Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Barbour's New Film Coming

Geno Munari

Recommended Posts

Coming Soon.   Here is the link to the trailer of John Barbour's new film, The American Media and the Second Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The role of the media in not covering the assassination truthfully.

He will be previewing this film at the Texas Theater in Dallas and speaking at  Judyth Vary Baker's THE JFK ASSASSINATION CONFERENCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

John Barbour posted this message on Facebook today:

I am not surprised in LA the Times dismissed the film as 'conspiracy porn.'In NY where we open at the Cinema Village, the NY Times will dismiss it by not even mentioning it. What is surprising is that so called counter culture papers like The LA Weekly and Village Voice had no interest in just peeking at it. The additional surprise is that the NY critic MAY want to review it, and asked for a dvd which I sent. I also sent this letter:

John Defore,
629 54th st., Re: Holl...ywood Reporter Review
Brooklyn, NY,


Thank you for your interest and curiosity in wanting to possibly
write a review of my film, 'The American Media & The 2nd.
Assassination Of Pres. John F. Kennedy.'

As the former film critic for LA Magazine for ten years, and five
years at KNBC, Los Angeles, let me tell you that two things are
evident and important when you write a review.

One is: your opinion of the film.

Two: and much more important.. if you hope for a long career
at this: are you a good writer, and are you knowledgeable
about the subject.

No 2 is important in this case. If you look at the non review
in the LA Times, Fri., May 26th., you will quickly discover
the reviewer knew absolutely nothing about the subject, so
dismissed it with the trite phrase 'Conspiracy porn!' He was
so ignorant, not being able to refute one of the mountains
of facts,and so anxious to not have his ignorance upset, he
dismissed me as 'Someone with a grudge!'

That is true. A grudge against incompetents like this who
have infested our media for 50 plus years as you will see,
trampling on the truths uncovered by Jim Garrison's investigation,
sabotaged illegally by both media and government. Hard
facts for good folks to swallow. Impossible facts to disprove.
If you go to the LA Times site, you will also se my spot on
review of his review.

Now, I do not care if you think the movie is a piece of crap.
That is up to you. But for my sake and your sake, the readers'
sake, and the film's sake, at least make it readable and
interesting and funny if you can.

Whatever you do, I hope it sees print!

Good luck, and thanks again.

John Barbour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the film last week in Beverly Hills. David Lifton called me up to see if I was interested. I was. I attended with a friend and spoke to David afterwards. It is my understanding he will be writing a review of the film.

As for my impressions, I found the film both disappointing, and frustrating. It covers the assassination story from the beginning, until recent times. Barbour makes a huge mistake, IMO, in using himself as the narrator. He is 84 years old, and cranky, and the film comes across as a rant, more than a careful analysis. It's not that Barbour didn't have a story to tell. It's just that he injects his story with little outside input outside snippets from his Garrison interviews, and the occasional friendly face interjecting "That's crazy!" or some such thing (I assume he thought this was funny. It reminded me, however, of Barbour's "goofy TV background in shows like 'Real People', and distracted from the film as a whole.) The film also contains numerous unforced errors--little mistakes, such as claiming the bullet shells were found on a window sill--that made me groan and wonder why no one close to Barbour gave him a list of easy fixes, that could have and should have been fixed long before he showed his rant to the public.

The worst part, for me, however, was when he tried to stretch the conspiracy to kill JFK, and cover-it-up, into being a conspiracy to undermine democracy as we knew it, that continues to this day. This aligned him, ultimately, with Alex Jones and his ilk (including Trump) in that he tried to connect everyone involved in da guvment, post assassination, with the assassination, and its cover-up. He even tried to drag the Clintons and Obama into it. In the end it felt like a low-budget pseudo-documentary (like Spinal Tap) which was a companion to a Nicholas Cage movie in which America's secret history is contained in a book which is passed from President to President, and where they all conspire to keep the truth from the public. 

If I didn't know better--that a lot of what was in the film was true--it would have been very easy for me to dismiss the film entirely. Which brings me to a dilemma... It seems likely this film will make its way to Netflix or Youtube or both.  When it does, should I hope the film finds an audience? I'd like people--real people--to hear John Barbour's story.  But it would be a shame if they swallowed it whole.

I honestly don't know what to think...

P.S. A parting thought...which demonstrates, I believe, one of the key problems with the film. During the Q and A afterwards, a member of the audience asked Barbour why he failed to mention David Ferrie's ties to New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, and Garrison's failure to investigate these ties. Barbour's response was illuminating. He got irritated and began arguing with the audience member, and ultimately shouted him down with his assurance that Garrison failed to investigate the mob because the mob didn't do it.

Think about it.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Barbour posted this comment on Facebook today, which included the link below:

The Deep State, as Jim Garrisob says in ' The Amer. Media & The 2nd Assassination Of Pres. John F. Kennedy' could not kill JFK without the help of the Media. This is one reason we entered it in The Moscow Film Festival where we seem to be hearing more Truth about our own country than from our own Media.




Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2017 at 9:37 AM, Pat Speer said:


Pat Speer said  ... "If I didn't know better--that a lot of what was in the film was true--it would have been very easy for me to dismiss the film entirely. "

Most important line in your critique IMO.

Still, from what you describe about the films distracting style and manner of presentation, it's kind of sad that in doing the narration himself Mr. Barbour perhaps makes his message (with all it's important truths) somewhat less interesting and harder to watch than the message deserves?

Which is a little ironic considering the point is the lack of national media coverage, purposeful or not. 

But I give anyone who is willing to put themselves and their time, money and hard work out there to at least "try" to enlighten the general population to incredibly important yet purposely hidden truths that have effected their lives in harmful ways more than they know KUDOS, BRAVOS AND RIGHT- ONS even if these efforts may not garner rave literary, film or other reviews and awards.

I give a big THANK YOU to John Barbour in this regards.

We are big Netflix subscribers so I will order his film as soon as it is offered.





Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Was Judith Baker there promoting her "Here Lee take these living cells with  you  to Mexico and say hi to Sparky for me" story?

The first post on this thread says she was going to speak. Any event with  her there should  raise alarm bells.

Judyth was not there and there was no mention of her in the film, that I recall. Keep in mind that the showing the other day was in Beverly Hills and that the showing mentioned in the first post took place last year in Dallas. Barbour mentioned that showing before his most recent "premiere". He said the film had received a standing ovation when first shown in Dallas. The reception in Beverly Hills was more muted. A decent amount of applause, with most of the audience staying for the Q and A after the screening, and a large chunk of the audience (12-15 members) meeting up after at Canter's (a legendary late night Hollywood hangout) to continue the discussion. 

Edited by Pat Speer
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
  • Create New...