Noam Chomsky vs. Oliver Stone

[Guest]

@James DiEugenio Great piece. 
I think Chomsky has done a lot of good work in his career, I’ve read a couple of his books and watched a fair few speeches of his, as you point out here, he was a hypocrite or selfish, choosing the path of safety and career, over truth. 

It’s always a question I ask myself after reading John Perkins “new confessions of an economic hitman.” If we had a wife and kids, how many would give up our comfort and safety to pursue idealism and truth. How many of us would welcome the danger? By choosing selfishness, we betray some truly great men, that made our lives and the world, just that bit better. 
 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I tried to allude to my take about it in that drive to the airport by Ray Marcus. In a nutshell it comes down to this:

The right has money and power.

The left has insight and honesty.

If you give up that honesty, you sacrifice the high ground for your own purposes.  

This is why I have much more respect for Michael Parenti than I will ever have for Chomsky.  And would rather read him.  

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I tried to allude to my take about it in that drive to the airport by Ray Marcus. In a nutshell it comes down to this:

The right has money and power.

The left has insight and honesty.

If you give up that honesty, you sacrifice the high ground for your own purposes.  

This is why I have much more respect for Michael Parenti than I will ever have for Chomsky.  And would rather read him.  

I think you’re right. There is also the incremental nature of tyrants. If you don’t make a stand, they’ll keep on going and take everything from you, until there is nothing left. It’s staggering that the world saw the murders of JFK, MLK Jr, RFK and others in quick succession, as well as all of those innocent witnesses or people who knew something. The darkness of it is almost unfathomable in a country we consider democratic, and in a country that was leading the world and setting an example. 😢 History whitewashes it, so many don’t know the truth almost 60 years later. It makes you wonder how much of the rest our history is mistold. Thankfully people like yourself and others on this forum have dedicated so much of your lives to speaking this truth.  That’s the flickering candle that is democracy or freedom, if it goes out, we’re all in a terrible place.
 

Some believe what happened to JFK was an isolated thing, some like me believe the tyrants have carried on until present day. If more people made a stand, would we have had all of these conflicts that have costs so many lives, maybe not. Naom, has to live with that, that’s a crack in his character. 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I tried to allude to my take about it in that drive to the airport by Ray Marcus. In a nutshell it comes down to this:

The right has money and power.

The left has insight and honesty.

If you give up that honesty, you sacrifice the high ground for your own purposes.  

This is why I have much more respect for Michael Parenti than I will ever have for Chomsky.  And would rather read him.  

Jim,

    IMO, one of the main shortcomings of Chomsky and Edward Herman's landmark 1988 text, Manufacturing Consent, was that it virtually ignored the major role of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" (and it's post-Church Committee permutations) in the manipulation of mass media information and public opinion in the U.S.

    The book was useful in raising public consciousness about corporate and financial influences on propaganda in the U.S. mainstream media, but said almost nothing about the CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer," which had been operational since the days of Frank Wisner and the OSS psy ops experts who established the CIA.

    It was a very strange omission, because Herman and Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent a decade after Colby's Church Committee testimony about Mockingbird, (and Carl Bernstein's famous CIA and the Media essay in Rolling Stone.)

    I remain puzzled by Chomsky's strange silence about CIA involvement in our M$M, generally, and about his persistent denial (or blatant dishonesty) about LBJ's role in reversing JFK Vietnam policy-- especially since Chomsky was such an active, early critic of the Vietnam War.

    I suppose it's possible that Chomsky's recent erroneous comments about JFK and Vietnam are mainly a result of sheer ignorance about the declassified data of the past 30 years, and fixed opinions from the Halberstam era.  But that wouldn't explain his apparent dishonesty about the things Ray Marcus shared with him back in the day.

   

Edited January 13, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

53 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jim,

    IMO, one of the main shortcomings of Chomsky and Edward Herman's landmark 1988 text, Manufacturing Consent, was that it virtually ignored the major role of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" (and it's post-Church Committee permutations) in the manipulation of mass media information and public opinion in the U.S.

    The book was useful in raising public consciousness about corporate and financial influences on propaganda in the U.S. mainstream media, but said almost nothing about the CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer," which had been operational since the days of Frank Wisner and the OSS psy ops experts who established the CIA.

    It was a very strange omission, because Herman and Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent a decade after Colby's Church Committee testimony about Mockingbird, (and Carl Bernstein's famous CIA and the Media essay in Rolling Stone.)

    I remain puzzled by Chomsky's strange silence about CIA involvement in our M$M, generally, and about his persistent denial (or blatant dishonesty) about LBJ's role in reversing JFK Vietnam policy-- especially since Chomsky was such an active, early critic of the Vietnam War.

    I suppose it's possible that Chomsky's recent erroneous comments about JFK and Vietnam are mainly a result of sheer ignorance about the declassified data of the past 30 years, and fixed opinions from the Halberstam era.  But that wouldn't explain his apparent dishonesty about the things Ray Marcus shared with him back in the day.

   

W-

Chomsky, and the posturing of the entire "liberal" wing of the Donks and media in the past 20 years has been dumbfounding.

JFKA scholar Dick Russell says the CIA has effectively co-opted major brands in the "liberal" media, and we already know about the M$M. 

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/the-daily-beast-ties-to-cia/?fbclid=IwAR0Gjncu9kA3LB-rl9lP1rKIekUhKWynyBKfdRCw6ra5T704I943kKrMr-0

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cia-liberal-media-outlets-the-real-anthony-fauci/

Today the "liberal" media gushes, rhapsodizes over, and takes cues from the FBI and Liz Cheney. I have to rub my eyes, but there you have it. 

Meanwhile, the New Yorker ridicules JFKA researchers: 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/11/04/closer-than-that

Trump was and is a polarizing figure. Is that a reason for the liberals to become police-state apparatchiks who favor censorship over a free press? Deep State-JFKA deniers? I guess so---but this trend started before Trump. 

I want a better political party. 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jim,

    IMO, one of the main shortcomings of Chomsky and Edward Herman's landmark 1988 text, Manufacturing Consent, was that it virtually ignored the major role of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" (and it's post-Church Committee permutations) in the manipulation of mass media information and public opinion in the U.S.

    The book was useful in raising public consciousness about corporate and financial influences on propaganda in the U.S. mainstream media, but said almost nothing about the CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer," which had been operational since the days of Frank Wisner and the OSS psy ops experts who established the CIA.

    It was a very strange omission, because Herman and Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent a decade after Colby's Church Committee testimony about Mockingbird, (and Carl Bernstein's famous CIA and the Media essay in Rolling Stone.)

    I remain puzzled by Chomsky's strange silence about CIA involvement in our M$M, generally, and about his persistent denial (or blatant dishonesty) about LBJ's role in reversing JFK Vietnam policy-- especially since Chomsky was such an active, early critic of the Vietnam War.

    I suppose it's possible that Chomsky's recent erroneous comments about JFK and Vietnam are mainly a result of sheer ignorance about the declassified data of the past 30 years, and fixed opinions from the Halberstam era.  But that wouldn't explain his apparent dishonesty about the things Ray Marcus shared with him back in the day.

On your last paragraph, the first sentence looks accurate. But the second sentence alleging dishonesty in Chomsky is unjustified. Going through the facts: Chomsky listened to Marcus's case for conspiracy and appeared open and persuaded, and was thinking whether he should publicly embrace it as an issue (separate issue). Then there was a passing comment in a car speculating that the assassins of JFK could still kill people today. Then Chomsky declined to make it a public issue and said he did not care who killed JFK if it was not a high-level hit (coup) that changed policy, and said he did not see evidence for that or think that was very likely. At no time since then has Chomsky defended the Warren Commission, nor is it clear that he ever rejected whatever Ray Marcus showed him (concerning argument that the Warren Commission explanation was full of holes). Chomsky has criticized fellow leftists for two things here. First, hagiography of JFK--Chomsky considers JFK not exempt from his characterization of all US presidents without exception as war criminals implementing imperial atrocities on foreign native peoples (in Kennedy's case, Chomsky charges Cuba, Latin America, and Vietnam). And second, Chomsky considers "who killed JFK?" to be a deadend kind of rabbit hole question which sucks popular movement energy away from real issues of power and oppression in our world which are just right out in the open involving facts not in any dispute. 

It is totally unwarranted to leap to the conclusion that that random comment in a car is what "caused" Chomsky, out of fear for his life, to dishonestly draw away from joining the cause of JFK assassination conspiracy researchers who to this day have not yet offered hard evidence, only suspicion, of any solution to the case sufficient to convince a significant number of other serious researchers let alone the intelligent reading public. Chomsky has faced a parallel issue with people wanting him to embrace 911 trutherism, that the Trade Towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He says: take it to peer-reviewed science journals and relevant expert journals, persuade expert peers there by the power of evidence. He recommends activists stick to the abundant issues of human rights and power issues in our world for which facts are wide open and not in dispute.

The idea that Chomsky backed off from embracing JFK conspiracy theory publicly because he was afraid of being killed from that passing car comment is just a figment of imagination. It is a disservice to a public intellectual who is America's equivalent of the Soviet Union's Solzhenitsyn of the Gulag Archipelago trilogy, a searing voice of dissidence against the ravages of power, and just as Solzhenitsyn was bitterly and widely reviled in Russia for exposing crimes of his native land's government, so Chomsky similarly in ours. Do not fall for simplistic and baseless leaping to conclusion that that passing comment in a car explains why Chomsky made the career-direction choice he did on this matter, for that is just ludicrous in terms of anything that makes sense. Nor should Chomsky's choice be explained in terms of dishonesty, such a serious and lethal charge to level against someone, going not simply to being on the wrong side of what is true (as we all are at times) but doing so wilfully and knowingly, going to intent. Such language of imputing the worst of motives which has little basis in actual reality smears and destroys innocent people. One can disagree with Chomsky's position on the JFK assassination, but I would wish to see people have the decency to credit Chomsky's position as being a coherent position that has been shared by others on the left, for reasons having nothing to do with fear of personal safety or automatic assumption of dishonesty.

I think James DiEugenio is right on JFK and Vietnam, and Chomsky is wrong--because of the power of the evidence and studies DiEugenio cites--and I say that as something of a Chomsky partisan. Hit Chomsky hard on evidence and issues there, on the historical analysis of Kennedy. That is a worthy discussion. But the attacks on Chomsky's personal character--the smearing--is what I see as gratuitous and wrong.   

Jeremy Bojczuk's concise summary of Chomsky on the JFK assassination is relevant: http://22november1963.org.uk/noam-chomsky-jfk-assassination. I don't think in Chomsky's voluminous writings one can find anywhere a defense of the Warren Commission's solution to the Kennedy assassination. Here is a soundbite from Chomsky. Does this sound like a defender of the Warren Commission?

"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? It's not an issue of any general political interest. And there's a huge amount of energy and effort going into that [JFK assassination]. If somebody could show that there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high-level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event. Other than that it's just like the killing of anyone else. Naturally you're upset when somebody gets killed, but why is it an issue for the popular movements any more than the latest killing on the streets of Hoboken?" (Chomsky, interview with David Cogswell, 1993) 

I don't think Chomsky is right on this. But it is a fair view calling for response in terms of evidence-based argument, not unjustified attacks on the personal character of someone who has been one of the most courageous public intellectuals in history.

Disclosure: my undergraduate major at the U. of Oregon was in a linguistics department which had the distinction of being one of the leading anti-Chomsky departments in terms of linguistics theory while being pro-Chomsky's politics. I had one contact with Chomsky myself, a question which he answered thoughtfully and reasonably.  

[Ron Bulman]

Has Chomsky been a Mockingbird the whole time?

[Greg Doudna]

29 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Has Chomsky been a Mockingbird the whole time?

No.

[James DiEugenio]

Greg is ignoring the Peter Scott admission. And the Zinn admission.

Peter said that Chomsky and ZInn did not want to include his essay on Kennedy's withdrawal plan because it would mean that who is president matters.  

The objection was not on the evidence, it was based on structuralist ideology.  Zinn said much the same thing to Marcus.  Even if the military overthrew JFK, they were wrong about him.  

In a private correspondence with Mike Morrisey which Mike made public, Chomsky said he had never seen any evidence that would suggest a kind of sophisticated conspiracy.

To Steve Jones and Bob Dean, he said that he had been through the whole declassified record, and there was nothing in there about a conspiracy.  This was back in the nineties. Before the ARRB was even done.

One can make all kinds of excuses for these statements if one is predisposed to do so.  I am not. They are fundamentally just not honest.  In a fundamental way they are pernicious.

As to the case itself, if one is not convinced by the evidence in JFK Revisited then one will never be convinced.  The main points brought up in the film are court room kind of stuff that go to the heart of both fraud and hiding exculpatory evidence. Its the kind of thing that gets felony cases thrown out of court in the real world.  The problem with this case is that that people like Chomsky and ZInn have taken it out of the criminal realm and turned it into something political. That is what I mean by giving up the high ground.

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

William:

I did not know that Chomsky and Herman discounted Mockingbird.

That is amazing.  Mockingbird was one of the great discoveries of the Church Committee. Its one reason that Bush was brought in to take over the CIA, they wanted no further exposure of Mockingbird.  It was too important to their operations. Thanks to Bernstein though we did get more on it.

Whew, how do you write about control of the media without that? Plus, its so central to the JFK case.

I have even less respect for him now. And don't forget how he tried to defend Pol Pot in Cambodia.

I hope you noted all the times I showed he was wrong on the facts in relation to Vietnam.  God, when he sees the four parter he will have a hernia.  Because we go much further with Kennedy's foreign policy there in many different places e.g. Middle East and Indonesia.  On this case he is a propagandizing blowhard.  And man he is 93 and looks about a hundred.  He should be in a nursing home.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

As to the case itself, if one is not convinced by the evidence in JFK Revisited then one will never be convinced.  The main points brought up in the film is court room kind of stuff that goes to the heart of both fraud and hiding exculpatory evidence. Its the kind of thing that gets felony cases thrown out of court in the real world.  The problem with this case is that that people like Chomsky and ZInn have taken it out of the criminal realm and turned it into something political. That is what I mean by giving up the high ground.

I was not referring to the case against the Warren Commission, which is JFK Revisited. I was referring to a solution to the question of who killed JFK. You yourself to my knowledge have not set out a solution, a specific conspiracy theory, other than to cast wide suspicions on maybe 100-200 people usually without concrete specific allegations, and certainty in the case of maybe one: Clay Shaw, where the case that Clay Shaw conspired to kill JFK is so weak that even half of JFK assassination conspiracy researchers do not believe Clay Shaw had anything to do with plotting to assassinate President Kennedy, and you yourself to this day do not make clear what exactly you suppose Clay Shaw actually did, specifically, to kill JFK, other than that you are sure he was guilty of something, somewhere, somehow. That is not what I call a solution to the case. 

I agree there are strong grounds to impeach the Warren Commission's conclusions. There are compelling grounds not only for reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in the cases of both the JFK and Tippit killings, but credible argument for exoneration in both of those cases. That, however, does not solve the question of "who killed JFK?" From what I saw, JFK Revisited did not propose a specific solution, nor am I aware that you have ever offered a specific one either. There have been specific solutions argued by various other authors, some better-argued than others, and who knows, one of them could even be right, but no existing argued proposed solution to the case to my knowledge has gained majority consensus even internal to JFK assassination researchers. That is what I meant. 

[James DiEugenio]

In the talk I will give in San Francisco this weekend, I will explain that one of the things I told Oliver was that I did not think we should advance a theory as to how the crime was actually committed. Because that had been the graveyard of others.  Nigel Turner, for example, fell on his face twice in that regard e.g. Steve Rivele and the French Connection and then the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint.

Since neither the FBI, the Commission nor the HSCA ever conducted a criminal investigation it would be difficult to do that kind of thing. And if we had, it would detract from the very solid evidence in the film that discredits the Commission and acquits Oswald, and does indicate a sophisticated conspiracy.  Which is what Chomsky denied to Morrisey.

As per my theory of the crime, contrary to what you posit Greg, I have set forth what I think happened. In the days of David Von Pein he provoked me to do so and I did.  I still stand by that theory, although I am not going to dig it up right now.  In the long version of the film, there is an implicit motive applied also. 

As per Clay Shaw, Greg, I really have to say this: your ideas about Shaw/Bertrand really seem to echo the likes of the Washington Post..  No matter how much evidence is produced to show the contrary, you still stick to this outmoded concept. This is a guy who denied he worked with the CIA, yet we now know he had three CIA clearances. For whatever reason, the ARRB discovered that the CIA destroyed his 201 file.  He denied he was Bertrand, yet 12 witnesses said they knew he used that alias. Both the FBI and DOJ knew this was the case. So did Dean Andrews. And two of those witnesses are open ended types. Ed Tatro's source and Ricky Planche both said, heck everyone in the Quarter knew this.  The FBI knew he was lying about not knowing Ferrie. Several witnesses saw him with Oswald in Clinton/Jackson; he admitted to Phil Dyer that he knew Oswald; Paul Bleau, who is doing some amazing work on Oswald in New Orleans,  is coming out with a new article in which a witness said he saw Oswald with Shaw before he defected. The only person I know who rivals Shaw on this lying score is Kerry Thornley.

Now let us step back into the real world and listen to a colloquy on this issue:

Q: False exculpatory statements are used for what?

A: Well, either substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Q: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

A: That is right. (CNBC story by Arriana McLymore, 7/7/2016)

The guy doing the questioning above was Trey Gowdy, the guy replying was Jim Comey. A combined 34 years as professional prosecutors. They knew what they were talking about. The question Shaw was intent on avoiding was: Why did you call Andrews and tell him to go to Dallas to defend Oswald? Which indicates consciousness of guilt.

Or to put it more simply, let us use another attorney, the late Allard Lowenstein: In my experience as a lawyer, people with nothing to hide don't hide things.

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the talk I will give in San Francisco this weekend, I will explain that one of the things I told Oliver was that I did not think we should advance a theory as to how the crime was actually committed. Because that had been the graveyard of others.  Nigel Turner, for example, fell on his face twice in that regard e.g. Steve Rivele and the French Connection and then the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint.

Since neither the FBI, the Commission nor the HSCA ever conducted a criminal investigation it would be difficult to do that kind of thing. And if we had, it would detract from the very solid evidence in the film that discredits the Commission and acquits Oswald, and does indicate a sophisticated conspiracy.  Which is what Chomsky denied to Morrisey.

As per my theory of the crime, contrary to what you posit Greg, I have set forth what I think happened. In the days of David Von Pein he provoked me to do so and I did.  I still stand by that theory, although I am not going to dig it up right now.  In the long version of the film, there is an implicit motive applied also. 

That's what I mean. Here it is 59 years after the assassination, and after all this time you cannot cite a single book or article in print that expresses what you believe is the solution to the case. This is not a criticism either of you or of JFK Revisited. It is only an appeal not to condemn Chomsky for not doing what you are unable to do in print either.

As I see it JFK Revisited is an argument that (1) the Warren Commission has numerous problems and is unsatisfactory; (2) it was a high-level coup-level conspiracy; (3) there was a high-level coverup; and (4) JFK was killed because of good directions he was headed. It is sufficient for the film to make that argument or case without going to (5) solution to the case. 

I think Chomsky had no problem with #1 but was not convinced of #2 or #4 therefore took the position that he "didn't know and didn't care" concerning #5. Honest inquiry: in your judgment will the four-hour version of JFK Revisited establish #2? (to the exclusion of, say, a mob hit or Milteer/minutemen assassination or Castro sympathizers--i.e. some wildcat assassination, a low-level conspiracy not anywhere near coup-level?) By "establish" I don't mean proof or beyond reasonable doubt, but rather credible explicit argument that will withstand scrutiny (that is, an argument with some substance, not easily falsified).

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Clay Shaw, Greg, I really have to say this: your ideas about Shaw/Bertrand really seem to echo the likes of the Washington Post..  No matter how much evidence is produced to show the contrary, you still stick to this outmoded concept. This is a guy who denied he worked with the CIA, yet we now know he had three CIA clearances. For whatever reason, the ARRB discovered that the CIA destroyed his 201 file.  He denied he was Bertrand, yet 12 witnesses said they knew he used that alias. Both the FBI and DOJ knew this was the case. So did Dean Andrews. And two of those witnesses are open ended types. Ed Tatro's source and Ricky Planche both said, heck everyone in the Quarter knew this.  The FBI knew he was lying about not knowing Ferrie. Several witnesses saw him with Oswald in Clinton/Jackson; he admitted to Phil Dyer that he knew Oswald; Paul Bleau, who is doing some amazing work on Oswald in New Orleans,  is coming out with a new article in which a witness said he saw Oswald with Shaw before he defected. The only person I know who rivals Shaw on this lying score is Kerry Thornley.

Now let us step back into the real world and listen to a colloquy on this issue:

Q: False exculpatory statements are used for what?

A: Well, either substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Q: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

A: That is right. (CNBC story by Arriana McLymore, 7/7/2016)

The guy doing the questioning above was Trey Gowdy, the guy replying was Jim Comey. A combined 34 years as professional prosecutors. They knew what they were talking about. The question Shaw was intent on avoiding was: Why did you call Andrews and tell him to go to Dallas to defend Oswald? Which indicates consciousness of guilt.

Or to put it more simply, let us use another attorney, the late Allard Lowenstein: In my experience as a lawyer, people with nothing to hide don't hide things.

In other words, you are unable to respond to the question of what exactly it is you suppose Clay Shaw did to kill JFK, let alone name any specific evidence for whatever it is that you are unable to say. What you say above does not address the question asked. What did he do? What was his crime? What did he do wrong that was involved with the assassination of JFK?

I do not know why Clay Shaw either perjured, or was not forthcoming, whichever it was, concerning his CIA history. But I have a pretty good idea why he perjured concerning his probably false claim not to have known Ferrie. It was not consciousness of guilt of the assassination of JFK that caused that falsehood. It was consciousness of professional ruin and criminal charge vulnerability if he was outed as gay in an era when being gay was criminal (as Alecia Long's work has opened my eyes on that), which was probably the basis upon which Clay Shaw knew Ferrie. I don't think your assumption is valid that lying or perjury automatically carries a straight line to proof of guilt in the assassination of JFK. There are all sorts of reasons people do not tell the truth. (Think of all the times Marina lied in her testimony. While some of that may or may not have been consciousness of guilt of something, I don't think you would recommend the same logic to conclude Marina therefore was a witting participant in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.) You need more evidence than that for Clay Shaw. Where is the specific xyz overt act of Clay Shaw involved in the planning or execution of the assassination of JFK and what is the xyz evidence proving that overt criminal act or witting participation? I don't think you can say, because there isn't any.  

Getting someone a lawyer, or registering African Americans to vote, is not an overt criminal act proving participation in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK--even if Clay Shaw did either of those with Oswald (very questionable on both counts, but even if he did). 

However I see Oliver Stone and you have focused this film--the two-hour version anyway--without pressing the Clay Shaw aspect. So that is something of a side issue and not central to JFK Revisited. Looking forward to the four-hour version! 

[Ron Bulman]

"registering African Americans to vote"?  Really?   CORE.  Clinton-Jackson.  State Hospital.  Congress On Racial Equality voter registration drive.  Ozzie standing in line, the lone white in a long line of blacks.  Tall shaw/bertrand stood out in his black suit and tie as well.  Ferrie's hair piece was noted too.  By the Sheriff, barber a grocery clerk and more.  This is not questionable.  It's documented. 

In your long response you avoid Jim's essential point.  "The question Shaw was intent on avoiding was Why did you call Andrews and tell him to go to Dallas to defend  Oswald".

It get's a lot deeper but Shaw lied.  He knew Oswald, Ferrie, Banister and many more.  He further lied about not being CIA.  A fact.   

[James DiEugenio]

The long version will have more about both a high level plot and Oswald and the CIA.

To say that JFK Revisited  shows  the Commission had serious problems and was unsatisfactory, to me that is sort of like saying that Vietnam was not a good war.

The film proves that the Commission was a knowing lie.   And this lie was cooperated upon by both the Commission itself and the FBI.  In the real world, when the prosecution  commits fraud, and conceals exculpatory evidence, then that is enough for the defense to make a motion for dismissal with prejudice. We proved that in a number of ways, too many to list here. But to name just one, the Stroud document. Rankin knew about this in June. But its not in the volumes, and like Styles, Garner was not a witness. Why?  Could her testimony have been more relevant?

The reason she was not called and the Stroud document is not  in the volumes is this: contrary to consciousness of guilt, it reveals consciousness of innocence.  The Commission knew that the combination of all three  witnesses would make a pretty solid alibi.  BTW, you really do not know what I mean unless you have been on those stairs.  I have been. Its tough enough to think that one of the three would not have seen Oswald;  its almost impossible to buy that they would not have heard him.

What the film does is it exposes the Commission as an utterly corrupt body.  And that view was made possible only by the ARRB.  And yet the ARRB was closed in 1998.  Why did it take over 20 years and Oliver Stone to show us this folly? And expose it with primary evidence. Why was it not done by anyone in the MSM?  On the contrary, Rachel Maddow was content with having Philip Shenon continue the cover up about both the assassination and the Commission. To me, that was one of the implicit messages I wanted to convey: Where was Rachel?  Why did Jennings and Russo and Myers not show us any of these documents? (That message comes off better in the long version.)  The truth is that even with all this documentation now out there, the MSM will still not confront what the WC did.  

Its pretty obvious why.  They not only fell for it, they willingly cooperated with it. And no one noticed what was happening?  A bit more than three months  after the volumes were published, the first combat troops arrived in Da Nang. By the end of the year, there would be 175,000 in theater.

On the day Kennedy was killed, there were none there. And LeMay was smoking a stogie in the morgue. In his refusal to confront this, Chomsky lends cover to the MSM.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio