Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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 trial in the skull.

Excellent but you're not the one who needs help. Weiner needs a ride back to the home. Bingo awaits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I actually think there will be more than one reply to Tim.

I think there may be as many as three.

This should be fun.

Do tell. Links when available please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2021 at 9:08 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I would think that someone who isn't suspicious of deep state matters might be delusional.

From that wixsite...

Quote

Such is the case here in this film. There is no 2nd opinion. The film is trying to sell the viewer on believing there was a conspiracy to kill the President, using dubious methods.

Forget about the film for a minute. Many questions have been posed through the years. The official story believers say that Oswald was an expert sniper [based on nothing credible]... is that not just an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 6:23 PM, W. Niederhut said:

    It's a garbage review.  Pure disinformazia.  So much for Tim Weiner's limited hangout at the New York Times as a putative CIA critic...  It appears that his legacy is now in ashes...  🤥

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jfk-oliver-stone-conspiracy-theory-russian-disinformation-1260223/amp/

Rolling Stone--A stalwart bastion of iconic journalism there 😏
 

Quote

 

Do you believe that the CIA killed JFK? Millions of Americans suspect so. Let me ask you, then: Why do they believe it?

The tale can be traced to a Russian disinformation operation. [Tim Weiner]

 

The Soviets did report in late 1963 that JFK was killed by staunch right wing radicals who then also had Oswald killed.  Tim Weiner fails to tell us how this Russian disinfo operation operated. I wish Weiner would "ask me" who killed JFK. I would say that [never mind the CIA]... millions of Americans just doubt that Oswald did.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl:

I address Steve Roe early in this thread, as he was passing his usual gas again. First he says Elmer Todd's initials are on the bullet, which was wrong. Second, he says the ARRB adjudicated a chain of custody for CE 399. Where is it?   And, as I showed, he is wrong here also. 

Sylvia Meagher, p. 122, Accessories After the Fact, "In the case of the latent palm print under the stock, not only was there no trace of the print or the fingerprint powder, there was no cellophane, no photograph and no verbal or written notification by Lt. Day calling attention to it."

The idea that the tape pulled it off is just ludicrous.  There was no cellophane to tape and the idea you would put tape itself over a print is nutty.  This particular print was so dubious that for PBS in 1993, Mike Sullivan and VInce Scalice turned to the alleged trigger guard print.  And what Pat Speer and Johnny Cairns showed about that one, makes Roe look like an amateur in the aspect of omission and distortion. But this is how damaging Latona was to their case.

One last point.  Latona was considered the number one authority on this subject.  Bob Tanenbaum told me that Latona had written a pamphlet on the subject that was used in almost all police departments. So many prosecutors wanted him in court that you felt lucky to have him as a witness.

As per Litwin, after exposing him and all three of his books numerous times, and at great length, he is not worth dealing with. JFK Revisited exposes him further.  He actually wrote in his first book that I had no evidence to show that things like CE399 were not admissible. He said I had no witnesses or paperwork.

Well, there they are, right in the film. Why argue with someone like that? As Jim Garrison said, its like getting in a pissing contest with a skunk.

Finally, as I said, Tim W never called me.  He is wrong.  We did not use the sources he attributes to us.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Quote

Recently on a trip to Dallas with fellow JFK researchers, we had the pleasure to talk to Dallas based researcher, Jerry Dealey again. Jerry, who describes himself as a "Fence-Sitter" in the JFK assassination argument, prefers to remain neutral. He has pointed out mistakes on both side of the argument. [Steve Roe]

Rather coy I think. A Swiss diplomat researcher...remaining neutral. Dealey? Seriously? Never heard of him [or Steve Roe]

Quote

The bottom line here, and it's very reasonable; the shooter came down the stairs from the 6th floor just before Adams/Styles made their descent from the 4th floor.

 If you juggle those time figures another way...you could make Adams and Styles the shooters.

Another wixpost...https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/oliver-stone-doubles-down-on-the-looney-frontal-shot-to-the-president

Oliver Stone is absolutely wrong about this fleshette business therefore there was no conspiracy. This is like saying Clay Shaw was found not guilty therefore there was no conspiracy.

Quote

Miss ADAMS - And from our vantage point we were able to see what the President's wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract men's attention. Then we heard---then we were obstructed from the view.
Mr. BELIN - By what?
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above.

Miss Adams' statements are omitted from the final conclusion Report [I guess it was all too troubling for the Commission staff]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Love this one:  If you juggle those time figures another way...you could make Adams and Styles the shooters.

He completely leaves out Garner.  

There is no flechette in the film.  We leave the evidence at what it is, Perry says it was an entrance wound. And the evidence connecting it to the back wound is so tenuous as to be laughable. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I Love this one:  If you juggle those time figures another way...you could make Adams and Styles the shooters.

He completely leaves out Garner.  

There is no flechette in the film.  We leave the evidence at what it is, Perry says it was an entrance wound. And the evidence connecting it to the back wound is so tenuous as to be laughable. 

 

Thanks, I chuckled on "juggle . . Adams and Styles shooters".  Again on flechette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add this: those are all serious evidentiary issues that Roe was flat out wrong on.

Throughout the writing of the script, one thing I was trying to focus on was the legal standard.  Since the Commission had no standards at all.  And a Louisiana court would not accept the WR as evidence for the trial of Clay Shaw.  This is why in the film, we had two professionals, Brian Edwards and Henry Lee talk about this topic. (IMO, Henry Lee's short speech on this is worth watching the film for.)

If the FBI is saying that Todd's initials are on the bullet, and they are not, then that is a serious break in the chain.  Not only is it a break, but it proves that the prosecution knows it is presenting false evidence. 

The defense would move for a mistrial.

If the man the FBI was relying on for the identification and proof of the chain, Bardwell Odum, then gets on the stand and says, "That is total BS, I never did any such thing."

Again, the chain is broken.  And it proves the prosecution is presenting false evidence.  The defense would move for a mistrial. If the judge did not grant one on the first motion, he would surely do so on this one.

As I said, Latona was nationally known and recognized as the FBI's authority on print analysis. The combination of Latona and Drain saying, not only was there no barrel print, but there was no indication of one being there, would be fatal in impeaching Day. And Drain saying that Day never even told him one was there would be the coup de grace. The defense would call for a pre trial evidentiary hearing and Day's testimony would very likely not be allowed. Or if it was allowed it he would be so badly impeached that his testimony would be pretty much worthless.

 This was what I was trying to do in writing the script.  To restore rationality, ethics and legal standards to a case which, since 1964,  had none. In my opinion, just these three points, which Roe was utterly wrong about, would have been  enough to get the case thrown out.  The first two show how important the ARRB was and why the WC zealots want to ignore it. Which reveals the utter pointlessness and worthlessness of their pontificating. If you get knocked down three times, one would think that would be enough.

But not for Roe and not for Parnell. Like I said, Parnell reminds me of Heston in the last scene of El Cid.

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...