James DiEugenio Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 LOL, 👏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 BTW, it looks like Oliver started something. First JFK Revisited, then the Noyes/Thompson film which is now on Hulu, and its announced that finally, the Max Good film on Ruth Paine is coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 (edited) Just for the record, I am really serious about that 4-2 debate with Posner, Willens, Griffin and Slawson. That posting of the Posner article on Twitter is up to abut 9,000 impressions. (Note correction from five) And I then excerpted just the direct challenge part and that is at about 5 thousand impressions. (Note correction from one) As I said, I do not think he will reply. But I would relish the opportunity. And I am sure there would be interest in radio, TV or podcast rights. Edited January 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 Jeff Morley took up the cause. He said MFF could sponsor. Let us start dropping messages around the web and at his site. This would be a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 15, 2022 Share Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) I don't know if I've shared this story before, Jim. But at one point I was invited by a university in the middle of the country to share the stage with John McAdams and discuss the Kennedy assassination. They originally wanted it to be a debate but I suggested we agree on a number of topics on which we disagree that we could discuss, and he would present the LN viewpoint, and I would explain why I thought he was mistaken. I felt that that would better serve our cause, in that I wouldn't get roped into defending theories I thought were nonsense, or be forced into publicly agreeing that many of the most popular CT theories were nonsense. It would be him saying things like the SBT is a scientific fact, and me explaining why it is not. Well, the organizer agreed to this, and we had a date set and everything but then McAdams came back to them with a counter-proposal_ that he would invite his fellow Wisconsinite David Wrone to come down and present the CT side, whereby they could argue over stuff like whether it was Oswald or Lovelady in the doorway. He convinced them that this would save them money. But I feel quite certain he was afraid to debate me or at least publicly discuss with me a number of topics on which he knew I had the upper hand. This was around the time I was active on his newsgroup, and he knew that I was not afraid to tell him he was right when he was right but that when I said he was wrong...I knew what I was talking about and would routinely make him look silly. In any event, my point is that there is no way these guys will debate you on the stuff you know that they don't, but that they may very well agree to debate you if they can have a far-reaching discussion where they get to drag every wild (and not so wild) theory before the audience, and try to make you own these theories. So my suggestion is that if by chance one or more of these guys agrees to debate you, that you focus on Kennedy's foreign policy, and the lies within the government reports, etc, and not let them drag you into discussing witnesses who made problematic statements that they can then hand-wave away by presenting other witnesses, etc. Edited January 15, 2022 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 15, 2022 Share Posted January 15, 2022 That is a point that I plan on dealing with once, and if, they agree. Personally, I don't think they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) One of the best and most honest reviews of the two hour version. http://edwardcurtin.com/jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass-by-oliver-stone/ Edited January 18, 2022 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 In his review, which I advise everyone to read, Ed points out something--well he points out many things--that no one else did. Oliver ended up including Kennedy's two great speeches: the American University Peace Speech, and the great civil rights speech after the incident at Alabama with Wallace. They kind of bookend the film. The subliminal message being what a good president JFK was, and what we lost due to his assassination. What makes those two speeches even more incredible is that they were given within 48 hours of each other. Most presidents don't even give one speech of this significance, let alone two--but within 2 days of each other? https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/cohen-andrew-two-days-in-june-john-f-kennedy-and-the-48-hours-that-made-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: In his review, which I advise everyone to read, Ed points out something--well he points out many things--that no one else did. Oliver ended up including Kennedy's two great speeches: the American University Peace Speech, and the great civil rights speech after the incident at Alabama with Wallace. They kind of bookend the film. The subliminal message being what a good president JFK was, and what we lost due to his assassination. What makes those two speeches even more incredible is that they were given within 48 hours of each other. Most presidents don't even give one speech of this significance, let alone two--but within 2 days of each other? https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/cohen-andrew-two-days-in-june-john-f-kennedy-and-the-48-hours-that-made-history While Sorensen was quite the wordsmith, JFK proved in his press conferences and interviews that he had a way with words as well. In retrospect, moreover, I think those focusing on JFK's reliance on Sorensen do so out of a class consciousness. They don't want to believe that someone as rich and spoiled as JFK could also be so handsome, clever, and wise. Heck, if I remember correctly, even Gore Vidal, in claiming JFK was over-rated, admitted he was one of the most charming men he'd ever met. And Gore met everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 In Cohen's book, he writes that Kennedy went off the teleprompter for about the last seven minutes of the civil rights speech. In other words it was spontaneous. But to show you the kind of writers that the Kennedys had, the man who wrote the first draft of that speech was RIchard Yates. Yep, the heralded author who wrote the novel for the DiCaprio/Winslet Revolutionary Road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 I will take them anywhere we can get them. Another positive review, and he goes after Weiner and Boot. https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/who-killed-jfk-stones-latest-assassination-documentary-reveals-more-hidden-secrets/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 This is really something, Ed Curtin got his review cross posted at Lew Rockwell. Which will increase the visibility exponentially since that is a very busy Libertarian site. And just remember, the four parter is not even out yet. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/01/edward-curtin/jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) I have thought of those speeches and how it is unthinkable that you would hear those kinds of speeches from a Nixon or a Reagan or a Trump. Those were speeches up there with King's "I Have a Dream". Yes America lost when JFK was assassinated. Edited January 20, 2022 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now