Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oliver Stone discusses the JFKA on the Joe Rogan Podcast


Recommended Posts

I think those are all good ideas for when the four parter comes out.

And I will let Oliver know about them.

Say this: if Chomsky is going nuts now, wait until he sees the long version.

That one has about 6 history guys tracing and talking about all aspects of Kennedy's foreign policy.  And four of them are genuine historians, including the best guy there is on Indonesia.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 1/13/2022 at 9:22 AM, Pat Speer said:

In Shaw's case, he was not responsible for the thigh wound, and was almost certainly repeating second-hand information about the wound.

 

Dr. Shaw (not a believer in the SBT) says in this video that the bullet in Connally's thigh is just a fragment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 10:26 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I think Pat's words of caution are wise here.

Dr. Robert Shaw was Governor John Connally's chest wound treating surgeon at Parkland hospital the day Connally was shot.

The following are excerpts from his Warren Commission testimony.

Notice how his main questioner Arlen Specter keeps steering Dr. Shaw towards affirming one bullet could have caused all 3 wounds in Connally's body and still look as pristine as the exhibit 399 one?

Read Shaw's answering testimony closely, especially the last part here.

Mr. SPECTER - Is it possible that the bullet which went through the Governor's chest could have emerged being as fully intact as that bullet is?


Dr. SHAW - Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the bullet struck the fifth rib at a very acute angle and struck a portion of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance.


Mr. SPECTER - Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?


Dr. SHAW - I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.
 

Mr. SPECTER - Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet?


Dr. SHAW - If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is concerned it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent missile.


Mr. SPECTER - Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?


Dr. SHAW - Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?


Mr. SPECTER - May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and----
Dr. GREGORY - I will say yes.


Mr. SPECTER - And indicates in the affirmative. Do you have sufficient knowledge of the wound of the wrist to render an opinion as to whether that bullet could have gone through Governor Connally's wrist and emerged being as much intact as it is?


Dr. SHAW - I do not.


Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in hpyothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm. missile passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck, proceeding through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating the pleural cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the neck, with the missile having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the missile was a copper jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that bullet to have then proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would it be possible for it to have struck Governor Connally in the back and have inflicted the wound which you have described on the posterior aspect of his chest, and also on the anterior aspect of his chest?


Dr. SHAW - Yes.


Mr. SPECTER - And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative answer to that question, Dr. Shaw?


Dr. SHAW - Because I would feel that a missile with this velocity and weight striking no more than the soft tissues of the neck would have adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the Governor's chest.


Mr. SPECTER - Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689?


Dr. SHAW - Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck you mean?


Mr. SPECTER - No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next question.


Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds.

>>> But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds.<<<

 

>>>There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist. <<<


Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.


Dr. SHAW - I see.


Mr. SPECTER - Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor?


Dr. SHAW - Yes.


Mr. SPECTER - And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399?


Dr. SHAW - Yes.


>>> Mr. SPECTER - When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399? <<<


>>> Dr. SHAW - I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.<<<


Mr. SPECTER - What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?


>>> Dr. SHAW - I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. <<<
 

(Discussion off the record.) 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, my recollection is that they didn't pull anything out of Connally's thigh. It was said to be a mere surface wound, with a tiny fragment beneath the skin that was not removed. This is why it suggests the bullet was traveling at an extremely low velocity. And this is why I groan whenever someone says CE 399 lodged in his thigh and then fell out later on the stretcher. The doctors who examined the wound made it clear this did not happen. And yet subscribers to the single-bullet theory religion repeat this factoid over and over.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Joe, my recollection is that they didn't pull anything out of Connally's thigh. It was said to be a mere surface wound, with a tiny fragment beneath the skin that was not removed. This is why it suggests the bullet was traveling at an extremely low velocity. And this is why I groan whenever someone says CE 399 lodged in his thigh and then fell out later on the stretcher. The doctors who examined the wound made it clear this did not happen. And yet subscribers to the single-bullet theory religion repeat this factoid over and over.

Pat, maybe you've covered this on your site.  It is extensive.  But what happened to the other likely fragments, and, main portion of the (probably deformed) bullet.

CE 399 was reputedly found on Connally's stretcher in pristine condition.

The bullet hitting him entered the base of his arm pit, traversed a rib and exited his right nipple.  Which would have slowed it down as you allude to, but still broke his wrist.  Then fragmented into his thigh as you also mention.

Connally always said he wasn't hit by the same bullet as JFK.  I believe tests were done shooting the same type bullets into cadaver's wrists.  Which resulted in deformed bullets.  What happened to the Connally bullet? 

One was found in the limo afterwards.  What happened to it.  Was it deformed, or missing fragments?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Joe, my recollection is that they didn't pull anything out of Connally's thigh. It was said to be a mere surface wound, with a tiny fragment beneath the skin that was not removed. This is why it suggests the bullet was traveling at an extremely low velocity. And this is why I groan whenever someone says CE 399 lodged in his thigh and then fell out later on the stretcher. The doctors who examined the wound made it clear this did not happen. And yet subscribers to the single-bullet theory religion repeat this factoid over and over.

Pat, so Shaw and his team never saw any bullet during their surgery time with Governor Connelly? Were they even curious about where the injury causing bullet ended up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Pat, maybe you've covered this on your site.  It is extensive.  But what happened to the other likely fragments, and, main portion of the (probably deformed) bullet.

CE 399 was reputedly found on Connally's stretcher in pristine condition.

The bullet hitting him entered the base of his arm pit, traversed a rib and exited his right nipple.  Which would have slowed it down as you allude to, but still broke his wrist.  Then fragmented into his thigh as you also mention.

Connally always said he wasn't hit by the same bullet as JFK.  I believe tests were done shooting the same type bullets into cadaver's wrists.  Which resulted in deformed bullets.  What happened to the Connally bullet? 

One was found in the limo afterwards.  What happened to it.  Was it deformed, or missing fragments?   

 

Officially, the only bullet or bullet fragments found in the limo were two pieces representing half a bullet found in the front section of the limo, and a few tiny fragments found in the rear section under Nellie's seat. CE 399 was, of course, found on a stretcher, in the hospital. It was almost certainly found, moreover, on a stretcher used by neither Kennedy nor Connally. It follows then that someone--we can suspect SS Agent Sam Kinney--found the bullet in the back seat of the limo, and put it where it could be found and associated with the shooting. (I do accept the possibility this bullet was then switched out for a bullet that could be linked to the rifle found in the building, and that CE 399 is not the bullet originally found on the stretcher, but the evidence for this is not as clear as many would like it to be.)

And no, I don't think Kinney was part of a plot. I suspect it was CYA. Kinney's instinctual cleaning up of the back seat at Parkland was improper and would likely have got him fired should this have been brought out by the Warren Commission. It is telling, IMO, that no discussion of the cleaning up of the back seat was brought out in statements or testimony, even after being mentioned in numerous accounts by eyewitnesses and journalists. 

So, in short, at least one bullet (assuming at least three bullets were fired into the limousine) has been missing since day one. This missing bullet has led some to conclude, moreover, that there were really just two shots fired into the limousine. But a thorough reading of the available literature proves that bullets which pass through their victims are not always found. On my website I discuss the fact that one of Connally's cuff links similarly went missing.  In this case, moreover, we have at least one nurse saying multiple bullets were found. It's a bit of a mess. But the fact is that defenders of the WC frequently claim all the bullet fragments were linked to Oswald's rifle, and that this proves there was but one shooter, when the official record has always made clear at least one bullet was missing, and that, as a consequence, one can not claim all the bullets were fired by the rifle found in the building. 

This brings us to the eyewitness testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams. Williams, sitting in an open window a few feet from the sniper's nest, initially said he heard but two shots. He was then dragged before the Commission to recant and say he heard three. But he pulled a switcheroo. He said he heard three but the last two were bang-bang, an impossibility if these two were fired from the rifle found in the building. In other words, Williams, the first of the three men on the fifth floor to make statements regarding the shooting, failed to believe Oswald fired three shots from just above his head...which would explain why he pretty much disappeared after his testimony. Now, he did speak to CBS in 67 where, in a heavily edited interview, he repeated that the last two shots were bang-bang. But as far as I know, no one, outside perhaps Mark Lane, has been allowed to view this full interview. The hundreds of hours of on-camera eyewitness interviews conducted by CBS between 64-67 have never been made public. Snippets here, snippets there, have been shown on television. But the bulk of these interviews have never been shown nor transcribed. When asked to do so by the ARRB, as I recall, CBS cried hardship--that they just didn't have the time or manpower or inkling to cooperate with the government on this issue, and that the statements of these witnesses was work product, not finished product, and therefore protected under the first amendment, akin to a reporters' notes. To which I cry "bullpucky!"

I mean, can you imagine a news agency pulling this on, say, the January 6 commission? "Yes, we interviewed--on camera--dozens of the rioters on Jan 6 and the days after, and yes, we interviewed--on camera--a number of Trump's inner circle on Jan 6 and the days after. But no, we won't share these with you because, you know, the first amendment. It's our work product, akin to a reporters' notes. Never mind that we have dozens of individuals now claiming they've been framed admitting that they were in fact engaged in treason and trying to overthrow the government. Never mind that. These filmed interviews are akin to notes, and those allowing themselves to be filmed by a news agency are, by gosh, rightfully concerned their privacy would be violated if we shared these with, say, government officials. I mean, they said we could air these interviews for all to see, but since we chose not to do that, well, then, their privacy has to be respected..." 

We live in a crazy world...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Pat, so Shaw and his team never saw any bullet during their surgery time with Governor Connelly? Were they even curious about where the injury causing bullet ended up?

I don't know if they were asked many questions along these lines, but I suspect it's safe to say that Shaw, for one, was curious. Which is why he assumed what was later reported to be a small fragment was a bullet...

In general, though, (and I've spent the last year witnessing this first-hand) doctors have very narrow skill sets, and routinely defer to others. A doctor repairing a gunshot wound would not be overly concerned with what bullet created this wound, and its current whereabouts, once they establish that it is no longer in the body. That's the policeman's job. 

Similarly, and I know people refuse to believe this...an emergency room doctor for a gunshot victim would not be overly concerned with the cause of death and the exact nature of the victim's wounds...establishing that is the job of the coroner or pathologist. 

Doctors do their job in their narrow field of expertise and generally step aside to let others do their job in their field of expertise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't know if they were asked many questions along these lines, but I suspect it's safe to say that Shaw, for one, was curious. Which is why he assumed what was later reported to be a small fragment was a bullet...

In general, though, (and I've spent the last year witnessing this first-hand) doctors have very narrow skill sets, and routinely defer to others. A doctor repairing a gunshot wound would not be overly concerned with what bullet created this wound, and its current whereabouts, once they establish that it is no longer in the body. That's the policeman's job. 

Similarly, and I know people refuse to believe this...an emergency room doctor for a gunshot victim would not be overly concerned with the cause of death and the exact nature of the victim's wounds...establishing that is the job of the coroner or pathologist. 

Doctors do their job in their narrow field of expertise and generally step aside to let others do their job in their field of expertise. 

https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

I realize memories can fade and even earnest untampered-with witness testimony must be taken with grain of salt.

But the bullet found at Parkland was said to have been "pointy-head" by OP Wright, who had had a career in law enforcement. Not the dome-shaped Western ammo used by the Mannlicher Carcano. 

Then there is the curiously tangled chain of custody of CE 399, as seen in the linked-to article above.

It strikes me that CE-399 was "subbed in" for whatever projectile was found in Parkland. 

That said, I agree with you in the main, and especially with what I believe the most simple, basic and demonstrable fact about the JFKA: JFK and JBC received shots in too-rapid a sequence to have been fired by a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

We see that in the Z film, and also as recounted by a large number of witnesses to the "bang-bang" sequence. I wish the JFKA research community led every documentary, film, forum, article etc. with that "too rapid" platform and then proceeded from there. Egads, getting bogged down with Richard Case Nagell or who was on the stairs at TSBD or did Allen Dulles directly order the hit, and Curtis E. LeMay was gloating with a cigar....

The large number of witness who smelled gunsmoke in the immediate aftermath of the shooting is also important (I am in the minority in that think the Grassy Knoll gunfire was likely a diversion). 

Your website is excellent, btw. 

 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody should correct Rogan's misstatement that David Lifton was "an accountant who was hired to review the Warren Report and found a ton of inconsistencies in it."  For someone who claims to have read Best Evidence as Rogan does, it is inconceivable that he would misidentify its author as an "accountant" who did his work for hire which is pretty much as far from the truth as you can possibly go.  Stone's disingenuous responses to Rogan about Lifton's work were surprising as well; he and Lifton interacted while the movie JFK was being created and he knows a great deal more about Lifton's work than he admitted in the Rogan interview as he stumbled around verbally and wiped his sweating brow.  Dismissing Lifton's work as he did by saying "DiEugenio doesn't agree with it" and because "they would have changed the brain" shows a level of superficiality and detachment in Stone's thinking about the JFKA that was downright surprising to watch unfold in real time, for someone who's obviously spent a great deal of time reviewing the facts of the case.  Jim DiEugenio's opinion of the facts that Lifton discovered and revealed in Best Evidence shouldn't be conflated with the facts themselves, which have been vetted over and over again through the testimony of John Stringer and many others (several of whom were cited in the latest Stone documentary), which does a marvelous job of discrediting the Warren Commission's conclusions, especially relating to the single bullet theory and the integrity of the autopsy at Bethesda. I understand the reluctance to delve into the other inconvenient truths about the JFKA that are related to the alterations of his body that occurred between DP and Bethesda, but the truth will out only if we continue to seek after it, right?  The awareness of the deceit perpetrated since 11/22/63 that Jim and other recent contributors to the JFKA narrative have worked so conscientiously to expose and document shouldn't be separated from the foundational facts that Lifton and others started uncovering 40 years ago when the more recent researchers were still adolescents. There is a difference between the facts that were uncovered and the interpretation that Lifton and others have made of those facts in the 40 years since they were uncovered; mistakes are inevitable when interpretation is dependent upon an incomplete data set, but it is a terrible disservice to history to discard historical facts that don't fit with later interpretations of "what happened" because of the confirmation bias or any of the other puerile reasons that such things happen.

Edited by Steven Kossor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2022 at 5:26 AM, Steven Kossor said:

Somebody should correct Rogan's misstatement that David Lifton was "an accountant who was hired to review the Warren Report and found a ton of inconsistencies in it."  For someone who claims to have read Best Evidence as Rogan does, it is inconceivable that he would misidentify its author as an "accountant" who did his work for hire which is pretty much as far from the truth as you can possibly go.  Stone's disingenuous responses to Rogan about Lifton's work were surprising as well; he and Lifton interacted while the movie JFK was being created and he knows a great deal more about Lifton's work than he admitted in the Rogan interview as he stumbled around verbally and wiped his sweating brow.  Dismissing Lifton's work as he did by saying "DiEugenio doesn't agree with it" and because "they would have changed the brain" shows a level of superficiality and detachment in Stone's thinking about the JFKA that was downright surprising to watch unfold in real time, for someone who's obviously spent a great deal of time reviewing the facts of the case.  Jim DiEugenio's opinion of the facts that Lifton discovered and revealed in Best Evidence shouldn't be conflated with the facts themselves, which have been vetted over and over again through the testimony of John Stringer and many others (several of whom were cited in the latest Stone documentary), which does a marvelous job of discrediting the Warren Commission's conclusions, especially relating to the single bullet theory and the integrity of the autopsy at Bethesda. I understand the reluctance to delve into the other inconvenient truths about the JFKA that are related to the alterations of his body that occurred between DP and Bethesda, but the truth will out only if we continue to seek after it, right?  The awareness of the deceit perpetrated since 11/22/63 that Jim and other recent contributors to the JFKA narrative have worked so conscientiously to expose and document shouldn't be separated from the foundational facts that Lifton and others started uncovering 40 years ago when the more recent researchers were still adolescents. There is a difference between the facts that were uncovered and the interpretation that Lifton and others have made of those facts in the 40 years since they were uncovered; mistakes are inevitable when interpretation is dependent upon an incomplete data set, but it is a terrible disservice to history to discard historical facts that don't fit with later interpretations of "what happened" because of the confirmation bias or any of the other puerile reasons that such things happen.

Excellent commentary, IMHO, by Steven Kossor. 

I have said it before, Oliver Stone is a brilliant film documentarian, and deserves all the credit in the world for his two JFK triumphs. 

As an interviewee, Stone is, well, very human. 

I was disappointed in a segment wherein Rogan asks if there were a very large number of people involved in the JFKA. 

The correct answer is "probably very few pre-event, but in the cover-up, there was a great deal of falling into line, of complicity, usually by unwitting actors, or people thinking they were doing the right thing at the time." 

Stone's answer was blurry, and allowed for the interpretation there was a huge government conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The problem with huge conspiracies is 1) that is not what happened, and 2) huge government plots or conspiracies are inherently less plausible, and give fuel to ridicule. 

All that said, Stone is on the right side, and has done as much as anybody to try to solve the JFKA. I just wish he brought along DiEugenio to interviews.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Joe Rogan podcast, at 1:13:30 Oliver Stone says: If there was an assassination team on the 6th floor, I don't know how they escaped.

Would an answer be that the elevator went from the 1st floor to the 4th floor. (or did it goto the basement?). On top of the 4th floor would have been a cage to hold the cables etc for the elevator, and this would have taken up all of the 5th floor above the elevator shaft. On the 6th floor, one could lift the floorboards and access the top of the elevator shaft. The elevator didn't work for several minutes during when the bullets were fired. The Team could have ridden down on top of the elevator, or could have entered the elevator if it had a ceiling hatch.

Does anyone know more about the elevator at the TSBD ?

Edited by Ken Martinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment, Ben Cole.  I agree that we all owe a tremendous debt to Oliver Stone for his courageous and persistent efforts to call attention to the disguise and deception that was perpetrated by a group of people who were united in replacing JFK with LBJ without raising the inconvenient truth that it was not "an accident of history" that made that transfer of power possible.  Everyone who has contributed to the exposure of the truth in this awful case deserves recognition for their efforts, and Jim DiEugenio is certainly near the top of the list for his tenacity and the range of his interest in publicizing the political implications and economic foundation for JFK's murder.  I agree that Jim and Oliver together would probably have made a better presentation than Oliver alone, but there is no excuse for Mr. Rogan's misidentifying David Lifton, the author of Best Evidence -- which remains a treasure trove of documented facts in the case -- as an "accountant" who did his research "for hire."  I look forward to learning more about "what happened, what was supposed to have happened, what almost knocked the plot irretrievably off the rails in Dealey Plaza, and how the plot was salvaged almost miraculously" through the ongoing efforts of the contributors to this Forum, including David Lifton (who ought to be invited onto the Rogan program himself to correct and amplify the record with the discoveries he's been making, documenting and organizing thoughtfully over the 30+ years since Best Evidence was published).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 6:46 PM, Pat Speer said:

Joe, my recollection is that they didn't pull anything out of Connally's thigh. It was said to be a mere surface wound, with a tiny fragment beneath the skin that was not removed. This is why it suggests the bullet was traveling at an extremely low velocity. And this is why I groan whenever someone says CE 399 lodged in his thigh and then fell out later on the stretcher. The doctors who examined the wound made it clear this did not happen. And yet subscribers to the single-bullet theory religion repeat this factoid over and over.

This is such an important point.  How did a fragment, small enough to be left in Connally's leg become CE 399.  the magic pristine bullet.  First, it fell out of JFK's back onto the stretcher where it was found.  Previously it went in at T-3 then was moved up to the base of the neck so it could exit the entrance wound in the throat.  Then change direction in mid air.  Enter Connally's arm pit, traverse a rib and exit his right nipple.  Next smashing his wrist spewing a fragment into his thigh.   But come out pristine after it's magical journey to re appear As CE 399.  Though it failed the cadaver wrist tests and was ignored by the warren omission.   

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...