Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 777
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Saw this today on Twitter:

I hope the documentary has a good PR person/firm promoting it. There’s almost too much here for great story angles/pitches.

As a PR guy, I always thought the JFK research community suffered from the lack of a cohesive PR strategy and implementation.  JFK Revisited deserves its due in the media.

 

 

Let's face facts here, the film is a flop here in North America. To his credit, Oliver Stone recognizes the reality of the situation when he states there was little attention in the film. 

Now it's down to Social Media platforms to try to breathe some life in the film. Well, good luck with that!

The film has glaring errors, omissions, and "creative editing" to put forth this conspiracy. One researcher pointed out how Stone's Editor snipped and edited Bill Newman's historical eye-witness account to fit the story. I don't care what you say, but intentionally playing around with historical film clips like that, is highly unethical. 

 All JFK enthusiasts have to wake up to the cold hard fact that this is not 1991, and the JFK Assassination interest has waned dramatically over the years in the public. The subject is so saturated with books, films, forums that do nothing but confuse those new to the case. 

Also, in my opinion, a large population of Americans are sick and tired of Conspiracy Theories, from 9/11 to QAnon to RFK and of course JFK.  

I admire Oliver Stone for being candid and honest about the film's lack of interest, something you will seldom read here in this forum. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Twitter Block party was neat.  Rob Wilson, the producer, Lisa Pease an interviewee, and myself answered questions for two hours. There were still people there after that.  One guy was very gracious and thanked us all plus Oliver Stone and John Williams.  

Tomorrow at 11: 00 AM PCT I will be doing my spot at the CAPA Conference. I think I am scheduled for a one hour speech and one hour Q and A.  Will talk about the design of the script for JFK Revisited.   It had four major themes I wanted to develop. And how that is more fulfilled in the four hour version. Also some things that got left out.

Tomorrow night at 11 PM EST, Zoomer Radio at 740 AM out of Toronto. 

And I will  announce a couple of big media things from Oliver also for Monday. When the film will be broadcast twice on Showtime in the USA and Crave in Canada.  Potential audience of 26 million will finally be aware of things like the two prior plots to kill JFK in Tampa and Chicago,  just three weeks before Dallas. If at first you don't succeed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 6:09 AM, Steve Roe said:

 

 All JFK enthusiasts have to wake up to the cold hard fact that this is not 1991, and the JFK Assassination interest has waned dramatically over the years in the public. The subject is so saturated with books, films, forums that do nothing but confuse those new to the case. 

Also, in my opinion, a large population of Americans are sick and tired of Conspiracy Theories, from 9/11 to QAnon to RFK and of course JFK.  

I admire Oliver Stone for being candid and honest about the film's lack of interest, something you will seldom read here in this forum. 

 

All of us baby boomer generation JFK truth seekers who were alive at the time know we are the last large number group of committed interest and study of the JFK assassination members of our society.

When we are gone, this relatively wide base truth seeking movement will be pretty much gone as well, imo.

One supposes there will always be a miniscule sized group of dedicated students of this hugely effecting and important historical event, just like the Civil War or World War II and Viet Nam war, etc.

What I personally worry about most with this passing interest and concern however is the lost understanding of why us JFK truth seekers felt our mission was so important.

That the events in Dallas the weekend of 11,22, thru 11,24,1963 ( both JFK's and Lee Harvey Oswald's murders ) and the following media reporting and history book stating and so-called official investigation finding was so biased, compromised and inadequate as to beg rational Americans to doubt it all greatly.

And to suspect that our highest level of governmental and societal power and control was mostly not in the hands of honest, uncorrupted democratically elected leaders.

And that Eisenhower's "massive and ever growing unwarranted power and influence Military / Industrial Complex" warning speech he gave to the entire nation upon leaving office was a much more true reality statement than most American's ever realized or gave much thought to.

If only half of this ominous other power control warning speech statement by Eisenhower was and still is true, we have all been living in an ignorance bubble beyond our normal daily life comprehension.

Finding and knowing the full truth about the JFK and LHO murders in November of 1963 would at least free us to some degree from this 58 year long buried truth false reality existence we have been stumbling through all this time.

My take anyway as to what I would tell my grandkids when or "if" they ever ask me why I have spent so much time and effort in my entire life studying and caring about the JFK/LHO murders event 58 years ago and feeling it was a conspiracy and what it possibly meant to us all in the end.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, at the end of the documentary, David Talbot addressed this issue head on with insight and eloquence.

He says words to the effect:  the horror show we have in our political system today--and that is an apt description, perhaps a bit mild--can be traced back to Kennedy's assassination. When you can murder a president in broad daylight, with 200 witnesses, and you have a film of it, and then kill the patsy on live TV, that sends a message out.  Anything goes.  All bets are off. Consequently, bam, there goes Malcolm, bam, there goes MLK, bam, there goes RFK.

And the entire political spectrum was altered.  When you go from a world led by those four, to a world led by LBJ, Nixon, Mitchell and Kissinger? I think  something happened.  

That is why the JFK case still matters.  If you look at the new reviews on IMDB, people are stunned by the revelations in the film. Because, for the first time in their lives, they are learning what really happened. And many are already looking forward to the four hour version e.g. the Twitter Block party we had last night.

Ask yourself this: why did it take Rob Wilson, me and Oliver Stone to do this?  And the fact that it took us three--and we had to go outside the USA for funding and distribution--that  tells you all you need to know about my point above. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To develop that a bit more, the revelations of the ARRB,  and its creation in the first place, were major stories.

As Tunheim says in the film, they must have sent out a hundred press releases.

I can only recall two stories based upon their work, the story about how they certified that Stone, Newman, and Prouty were correct, JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his death. And second, the Washington Post story based on the Doug Horne memo about two brain examinations. Two stories in four years. Amid two million pages, and 60,000 documents.

In fact, the MSM did the opposite.  In 2003, five years after the  ARRB had closed, Peter Jennings hired Gus Russo. Knowing he would do all he could to not only not show the public what the ARRB had done, he would conceal what happened.  So he trots out Dale M and his satirical Single Bullet Fact.  Which we utterly destroyed in our film. There never was a magic bullet. Period. End of story.

Thanks to ABC,  it took 58 years for the public to know that. But anyone who watches the film will never take CE 399 at face value again. With that, the Commission collapses.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connally once specified that, from his point of view, the only way the SBT could be true is if the first shot missed. So, the value of Connally's statements would be strengthened with a case against a loud report occurring before z180-224. Pat Speer's chapters on this seem pretty undeniable. IMO the closest thing to decent evidence for this is Connally's fast head turn after z160, which the HSCA suggested was too fast to be a normal reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, Lattimer's lapel flip?  LOL, ROTF LMAO.

We are driving Fred up the wall.  I mean over the wall.

Micah, the film is saying that CE399 is not a genuine piece of evidence. And we explain why with two professionals, Edwards and Lee.  (IMO, Henry Lee's 30 seconds on screen is worth watching the film for. He explodes the WC that quickly.)

CE 399 would never be admitted into court.  And if it was, it would blow open the Commission's case. Simply because there is utterly no chain of custody on it and the FBI lied about this.  I don't know how you get around that with Mantik Conway, Aguilar and the late John Hunt.

The question we should have all been asking is not trajectories or bullet sequences.  But who planted CE399?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh no, Lattimer's lapel flip?  LOL, ROTF LMAO.

We are driving Fred up the wall.  I mean over the wall.

Micah, the film is saying that CE399 is not a genuine piece of evidence. And we explain why with two professionals, Edwards and Lee.  (IMO, Henry Lee's 30 seconds on screen is worth watching the film for. He explodes the WC that quickly.)

CE 399 would never be admitted into court.  And if it was, it would blow open the Commission's case. Simply because there is utterly no chain of custody on it and the FBI lied about this.  I don't know how you get around that with Mantik Conway, Aguilar and the late John Hunt.

The question we should have all been asking is not trajectories or bullet sequences.  But who planted CE399?

 

Would SHO sell the film any better if they ran the expanded film in December, as a special event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh no, Lattimer's lapel flip?  LOL, ROTF LMAO.

We are driving Fred up the wall.  I mean over the wall.

Micah, the film is saying that CE399 is not a genuine piece of evidence. And we explain why with two professionals, Edwards and Lee.  (IMO, Henry Lee's 30 seconds on screen is worth watching the film for. He explodes the WC that quickly.)

CE 399 would never be admitted into court.  And if it was, it would blow open the Commission's case. Simply because there is utterly no chain of custody on it and the FBI lied about this.  I don't know how you get around that with Mantik Conway, Aguilar and the late John Hunt.

The question we should have all been asking is not trajectories or bullet sequences.  But who planted CE399?

 

Maybe Jack Ruby?  Seth Kantor said he was at Parkland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah, the film is saying that CE399 is not a genuine piece of evidence. And we explain why with two professionals, Edwards and Lee.  (IMO, Henry Lee's 30 seconds on screen is worth watching the film for. He explodes the WC that quickly.)

CE 399 would never be admitted into court.  And if it was, it would blow open the Commission's case. Simply because there is utterly no chain of custody on it and the FBI lied about this.  I don't know how you get around that with Mantik Conway, Aguilar and the late John Hunt.

The question we should have all been asking is not trajectories or bullet sequences.  But who planted CE399?

 

CE 399 is the best evidence of a cover up or at a minimum doctoring of evidence of what I have seen. The shirt, as Cliff harps about, is the other IMO. I'm by no means an expert on the JFKA but the SBT and the "evidence" meant to support it would be laughed out of any court and terminate any chance of a conviction. I don't see how anyone could call that controversial. It isn't.

Edited by Bob Ness
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...