JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[Anthony Thorne]

Weiner started out in 1988 doing articles on the Pentagon's 'black budget', and did a book based on his articles, and won a Pulitzer from the book.

I'm assuming he didn't just wander into the Pentagon itself and start snooping around, digging through filing cabinets, peeking through windows. He presumably sourced his material by talking to Pentagon insiders.

Weiner then worked as a foreign correspondent for the NYT (1993 - 2009), and at one point was stationed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He'd again be talking to government and military reps. There was a war in Afghanistan going on for half that time, and probably covert operations going on for the other half.

Weiner then did books on the CIA and FBI. The FBI book focuses on that agencies 'secret intelligence operations', and again I'm presuming he didn't just wander the FBI corridors looking for stuff to write about. He would have again been speaking to FBI insiders. Same with his CIA book, which presumably had interviews to go along with his research.

Weiner won the Pulitzer and the National Book Award for his writing. Do they normally go out of their way to reward people deeply critical of the national security state? They might, but I'm not sure they do. Maybe Chris Hedges. But Talbot never received a Pulizter nomination for BROTHERS or DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD. But some people in the establishment seem really happy with Weiner's work.

Jim responded just as I was writing this up, but you have to assume Weiner is one of the last guys you'd expect to see giving a fair write up on Stone's new documentary. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Anthony.

Tells us a lot about Tim and why he did not call me to check his story in advance.

[Bob Ness]

"... unrivaled in the annals of American cinematic propaganda." - Tim Weiner.

WTF? Do you think that statement is a bit hyperbolic? Maybe this high school drop out should think for two seconds to come up with many worse examples than the Pulitzer Prize winning Ivy League Columbia genius could (who is in desperate need of an editor).

I've only gone through the film once (which I enjoyed btw) and don't know exactly what Weiner is prattling on about in his piece but that stood out right away. He doesn't seem to be interested in anything other than Commie Disinfo Gone Wild but apparently this phenomenon has been exorcised at the CIA (bad news for Tim - it hasn't). In fact the Pentagon is the single largest PR entity IN THE UNIVERSE and has been for some time. Media hacks have been playing footsy with the CIA and everyone else for a long time and will continue to do so as long they provide them with sources for what they want to write.

His article really reads like the screed of a failing mind in my view. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, I've seen the film, and I liked it a lot. I think you should be very proud of writing it..

Much of it, a lot of us have already known. But the point is not to preach to the converted. I think it's a very sequential , factual and logical presentation that should give any reasonable person, whose been born in later generations and didn't get the exposure, to examine maybe for the first time the facts behind the assassination, and question the filters by which they've received their previous information. To those who are a bit older, perhaps born in the 60's and 70's who were brought up on second hand knowledge, and maybe were  preoccupied, or too lazy to really go down, what they may have all perceived as a "rabbit hole" of which I suspect there are many. I can't see how this wouldn't give them pause.

Still,I learned a number of new things, and i thought it was presented very well, and look forward to the 4 hour version.

It did raise a few questions to me, regarding Tunheim's segment about questioning an official about the release of some files where he says the official says something to the effect that " we oppose the release of these files, but I've forgotten why"!  This brings up a lot of interesting questions as to how these proceedings are conducted. My first response is to say And did you get the release? Does an official have all the power that he can block the release of documents for reasons he forgot?? What kind of negotiation would that be?f

Another thing that was unclear was Robert Kennedy Jr. accounting LBJ coming in to the room to first inform them of the shooting of Oswald. Robert accounts that he said to his family "Why did they shoot him,(Oswald) did he love our family."

That requires some explanation. Why would he assume that? What was he told? He's going on 10 from a very affluent family.

Anyway, great film!

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

Bob, there is help on the way.

I heard through the grapevine that no less than Chris Agee is doing a review of the film.

I trust this will actually be a review of the film.  And not some batty rant about the Ruskies, QAnon, and Oswald's one in a million shot. I guess Tim did not notice what we did to CE 399? Or the fragment trail in the skull.

Edited November 28, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Kishan Dandiker]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hi Kishan,

The demographics of the audience would be of great interest to me. I'd appreciate if you'd take note and report back. I'm wondering what age groups are interested in seeing the documentary. It would also be interesting to know what percentage are American expats, though I don't know how they could be distinguished from Brits.

Hi Sandy,

Couldn’t distinguish much in terms of nationality but it was quite a mixed bag in terms of age. I would say I was probably the youngest (early 20s), then there were a couple of couples who would’ve have been maybe early 30s and the rest would’ve have been 40+. The woman I was sitting next to would’ve been around 50, and the couple sitting behind me were in their 60s. 

[Steve Thomas]

I saw the film last night, and got confused about something.

If CE 399 fell out of Kennedy's back during heart massage, it couldn't have gone through him and into Connally.

I don't ever remember reading about a big old hole in Connally's thigh. I thought they just recovered a few grains of lead.

If CE 399 had lodged in Connally's thigh, and just fell out on his stretcher, I think somebody would have noticed it when they moved him to the operating table.

PS: Good job Jim (and Oliver). I liked your segment on Lumumba.

Steve Thomas

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Steve.  We were trying to show how they made the Single Bullet Fantasy up as they went along

Here is one across the pond for the Uk opening which was yesterday:

https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/oliver-stone-jfk-revisited-president-kennedy-assassination-watch-the-documentary-and-shut-up-1317613

Note how he is convinced by Berry Ernest. Who wouldn't be.

Edited November 27, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Like I said, they love us in Australia, where they are playing the four hour version.

Scroll down:  https://www.firstshowing.net/

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, Oliver is convincing the hard left about Kennedy?

Amazing.

We might be building some momentum for the four hour release.

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/11/25/cia-kill-jfk-oliver-stone-film/?fbclid=IwAR1Lpx_oNGcu-9CourwaMVMJj4ScmPElfbKLPw6UtQo50B4EZEPKX5EZeZo

[James DiEugenio]

This is probably the best interview on how the film was made.

The producer, Rob Wilson, sat down with Len Osanic for an hour to explain how it happened.

I cannot give Rob the credit he deserves for this.  He was really a producer in the classic David O. Selznick tradition.

He sold the project and he was on the set every day supervising all aspects.

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black1070.mp3 

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/25/2021 at 10:39 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Let me explain about that issue and why I decided to make it one of he main pillars of the film.

I was really taken aback by how savagely Bugliosi attacked Doug Horne's essay on the Two Brain Examinations. It was so over the top that it was really kind of despicable.

So when I was working on my long review of Bugliosi I began to investigate this issue. I came up with 12 people who recalled seeing a severely damaged brain which was missing a significant part of its mass. And I listed these in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. (p. 161). 

I then coupled that with Stringer's testimony.  But for me the clincher was the brain weight. Which people like Nalli and even Don Thomas were mistaken about. Both Horne and Chesser were familiar with the Dutch study. Which pegs the average at about 1350-75 grams.  So as Gary says in the film, how on earth can Kennedy's brain weigh  more than the average with all that damage we see in the Z film, in photos of the back seat of the car, with Jackie Kennedy crawling out onto the trunk, with Clint Hill's testimony etc. 

But at this point I still dismissed the idea of there being two brain exams.  I am slowly coming around to the possibility that Horne was correct on this also. Horne brings up three points which I think he got from Stringer on this.  First, Finck was insisting there be a neuropathologist at the exam. Second, Stringer recalled photographing serial sections on a light box. Third, Stringer told Horne after his deposition words to the effect: They didn't want Pierre there for the brain exam.  He caused too many problems during the autopsy.

When Horne said this during his interview or right after, it really began to make me wonder.  I am now leaning in the direction that he was correct on this.  And therefore, the comment made in the film about the coloring and fixing of the brain carries even more forensic value to it. They then deep sixed this brain exam. Which is why during their interviews, Wecht and Lee said there was no serial sectioning.

IMO, this issue, CE 399 and Adams, Styles and Garner, are pretty much unanswerable. And that is why I made them pillars on the forensic side.

(11) When asked how well the brain in the brain photographs was fixed, Dr. Kirschner said that it was very well fixed, and initially estimated that it had been fixed two weeks or more, based on its appearance (very firm, and very pale-no pink color at all). After further discussion, he modified his original impression by saying that it may have been fixed between 1-2 weeks only, and that for it to have been fixed less than a week this brain would have to have been placed in an extremely concentrated solution of formaldehyde.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=231

 

It might be possible and inexpensive to prove that Doug is on to something with this "older brain" idea. The solution is to hire experts to judge whether it is possible for an injured brain to lose all of it's pink color after just 2 days fixation. How much does a five-minute consultation with a brain pathologist cost?

 

EDIT: I am also wondering how the process of preserving a brain has changed since the 1960's and before. Maybe preserving brain tissue was less of a priority back then.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Horne said the reason they could do this was because they had two methods of fixation at Bethesda and they used both.

Edited November 27, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Horne said the reason they could do this was because they had two methods of fixation at Bethesda and they used both.

A brain can look that grey after just 2 days?

[James DiEugenio]

It would be  3 days.

But recall, he is arguing that this is not JFK's brain. Not in the pictures we have today which is all we have.

If there was a brain exam on or around the 25th, who knows what they were examining.

Edited November 27, 2021 by James DiEugenio