Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

The good news keeps on coming.

Another good review, this time from Dick Russell at whowhatwhy:

https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/journalism-media/why-jfk-revisited-is-necessary/

Let me make two comments about these last two reviews.  Combined the two sites have about 900,000 unique visitors per month.  If one combines that with the other successful appearances that Oliver had made, e.g. Joe Rogan, which is now up to 2.1 million on You Tube alone, Oliver has reached a potential audience of close to ten million--on his terms. And this is a younger audience and more ideologically diverse.  For example, Rockwell is LIbertarian.   Recall when Steve Roe said that Oliver had failed in America.  Ten million is a failure?  LOL.

Also, remember when Litwin said in his first book on the JFK case that I had no witnesses, or paperwork, to show deception in the evidence trail on the JFK case.  Well, that is now up there in the film for all to see, especially concerning CE 399.

This is why I read neither of these two anymore.  And just remember, the four parter is not out yet. Although it has gone over big in Australia and United Kingdom. I actually prefer that version since it has more info in it and progresses at a slightly slower pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 777
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

I found those two "bookend" speeches in the documentary to be very effective. (In a number of ways.)

And even though the content of the film made me angry with what dishonest men have done, the ending speech lightened my mood and left me feeling refreshed and with a positive outlook. I believe that my positive outlook was in part due to a subliminal thought that the perpetrators of the crime are now in the process of being exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Another good review, this time from Dick Russell at whowhatwhy:

whowhatwhy is doing a series and I suspect there may be a rebuttal since their articles contain many inaccuracies. 

BTW, Litwin on Burkley:

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral George Burkley and Conspiracy Theorists (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Sandy.

 I should add the Civil Rights speech was Oliver's idea.  It was not in my original script.

He wanted to put that in near the end and I just wrote a very brief scenario.  It was really made in the editing room.

But its pretty powerful I think.

BTW, Wallace would not work with either RFK or JFK.  His phone call with JFK a few days before was really kind of cantankerous. They each accused each other of causing the  impasse.  I thought Kennedy was going to hang up on him.  

Wallace would not bargain until Katzenbach was on the scene.  With something like 890 State Troopers and police on Wallace's side, and about 3,200 military guys under Abrams, they finally worked out an arrangement that morning in order to avoid another Ole Miss.  I think the MSM was disappointed since they missed that riot, and wanted to see one live.  So the story was that it was all stage managed from the start. 

Which it was not. Wallace was playing a game of chicken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both times I "watched" JFK Revisited were late in the evening.  The first I was very sleepy the last quarter or so.  The second I dozed off somewhere in the last third.  This afternoon I watched it again, fully awake all the way through!  As I mentioned in another post, there is a Lot of info in it (even just the 2/3-3/4 I'd really watched before).

From the first watching I did remember appreciating seeing Jim Gochenauer interviewed and confirming what I'd read before about his conversations with SSA Elmer Moore pressuring Dr. Malcom Perry to change his story about the front throat entrance wound.

This kind of hit home with me regarding the only personal contact I ever had with anyone actually involved in the in the activities on 11/22/63.  About 12-15 years ago Dr. Robert McLelland came to Tarleton State University to give a talk on his assisting Dr. Perry with the tracheotomy/tracheostomy and other observations.  This took place in the Nursing building auditorium which holds mabe 200, across the reflecting pool from where I worked in the Science building.  

I got there early for a good seat on the third row (slightly elevated, not in his face).  When he showed up about 10 minutes early, after others had greeted him I went down and did so too. After I introduced myself by name and as a University employee I thanked him for coming.  Then said, If I leave before you're done I don't mean to be rude but I'm supposed to meet my wife in an hour and couldn't reach her to tell her I might be late.  He said oh, ok and actually thanked me for coming. 

The place filled up.  SRO, people sitting in the aisle, standing against the wall.  He talked about the exit wound he saw in the back, where, the size.  Assisting Dr. Perry, more.  I was enthralled.  I didn't leave (my wife wasn't mad as she understood my obsession).

When done and he asked if there were any questions I stuck my arm up.  He pointed to me first, surprising me.

I said well, uhm Dr. McLelland, Dr. Perry said the afternoon of the assassination in a press conference Three times the wound in the throat was an entrance wound.  He later said it could have been an exit wound.  Do you think anyone influenced his change in opinion from his initial observation?

He paused several seconds.  When he said Yes, there was an audible gasp in the hall.   

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

said well, uhm Dr. McLelland, Dr. Perry said the afternoon of the assassination in a press conference Three times the wound in the throat was an entrance wound.  He later said it could have been an exit wound.  Do you think anyone influenced his change in opinion from his initial observation.

He paused several seconds.  When he said Yes, there was an audible gasp in the hall.   

Paydirt!

So in his general lecture, this was the first incongruity to the WR anyone had heard?

Mc Lelland and Perry were very close. Perry disclosed to Mc Lelland that he had been threatened  to shut up. At the time Perry was 34. He then moved off to New York state to practice for over 10 years. He told Mc Lelland he left because he didn't feel safe.He  eventually retired in Texas.  At 23:45

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let's be clear. I've been at two conferences where McClelland was interviewed and even had a short chat with him myself. And I've also watched him interviewed on TV or YouTube a dozen times or so. And he has said two things which run against the narrative holding that the doctors were threatened and/or the autopsy photos were faked. First, he specified that he was never threatened or pressured to change his views in any way. Second, he insisted that the throat wound in the autopsy photos was as he remembered and that there was no sign of tampering with the neck wound. 

There is of course a third thing he said that no one wants to deal with. He told Richard Dudman within a week or so of the shooting that while the small throat wound appeared to be an entrance, the head wound gave NO indication of having been fired from the front.  And that's not all. He later told Weisberg that Jim Garrison was a crank but that Specter was a good guy. 

By his own admission, MClelland was not a CT prior to his viewing the Zapruder film in the 70's. I think it's safe to say his impression of a lot of things changed as a result. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok, let's be clear. I've been at two conferences where McClelland was interviewed and even had a short chat with him myself. And I've also watched him interviewed on TV or YouTube a dozen times or so. And he has said two things which run against the narrative holding that the doctors were threatened and/or the autopsy photos were faked. First, he specified that he was never threatened or pressured to change his views in any way. Second, he insisted that the throat wound in the autopsy photos was as he remembered and that there was no sign of tampering with the neck wound. 

There is of course a third thing he said that no one wants to deal with. He told Richard Dudman within a week or so of the shooting that while the small throat wound appeared to be an entrance, the head wound gave NO indication of having been fired from behind.  And that's not all. He later told Weisberg that Jim Garrison was a crank but that Specter was a good guy. 

By his own admission, MClelland was not a CT prior to his viewing the Zapruder film in the 70's. I think it's safe to say his impression of a lot of things changed as a result. 

"He told Richard Dudman within a week or so of the shooting that while the small throat wound appeared to be an entrance, the head wound gave NO indication of having been fired from behind."---PS

I don't understand. If the "head wound gave no indication of having been fired from behind"...then why would McClelland think there was no conspiracy, until he saw the Z-film? 

If I saw and thought JFK's rear head would resulted from a frontal or side shot, then I would suspect a conspiracy, given the WC and news coverage. Let alone the throat wound. 

Was McClelland just...well, not solid on the ramifications of what he saw and believed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"He told Richard Dudman within a week or so of the shooting that while the small throat wound appeared to be an entrance, the head wound gave NO indication of having been fired from behind."---PS

I don't understand. If the "head wound gave no indication of having been fired from behind"...then why would McClelland think there was no conspiracy, until he saw the Z-film? 

If I saw and thought JFK's rear head would resulted from a frontal or side shot, then I would suspect a conspiracy, given the WC and news coverage. Let alone the throat wound. 

Was McClelland just...well, not solid on the ramifications of what he saw and believed? 

My bad. I meant to say fired from anywhere other than behind. Discovering that Dudman article was one of the prime reasons I came to doubt there was a so-called "blow-out" wound low on the back of the skull, as shown in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. Such a wound would be presumed to be an exit wound and would undoubtedly lead the doctors viewing it to think the shot came from in front of or to the side of the victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I've read some of Fred's articles and he makes some good points. He would have a heckuva lot more credibility, IMO, if he interspersed his JFK Revisited critiques with critiques of the numerous biased newspaper articles and TV specials released around the 50th, O'Reilly's book, Reclaiming History, Case Closed, Specter's autobiography, the Warren Report, etc. 

The point to be made, IMO, is that all sources on this case reveal some bias, and that that bias should be exposed when possible, not that "Oh these people are out to deceive you," and to leave those sharing your conclusions alone. McAdams once told me that men like Stone and Garrison were XXXXX, but that men like Baden and Specter who told numerous falsehoods were not XXXXX, because they did not need to lie. It was/is this juvenile attitude towards the truth that led me to stop writing on McAdams' newsgroup, as the good guy/bad guy thing pushed on his newsgroup and others is more akin to play acting than actually sharing information, IMO. 

Or maybe I'm missing something. Have Fred or yourself for that matter ever written a critique of Bugliosi, Posner, Specter or Belin where they came across as anything other than shining white knights who told the truth and helped cleanse the world of the filth spewed by the likes of Stone, Garrison, and Lane? Because, if so, perhaps we can start a website comprised of critiques in which LNs criticize LNs and CTs criticize CTs, and break through all this Cowboys and Indians nonsense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

McClellan:

"He later told Weisberg that Jim Garrison was a crank but that Specter was a good guy."

 

McClellan's high level surgery doctor credentials may mean a lot in his opinions on JFK's wounds but his personal opinions on the character of Garrison verses Specter? No more credibility worthy than any person on the street ... imo.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Or maybe I'm missing something. Have Fred or yourself for that matter ever written a critique of Bugliosi, Posner, Specter or Belin where they came across as anything other than shining white knights who told the truth and helped cleanse the world of the filth spewed by the likes of Stone, Garrison, and Lane?

I know David Von Pein has written about some of the things Bugliosi said that he considers not quite accurate shall we say. I think most of that was on the SBT if I remember correctly. And I co-authored a series on Posner in which we mentioned a few things that could be called mistakes or whatever term you like. Granted, our primary purpose in that exercise was to defend him.

I suppose we "nutters" think that there are enough people attacking the individuals you mention so we tend to defend them. And, of course, we agree with them most of the time. But I agree with you-if someone says something that is not accurate, then call it out. Because everyone makes mistakes.

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...