JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[James DiEugenio]

And when you add in Sibert and O'Neill?

[Michaleen Kilroy]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And when you add in Sibert and O'Neill?

Yeah. Case closed on anyone buying the WR.

It looks like the USG depended upon so many lies in the cover-up that no one would believe it could be that deliberately deceptive and underhanded.

I can’t believe it was done to “protect the public.” It was done to protect the USG from a revolution, IMO.

 

. 
 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what the films says:

Burkley signed the autopsy descriptive sheet with a bullet in the back at the level of T-3. And he also signed Kennedy's death certificate, which also placed that wound in the back. That death certificate is not in the Warren Commission volumes, and the descriptive sheet in the Commission volumes does not have Burkley's signature. 

Burkley had custody of the autopsy face sheet on 11/24/1963-11/26/1963 when copies of the documents were being made for sharing with the Secret Service. He could have written that on the face sheet after he made the first copies. 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Micah: the Warren Commission volumes were not assembled until months later.

 

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah: the Warren Commission volumes were not assembled until months later.

 

They could have printed one of the early photocopies, like the Secret Service should have had.

[Benjamin Cole]

On 12/18/2021 at 1:28 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Want to hear something?

On Twitter, I put out the news that Oliver's interview with Rogan was postponed.

In two days that notice got over 67,000 views.  Which is by far the most anything I have ever put up there has gotten.

I think that gives you an indication of the anticipation for that interview.

Jim DiEugenio:

I am just kibbitzing from the sidelines, but....

You are much better at interviews than Oliver Stone, and Joe Rogan tends to know his stuff and asks pretty deep questions, in terms of commercial media. 

Hats off to Stone as a film maker, and for what he has done for the JFKA research community, and for, well, justice, in this case. Stone is a giant. 

That said, I hope you can join Stone for the Rogan interview, since the exposure will be quite large. 

[Anthony Thorne]

I'm not sure why you think there's a problem with Stone and interviews, He's been doing them for decades, and they're always interesting and watchable.

[Benjamin Cole]

58 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I'm not sure why you think there's a problem with Stone and interviews, He's been doing them for decades, and they're always interesting and watchable.

 

Well, in print or on-air?

Maybe he had an off day. 

For an interview, the interviewee needs an agenda, and talking points, a framework for key points to be addressed.  

And remember, Joe Rogan likes to dig into the story...would a Stone or DiEugenio to have the details, the framework nailed down? 

Stone is a brilliant film-maker. 

DiEugenio knows the JFKA and how to talk about it. 

[Anthony Thorne]

On air.

Does the interviewee need all those things you listed? Often they don't have those things, yet things are fine.

Rogan digs, yeah, but he also does discursive three hour chats which go all over the place. Stone I think has been on before and people liked that appearance well enough. I'm not sure why you think they'll like what he's saying any less just because he's talking about a newsworthy documentary he made, on a topic of interest.

This all avoids the additional point, that people want to see what Stone has to say about the topic, and they particularly want to see what he'll say about it with Rogan. The assumption is that the two of them will have a conversation. Jim is a good interviewee and I enjoy it every time he speaks, but he's done interviews. Yet I've never seen Stone talk specifically on the topic with a guy like Rogan at vastly expanded length. I'm curious to watch it, millions of others probably are as well.

[David G. Healy]

20 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

On air.

Does the interviewee need all those things you listed? Often they don't have those things, yet things are fine.

Rogan digs, yeah, but he also does discursive three hour chats which go all over the place. Stone I think has been on before and people liked that appearance well enough. I'm not sure why you think they'll like what he's saying any less just because he's talking about a newsworthy documentary he made, on a topic of interest.

This all avoids the additional point, that people want to see what Stone has to say about the topic, and they particularly want to see what he'll say about it with Rogan. The assumption is that the two of them will have a conversation. Jim is a good interviewee and I enjoy it every time he speaks, but he's done interviews. Yet I've never seen Stone talk specifically on the topic with a guy like Rogan at vastly expanded length. I'm curious to watch it, millions of others probably are as well.

Only person Oliver might of had trouble with doing a Q&A --both ways discussion (and Oliver knows the give and take) would of been Jack Paar and he's long gone... Oliver Stone is a decorated, Vietnam airborne, combat veteran. He knows...  knows how to work the camera and microphone, and if he's been on the  Rogan show before he'll work the host and Rogan won't even know it... Jim Di is good, but Oliver Stone is the guy with the script, the funding and the face of the production....  and being the Producer of same he's the ONLY guy......

[Derek Thibeault]

Why can't Jim also go on another time? They both have different ways of discussing. Rogan has all kinds of guests, famous and not so famous. The more the better.

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Why can't Jim also go on another time? They both have different ways of discussing. Rogan has all kinds of guests, famous and not so famous. The more the better.

The name Oliver Stone, with Joe Rogan, will be a huge draw.  That is the time to make a great impression. 

Rogan may, and indeed should, ask fair but trenchant and challenging questions.  

James DiEugenio knows the facts and defense of the JFKA CT as well as any two or three people on the planet. 

Oliver Stone is a brilliant film-maker, who organized a great documentary, but who may already be forgetting the details of each segment, and the underlying justifications. 

Well, we will see. 

 

[Gene Kelly]

What I have liked about Stone's commentary is that it is balanced and unemotional.  This demeanor is very convincing and adds to the legitimacy of what we see/hear. If one comes off with too much passion or emotion, viewers and listeners read into that negatively.   Keeping your cool, almost in a dispassionate sense, is very effective at getting a controversial point across ... especially to those less studied in the intricacies of the case, or on the fence as far as their belief in a cabal or larger scheme.   

That said, I think Jim D. would complement Oliver's presence nicely (my analogy would be the color commentator on sports broadcasts, such as Tony Romo does so well on NFL games).   Jim could speak with authority on those aspects that Oliver's defers to him.  In the documentary, Stone provides limited commentary (almost in an understated way), and effectively lets the facts and the witnesses speak for themselves. I believe that viewers have found that tactic to be compelling. You raise a good point about avoiding a discursive dialogue which could wander all over the place.  This is a trap that is easy to fall into with a story as convoluted and controversial as the JFK case. 

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/21/2021 at 8:15 AM, Derek Thibeault said:

Why can't Jim also go on another time? They both have different ways of discussing. Rogan has all kinds of guests, famous and not so famous. The more the better.

Joe Rogan is so famous that, if he wanted to, he could spend a few thousand to commission a Dale-Myers-esque study of the photographic evidence in Dealey Plaza to determine whether or not the Single Bullet Theory is true. I bet he could not put his money where his mouth is. Who knows, maybe whoever comes out with a perfect photographic study will be internationally recognized as having debunked the official story.

 

Of all the money being spent on promoting JFK conspiracy theories, most of it should be spent on first studying the Dealey Plaza evidence to see whether or not it's a waste of time to question the Single Bullet theory.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

Wait, could somebody close to Rogan actually inform him of that fact? I feel like a wealthy, risky showman like Rogan wouldn't have the patience for results as we have had with Angelos Leiloglou's "perfect" 3D model of Dealey Plaza, promised in 2017.

 

It's a lottery ticket, to say the least.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Micah Mileto