellent candidates for elite sponsorship.) Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles may very well have been co-CEOs of the JFK assassination; with the CIA in charge of the killing of JFK, and Lyndon Johnson and (his close friend and neighbor of 19 years in Washington, DC) FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the cover up. The Warren Commission should have really been called the Allen Dulles Commission because he controlled it and made it the farce that it was. Dulles was probably an elite sponsor (i.e. murderer), as well as certainly Lyndon Johnson. The 3 hardcore cover up artists on the Warren Commission were the 3 Council on Foreign Relations members: Allen Dulles (president CFR 1946-50), John J. McCloy (then chairman of the CFR 1953-1970) and Gerald Ford (CFR member, later president). Cover up artist Gerald Ford was reporting to Hoover and the FBI what the Warren Commission was doing. The CFR especially 40 years ago, was heavily Rockefeller influenced and it top players were deep CIA.

Lately, I have been studying the role of McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Advisor for JFK and Henry Cabot Lodge, JFKs insubordinate ambassador to Vietnam who Kennedy was planning to fire on Monday, 11/25/63. It is probable that both McGeorge Bundy and Henry Cabot Lodge were involved some way with the JFK assassination. McGeorge Bundy, astonishingly, was already drafting sharp escalations to JFKs Vietnam policy NSAM 273 (which Kennedy would NOT have approved) on 11/21/63, the night before the 1963 Coup dEtat! Bundy later ran the Ford Foundation from 1966-1979.

The midlevel murderers (field operations) of JFK would include CIA guys like E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, William King Harvey and David Atlee Phillips. Influential mobster Johnny Roselli was especially close friends with the CIAs William King Harvey. The most likely mafia godfathers involved would be Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, particularly in the Jack Ruby murder of Oswald and perhaps in the JFK Assassination as well.

The elite domestic murderers of JFK did it for many reasons, both personal and ideological. At the core it was Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, and the shadow government of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers. I am always will to learn and I am always willing to change my mind. Two excellent books to read on the JFK assassination are 1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFKs Assassination (2010) by Phillip Nelson http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/ and 2) JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (2008) by James Douglass. Review: http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Robert Morrow Austin, TX 512-306-1510

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Jesse Ventura, Vince Bugliosi is a good friend.

Yes. And that's probably how Vince got suckered into appearing on a kooky conspiracy-oriented show in the first place.

Maybe Jesse made Vince believe he'd come off looking okay. Beats me. But I'm still surprised Vince would appear on a program that he surely had to know would be attempting to make all lone-assassin advocates look like idiots.

Well, consider it payback for what the creators of Penn & Teller's Bullxxxx did to Jim Marrs. (They invited him on the show to discuss the Kennedy assassination only to call him a whacko in the voice-overs and take some cheap shots by talking about his books on UFOs.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...