Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oliver Stones take on the records.


Cory Santos
 Share

Recommended Posts

Short and to the point.

I wonder how many people he has employed looking through the records?

He must be grinning a little to know his work was influential in getting the records released this far.

 

My Statement on the JFK Files Release:

Yesterday, over 3,100 files were supposed to be finally released, 25 years after the JFK Act was passed and 20 years after the Review Board closed its doors. The page count is reportedly in the tens of thousands.

But yet the CIA is still trying to hold up the process by claiming they want redactions in these declassified documents, 54 years after JFK was killed. They waited until the last day to file an appeal when they knew 3 months ago that today was the deadline.

President Trump should stay true to his word. Declassify everything.

Sincerely,

Oliver Stone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, grandstanding is typical Trump.  He trolled us.  He did include in his original statement something about 'pending further information' so he probably knew ahead of time what he was going to do.  

But a bigger question, to me, is how the general public is going to make sense out of this.  CNN is already tossing out 'conspiracy theories' which we know they will inevitably rein in with a statement such as 'too bad JFK was killed by a 'silly little Communist', as Jackie K. said...'  The import of what has happened gives credence once again to the seriousness of the ongoing cover-up of the assassination. But with all these theatrics, most people will miss this.  Maybe that's the point...

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coverage on this has been so lacking in any kind of professionalism that its really kind of ridiculous.

The media is reporting on things they think are new, but really are not.  They have just been redacted in the past.

I really don't think they know the difference.   

Oliver must have been bombarded with media requests.  He probably will not go on until the final April disclosure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I turned on NPR on my way to work early this evening and who did they choose to do commentary on the release...Phil Shenon!

National Public Radio! 

What is going on here?

Are there no research experts in America besides this guy?

How has this guy managed to be on everything!

Couldn't they have asked Jim Di and so many others on this forum?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I asked Rachel Maddow. Jim is right - she won't respond. Makes me doubt that I can trust any journalist working mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I would agree to redact a record would be a still living former US agent who is living in Cuba. So if we employed somebody in the 60s and let them go. If they are still alive, giving their name or identifying information would be a death sentence. Besides that, I agree everything should be released. And to be honest how many records could there be that fit that narrow corner case. 

But I just saw the following story: 'I will be releasing ALL JFK files': Trump pivots from earlier decision to redact records 

So there may be hope

Clark Merrill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to start a new thread, but this one seems like a good place to post the following, because Oliver Stone might be wondering the same thing. As we know, Stone has spent considerable time interviewing Putin, and has taken heat for it. In fact I would bet many posters here wonder why Stone would be at all sympathetic with Putin.

When the Russia/Trump story started to break a year ago my first reaction was 'here we go again, bashing Russia'. But then as I read more of the evidence I began to believe in large part that the Russians had interfered with our election for their own purposes, and that what they feared was a Clinton presidency, and possibly wanted Trump to win. There is so much material leading in these directions. But as Mueller begins to bring indictments we have concurrently Trump tweeting that he will release (I guess he means order the release of) all documents related to JFK with only certain names and addresses blacked out. Meanwhile every network and media outlet seems to prefer Philip Shenon to all other JFK researchers. Shenon's take on the assassination specifically points at Castro, and the Soviets (pardon me if my take on Shenon is not nuanced - I've only skimmed his material). Many of us, me included, think that his theory is bogus, and wonder why it is being promoted in this way. Could there be a connection between Shenon's sudden rise to media prominence and the current Russia investigation? And will the document release support Shenon's point of view? 

One thing that this confluence makes me wonder about is who was it that interfered with the election? We know that Cambridge Analytica  and Robert Mercer were angaged in the kind of data mining that would enable a covert campaign of influence using targeted news, or fake news as we now call it. Does the information about Russian trolls and bots necessarily mean that Putin was behind the scenes engineering this? How would we know? At this point so many people (Talbot has written about his phenomena extensively on FB) are rooting for the FBI and the Generals, hoping they will contain, or perhaps bring down, the current president. Meanwhile, the left leaning journalists and mainstream left of center are doing a horrible job of presenting any REAL news on the JFK document release, the same media that has been lying for decades about JFK. 

The possibility exists that if the promised documents are released they will lend credence to Shenon's story, and by inference support the current theory that Putin was manipulating our election. Can we really count on Rachel Maddow? Isn't there another possibility here that no one talks about? Which is, in brief, that the attack on our election was outsourced and made to look like something it is not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press is following the same formula they always do -- pretend to posit conspiracy and then end up with the 'silly little Communist' did it. That is to be expected.  And of course they are showing people they can 'trust', not anyone with a reasoning mind.  We need to learn not to be disappointed but to find ways to get around this. 

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2017 at 7:44 AM, Paul Brancato said:

I was going to start a new thread, but this one seems like a good place to post the following, because Oliver Stone might be wondering the same thing. As we know, Stone has spent considerable time interviewing Putin, and has taken heat for it. In fact I would bet many posters here wonder why Stone would be at all sympathetic with Putin.

When the Russia/Trump story started to break a year ago my first reaction was 'here we go again, bashing Russia'. But then as I read more of the evidence I began to believe in large part that the Russians had interfered with our election for their own purposes, and that what they feared was a Clinton presidency, and possibly wanted Trump to win. There is so much material leading in these directions. But as Mueller begins to bring indictments we have concurrently Trump tweeting that he will release (I guess he means order the release of) all documents related to JFK with only certain names and addresses blacked out. Meanwhile every network and media outlet seems to prefer Philip Shenon to all other JFK researchers. Shenon's take on the assassination specifically points at Castro, and the Soviets (pardon me if my take on Shenon is not nuanced - I've only skimmed his material). Many of us, me included, think that his theory is bogus, and wonder why it is being promoted in this way. Could there be a connection between Shenon's sudden rise to media prominence and the current Russia investigation? And will the document release support Shenon's point of view? 

One thing that this confluence makes me wonder about is who was it that interfered with the election? We know that Cambridge Analytica  and Robert Mercer were angaged in the kind of data mining that would enable a covert campaign of influence using targeted news, or fake news as we now call it. Does the information about Russian trolls and bots necessarily mean that Putin was behind the scenes engineering this? How would we know? At this point so many people (Talbot has written about his phenomena extensively on FB) are rooting for the FBI and the Generals, hoping they will contain, or perhaps bring down, the current president. Meanwhile, the left leaning journalists and mainstream left of center are doing a horrible job of presenting any REAL news on the JFK document release, the same media that has been lying for decades about JFK. 

The possibility exists that if the promised documents are released they will lend credence to Shenon's story, and by inference support the current theory that Putin was manipulating our election. Can we really count on Rachel Maddow? Isn't there another possibility here that no one talks about? Which is, in brief, that the attack on our election was outsourced and made to look like something it is not.

 

Whew! a lot there Paul. I'll just address what I think is the MSM aspect of this for now. First off I don't think in 6 months we're going to become incensed that the Russians or Cubans are responsible for the death of JFK.

I have a different take on this. For all the outrage and indignant comments on this forum , I think the MSM is completely consistent with how it's reacted to this story for the last 20 years. They think it's complete hoakum, Their inane questions  show they think it not  worthy of serious investigation. The only thing that will alter their coverage will be a big break in the case.

I saw Morley today on MSNBC , it wasn't bad. First they did try to distract him by asking his take about the new indictment in the Mueller investigation. But that's a fair and timely question. He didn't take the bait and answered as briefly  as possible, and left the bulk to talk about the assassination files.

I saw an interview with Talbot on Chris Matthews a month back, from the very beginning it was obvious Matthews was going to thwart any real positive direction. Talbot wasn't distracted and looked thoughtful and intelligent and got in some good points.

But the real problem is that the repetition of these introductory, inane questions will last and the dialog won't get beyond the first inning of inquiry. The good guests have to put on pressure by insisting on a wish list,  . That is a list by which the amount of compliance can be fairly judged. Such as: We want the complete files on Harvey, Phillips, Angleton, Morales etc..(assuming they haven't been sanitized already) Among records that have not been included in these releases, they should demand the files on Johaniddes.  It should be driven home  that the course of this release should be specified and held to a standard.

 

.

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...