Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Oliver Stone documentary on JFK assassination to premiere at Cannes

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

A podcast such as BOR is not the same thing as social media outlets such as Facebook or Twitter which solely host user-generated content rather than purposely publish content. You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting the issues by consistently comparing these entities to media which are not at all similar.

They are similar in the private ownership.  Whether it’s BOR, Facebook, Twitter, the Ed Forum, the New York Times, or Fox — I don’t have a *right* to access any of these venues.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Twitter or Facebook are not the same as and do not function like the NY Times or CNBC.

It’s privately owned, ain’t it?

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

As to your prior inquiry - the internet features pages known as “search engines”.

Search engines!  You didn’t say “search engines” you said “social media.” 

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Search engines can be useful tools in uncovering information.

A little condescending for a guy who confused search engines for social media.

7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Simply typing queries - such as “antiwar political groups removal social media” - can provide a wealth of information based on the terms of the query. Recently, however, some search engines have changed their algorithms to highlight some information at the expense of other information. So some patience and diligence may be required. Good luck out there.

I agree, Google has ef’ed over a lot of us.

Boycott Google!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:


The director of the film does not request a market price.  Oliver was the director, he did not produce the film.  We had a production entity from England, with an office in LA, fund the project.

They are the ones who are on the line who have to get their investment back.  So they will set the price  guidelines. 


That makes sense. I thought Oliver was the producer as well. 

FWIW, when I worked in the record business my boss stole millions out of the company to impress his new wife--who wanted be an actress. She wrote a musical (starring her) about how she came to fall in love with him (my boss) and hired some C-level Hollywood types to film it. It turned out to be one of the worst films ever made. 

And yet they still took it to Cannes and rented a Palais to give it a Cannes premiere.

As I recall they got like one distribution deal--from Mongolia or some such thing. 

In any event, I hope Oliver's film doesn't end up being like Mark Sobel's film on the Warren Commission, starring Martin Sheen, Sam Waterston, Martin Landau, Corbin Bernsen, Joe Don Baker, Edward Asner, etc. Mark kept holding out for a big-name distributor. Tick-tock. Tick-tock. 17 years later. 


Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:



I do apologize for this response being off topic, but it is in direct relation to disparaging comments made in the thread and continually by most members of this forum on this sub-topic.

Pat, most people who are called "anti-vaxxers" are not saying vaccines are a hoax or are even against vaccines as a concept. This is the "conspiracy theorist" label for vaccine safety advocates. The vaccine story is long and very complicated as you may well know.

In order to slander anyone and everyone that talks about those things, you better know both sides of the argument. If you cannot describe at least the majority of the main talking points those people usually bring up, what are you doing? Your telling anyone who will listen that you are in fact the "expert" because of xyz knowledge you think you have. I've found most people get emotional over some of those topics and literally cannot discuss the information at all. They are unable. Online, typically these people will do a quick filtered google search to locate an MSM explanation for the thing they have never heard before and leave it at that. Imagine where the JFK case would be with that level of thinking/research? Above all else, honest, objective, dis-passionate discussion must take place on all issues, facts either stand up to scrutiny, or they do not. Censoring facts out of existence creates a fantasy world and should be universally rejected.



1. I received something like 3 vaccinations as a child. My son received as I recall 15 by the time he was 5. It was clear by that time, moreover, that he was on the autism spectrum. This led me to read dozens of reports and articles on vaccinations, and conclude that yes, all the evidence isn't in, but what we do know suggests they are beneficial, and that there's a whole heap of other explanations for the autism explosion.

2. The vaccine I was referring to was the coronavirus vaccine/vaccines. My friend who's been sucked under the tide believes the libs exaggerated the negative effects of, and even helped spread, the coronavirus to hurt Donnie T, and swears she won't get a vaccine no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2021 at 3:17 PM, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, publications like Texas Monthly are using Oliver's interview and twisting it to mean something he did not mean at all.

I hope I get to clarify this issue. Texas Monthly is historically one of the worst ever on the JFK case.

I've mentioned this before but them using Aynesworth for their feature article on the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination is why I let my subscription expire.  I finally renewed last year when they offered me a 2 year subscription for $20.  They do have some good state related articles but otherwise I rea warily.  If they bash Stone/Destiny Betrayed/ and you I will give them a piece of my mind for whatever good it will do.

Kennedys And King - Hugh Aynesworth: Refusing a Conspiracy is his Life's Work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2021 at 4:26 AM, Pat Speer said:

Just thinking out loud...

Are Horne's and Mantik's theories on the medical evidence central to the documentary? Because, no matter how one feels about their theories, it's easy to see how a major network or distributor would shy away from a program claiming that JFK's body was altered, etc. And there's a simple reason for this. One phone call from a network or distributor to a Baden or wanna-be Baden would lead them to back off. Guaranteed. 

I mean, I've read a couple of dozen books on forensic pathology. And probably half of these have a reference to the Kennedy assassination. And nearly all of these refer back to Baden, or Spitz, and ignore Mantik and Horne completely. 

I mean, let's face facts. Most networks and/or distributors have gatekeepers--people they consider experts on certain topics with whom they consult as to what is a worthy avenue of investigation. And none of the gatekeepers currently in place will go near body alteration with a ten-foot pole. 



Keep thinking out loud sir.  I think your right.  Most people accept LHO didn't act alone, thus a conspiracy.  That maybe Castro, the Mob, even rouge elements of the CIA were involved.  But body alteration at Bethesda or elsewhere means government involvement.  Still a major tripping point for many.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I told Oliver not to do was involve the film in anyone's theories.

And to his credit, he took that advice.

I maintained that we should only go as far as the declassified documents and the ARRB testimony would take us.  In other words, things we could demonstrate with documentation and sworn testimony.

This made it easier to write an annotated script.

To give one example, one of the things we concentrated on was showing how the HSCA and the WC ignored the issue of chain of custody with CE 399.  So we have Aguilar talking about Bardwell Odum, and we have Conway and Mantik talking about the work of the late John Hunt.

The capper to that is that we frame that discussion with Brian Edwards and Henry Lee--the former is an instructor in Criminal Justice and the latter is perhaps the most famous criminalist in the world--elucidating why chain of custody is  crucial in a criminal case. Brian is also a former police detective who has testified in about fifty legal proceedings. Henry was a captain on the police force in Taiwan for five years.  In that capacity, he supervised many investigations.

To hear those two professionals explain the issue in easy to understand terms, and how it relates to the JFK case, would be a blessing for the public to finally hear.  And I would love to see Dan Rather's face while that segment is playing.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, we also asked Henry Lee, "If you had been Oswald's lawyer, would you have challenged CE 399 in a pre trial hearing?"

His head bolted upward and he said, "Of course.  I mean, where did this exhibit come from?"

BTW, even though Henry is a celebrity, his wife was there taking pictures of him being interviewed by Oliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In considering the whole idea of fact checking, reread what I wrote above about CE 399, with declassified documents, and people like Hunt, Aguilar and Odum.

Then recall this fiasco at National Geographic with Max Holland:  


I think this is what Larry was referring to in the comment I misunderstood.

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...