Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Oliver Stone documentary on JFK assassination to premiere at Cannes


Recommended Posts

Jim, I thought you might be interested in the film that bears your books name. It seems like there's been a news blackout here for a long time. As I recall, this film was first to be released almost a year ago. Stone talks with Spike Lee of his problems getting it picked up on Netflix and National Geographic.

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/oliver-stone-documentary-jfk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Stone explained he is having a hard time finding a distributor. Both Netflix and National Geographic turned down the documentary as a result of an unapproved fact check.

“Where are you going to find this information except in this film,” Stone questioned. “If they do a fact check, according to conventional sources, of course it’ll come out like that is not true.”

So MSM is still following the W.C.🐑

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yesssss, his is exciting. I thought Oliver Stone's Untold history of the United States was great, the honest compassionate tone of it. 
Shame Netflix wouldn't touch this JFK Documentary though.

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually very disturbing news, and underlines a creeping descent into a Soviet style information regime in the USA, a process which is farther along than most people realize and which has been actively encouraged and supported most vociferously by America’s liberal intelligentsia.

National Geographic not a surprise - they have featured numerous shoddy JFK documentaries over the years, so the only thing surprising is their reference to fact-checking, if that is even accurate (as their bad docs obviously did not require the same). That Netflix would turn it down should raise eyebrows as Netflix is not a news-gathering current events outfit, and had no problem running the “Untold History” series also by Stone.

Certainly for members of this Forum, the basic source material and interview subjects of this new project are known and are neither controversial or prone to articulate information which cannot be verified or sourced. So who are the “fact-checkers”? Pondering that question for a few minutes in the context of this new documentary should clarify the general perniciousness of the current mania advocating the distribution of only “approved” information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be a bit contrarian, I'm personally not adverse to a bit of "fact checking" these days, throw stones if  you like but the consequences of making up your own versions of either historical or contemporary reality are pretty obvious. If the program is offered as a historical documentary it seems reasonable to have some sort of minimal factual review, if its entertainment, not at all.  Of course its hard to tell the difference these days given the performance of outlets like the History Channel.  I've become fed up with a lot of cable channel content that is presented as scientific or historical when I know there are serous issues with what I see presented as undisputed fact.

But what would be most interesting would be something from Oliver Stone as to what "facts" were being checked and what the objections were?   Jim, can you get any feedback as to what the fact checking issues were?  Or did Stone just object to the whole concept?  As PDS pointed out long ago, sometimes the "holes" in the date can tell you a great deal, in this case I would love to know what facts Netflix or National Geographic might have been taking issue with in the Stone documentary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Just to be a bit contrarian, I'm personally not adverse to a bit of "fact checking" these days, throw stones if  you like but the consequences of making up your own versions of either historical or contemporary reality are pretty obvious.

Stone said “It makes the case harder, tighter... It’s about real facts that are shocking to people.”

That’s a high bar.  I can’t imagine the case for conspiracy getting any tighter than the 35th second of this:

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its about real facts - as in deconstructing the obviously bogus trajectory - then fact checking should not be a problem....if anything it would serve to illustrate the weaknesses of the official story.  And you can prove it by citing the WC ballistics study among other things and the the report of the ballistics study panel. 

With what we know now fact checking should be a weapon, not a weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

With what we know now fact checking should be a weapon, not a weakness.

Larry, this is why I feel like I’m studying a different case.

In the case I’m studying the victim suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue between his Third Thoracic Vertebra (T3) and the upper margin of his right scapula; and a wound of entrance in his throat which left a hairline fracture of his right T1 transverse process.

There were no exits for these soft tissue wounds.

There were no rounds found in the body.

These are the root facts of the case I study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations Jim.  Who would have thought it nearly 30 years ago.  Destiny Betrayed on film at Cannes.  Quite an accomplishment.

To be honest I didn't find it until the early 2000's , it rocked me.  Well beyond Crossfire by Jim Marr's, found in the late 90's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

If its about real facts - as in deconstructing the obviously bogus trajectory - then fact checking should not be a problem....if anything it would serve to illustrate the weaknesses of the official story.  And you can prove it by citing the WC ballistics study among other things and the the report of the ballistics study panel. 

With what we know now fact checking should be a weapon, not a weakness.

What we know about this film project is it is based on the releases mandated by the creation of the ARRB. This material has been peer reviewed for over twenty-five years now, and informs work by DiEugenio, McKnight, Scott, Newman, Hancock, etc - and apparently Netflix and other outlets are claiming it does not pass their fact-checkers. This appears as outright BS and what they are actually saying is they do not feel comfortable presenting this material to the American public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry:

I am really surprised at that comment.  Have I ever written anything that was not documented?

The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today has over 1800 footnotes in it.

The second edition of Destiny Betrayed has over 2000 footnotes in it.

We interviewed 29 people for the film.  I consider subjects like John Tunheim, Tom Samoluk, Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, Henry Lee, Cyril Wecht, and Doug Horne to be pretty credible.  On the other side, we also talked to Brad Simpson, Jamie Galbraith, Robert Rakove, Richard Mahoney and Philip Muehlenbeck.  

No previous documentary on the subject has ever had the roster of distinguished people that this one does. And I was on the set each day to correct any accidental errors that popped up.. In addition, no documentary on any subject I know of has ever had the likes of Donald Sutherland and Whoopi Goldberg as narrators, Robert Richardson as the DP, Oliver Stone as the director,  Brian Berdan as editor and Jeff Beal as musical composer.  Count'em.  That is seven Oscars and an Emmy. Plus over 600 previous credits.

There is a fully annotated script that I was contractually bound to do. For whatever reason, the fact checkers did not look at it.

The stuff in the film is all state of the art. Its way beyond what is in the WC, and also beyond the HSCA.  We concentrated on the releases of the ARRB and also their medical investigation. The vast majority  of the material in the film has never been seen by the general public, or the people at the networks.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Larry:

I am really surprised at that comment.  Have I ever written anything that was not documented?

The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today has over 1800 footnotes in it.

The second edition of Destiny Betrayed has over 2000 footnotes in it.

We interviewed 29 people for the film.  I consider subjects like John Tunheim, Tom Samoluk, Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, Henry Lee, Cyril Wecht, and Doug Horne to be pretty credible.  On the other side, we also talked to Brad Simpson, Jamie Galbraith, Robert Rakove, Richard Mahoney and Philip Muehlenbeck.  

No previous documentary on the subject has ever had the roster of distinguished people that this one does. And I was on the set each day to correct any accidental errors that popped up.. In addition, no documentary on any subject I know of has ever had the likes of Donald Sutherland and Whoopi Goldberg as narrators, Robert Richardson as the DP, Oliver Stone as the director,  Brian Berdan as editor and Jeff Beal as musical composer.  Count'em.  That is seven Oscars and an Emmy. Plus over 600 previous credits.

There is a fully annotated script that I was contractually bound to do. For whatever reason, the fact checkers did not look at it.

The stuff in the film is all state of the art. Its way beyond what is in the WC, and also beyond the HSCA.  We concentrated on the releases of the ARRB and also their medical investigation. The vast majority  of the material in the film has never been seen by the general public, or the people at the networks.

I put my faith in James DiEugenio, who has the reporter-historian's natural inclination----indeed, a compulsion----to tell the truth, let the chips fall where they may.  

I agree with the sentiments expressed above by Jeff Carter, that the US is entering a heightened era of censorship and disinformation. Corporate censorship combined with government disinformation. 

Reporters such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are on to this. 

Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the multinationals, Hollywood and the establishment Democratic Party have an agenda. 

And the GOP may be little better. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 I agree with the sentiments expressed above by Jeff Carter, that the US is entering a heightened era of censorship and disinformation. Corporate censorship combined with government disinformation. 

I’m just curious, Benjamin, do you think new government regulations should force private media companies like Facebook and Twitter to carry content known to be dis-information, like the claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?

If Facebook bans the North American Man -Boy Love Association, is that corporate censorship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I’m just curious, Benjamin, do you think new government regulations should force private media companies like Facebook and Twitter to carry content known to be dis-information, like the claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?

If Facebook bans the North American Man -Boy Love Association, is that corporate censorship?

My view is the Facebooks, Googles, Twitters, YouTubes etc. have to make a decision:

1. Are the Facebooks, et al like the phone company, and thus not liable for what is said over the wires. I can plan and execute a violent bank robbery over the phone wires, or have the fringiest political view imaginable, and no one says the phone company should cut off my service. I can hold a conference call and hurl homophobic, racial and sexist slurs, and no one says my phone service should be cut off.

2. Or are the Facebooks et al like media companies, responsible for content, and they will and must curtail content as they see fit, but will also accept liability?

Right now, the Facebooks et al are happily straddling the fence, censoring as they see fit and not liable for content. Very comfy. 

My own take is the Facebooks et at have become de facto Town Squares, and thus should not censor anything, other than overt hate speech intended to incite violence. 

If the Central American Association of Hermaphrodites Against IntraPersonal Rape have a website and following, so be it.  

What is spooky is the number of establishment "news" organizations, especially in the US cable business, gung ho for repressing alternative news sites. (Well, the alt-news sites are bleeding off ad dollars too.) 

Add on: Is Brian Sickman a replay of Pat Tillman? 

 

 

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...