Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Oliver Stone Homophobic?


Recommended Posts

Yes that is what I am saying.

Someone in the CIA did not want a 201 file opened on Oswald.

I really do not know why.

In the film, John says it was done to trap a mole.

I am an agnostic on that one.  Maybe, maybe not.

But its pretty obvious with all this evidence that the CIA was really cognizant of Oswald before he left for Russia, to the point they were doing a dance with his files.

I have a lot of admiration for Betsy Wolf.   Would have loved her to be in the film, what a story that would have been.  But Lesar told me she does not like to talk about her HSCA days. I wonder why? 😃

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, this post is getting far afield from Stone's nonexistent homophobia, but...from Devi in the Details by Alan Dale....via KennedysandKing

"(Tennent) Bagley looked at the illustration of the routing path. He then looked up at Malcolm and asked him something like: OK, was Oswald witting or unwitting? Malcolm did not want to answer the question, but Bagley badgered him. He blurted out, “Unwitting.” Bagley firmly replied: Nope. He had to be witting and knowledgeable about how the CIA was using him and, therefore, he was working for them in some capacity.

In this reviewer’s opinion, what Malcolm Blunt did on this issue— excavating the heroic work of Betsy Wolf, piecing it together part by part, then showing it to Bagley—constitutes one of the keystone discoveries made possible by the ARRB. Its importance should not be understated. It is a hallmark achievement."

---30---

This suggests LHO was in fact a CIA asset.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I really do not know why.

In the film, John says it was done to trap a mole.

I am an agnostic on that one.  Maybe, maybe not.

But its pretty obvious with all this evidence that the CIA was really cognizant of Oswald before he left for Russia, to the point they were doing a dance with his files.

Well he wasn't the CIAs version of James Bond. Assuming he was sent over, which seems pretty likely, his value was minimal. What could he really accomplish on his own? Not much. The Russians aren't stupid after all. His only likely value would come about as some sort of dangle, but they weren't going to get hooked on that either. Considering his activity was of most interest to CI it follows his was a counter intelligence mission, whether he knew it or not.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have a lot of admiration for Betsy Wolf.   Would have loved her to be in the film, what a story that would have been.  But Lesar told me she does not like to talk about her HSCA days. I wonder why? 😃

She's still around then? Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, this post is getting far afield from Stone's nonexistent homophobia, but...from Devi in the Details by Alan Dale....via KennedysandKing

Understatement much, Ben hahaha?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that JFK Revisited never even mentions the issue at all.

In either version, the 2 hour one or 4 hour one.  Its a diversion by James Kirchick and the fact that Graydon Carter ever let him run that story is really something of a disgrace.  But as we know, when it comes to the JFK case, the MSM has no ethics.

I will be writing about this, the whole topic of the media and JFK, in a double review of two books on the issue, by McBride and DeBrosse.  And I will have another reply to Kirchick.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just posted my latest reply on this issue at Kenendysandking.com

Its a silly diversion in order to dodge the facts of the case and what we present in the film.

We had no interest in Shaw's sexual orientation.  Anyone can see that by watching the film. Kirchick simply pasted that on himself.  Which makes me wonder if Graydon Carter even read the article or saw the film. Its a classic distraction ploy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just posted my latest reply on this issue at Kenendysandking.com

Its a silly diversion in order to dodge the facts of the case and what we present in the film.

We had no interest in Shaw's sexual orientation.  Anyone can see that by watching the film. Kirchick simply pasted that on himself.  Which makes me wonder if Graydon Carter even read the article or saw the film. Its a classic distraction ploy.

You know what is sad? I have never heard of a JFKA researcher who cared about Shaw's, or anyone's else's, homosexuality. 

But even if the JFKA were a bunch of homophobes (which they are not) it would not change the underlying facts of the case, most particularly the history of CE399, or that the Z film shows Gov. Connally being struck by a separate bullet from the pair (at least two) shots that struck JFK.  

You might as well charge JFKA researchers with being anti-Latin, as it widely suspected Cuban exiles played a role in the JFKA. 

That's it--we hate Latins, and we smear Latins as being involved in the JFKA, instead of the white guy, LHO. 

I do not know where James DiEugenio finds the stomach or stamina to answer these wretched "reviews" of JFK:Revisited

BTW, I welcome a hard-nosed, critical, knowledgable review of the JFK:Revisited. Bring it on. I am confident the documentary is solid, and would easily survive real scrutiny.  

It speaks volumes that the M$M, or even off-M$M so to speak, cannot conduct such a review. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to hear something that typifies what this is really about?

I went to James Kirchick's twitter feed to extend a direct invitation to a debate.

He BLOCKED me.  LOL. 😀

If anyone will please extend my invite to him directly for me, much appreciated.  And please add you had to since Jim could not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Want to hear something that typifies what this is really about?

I went to James Kirchick's twitter feed to extend a direct invitation to a debate.

He BLOCKED me.  LOL. 😀

If anyone will please extend my invite to him directly for me, much appreciated.  And please add you had to since Jim could not.

 

Speaking of debates, there is a standing offer for Jim D and Oliver Stone to debate Fred Litwin and Gerald Posner. So far crickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Speaking of debates, there is a standing offer for Jim D and Oliver Stone to debate Fred Litwin and Gerald Posner. So far crickets.

 

It wouldn't be a fair debate given that Stone hasn't written a book on the JFKA, and he had plenty of advisors for his movie.

How about Jim D against Litwin or Posner? It would be Litwin blowout if it was him debating. He's posted a fair amount on this forum and his arguments have been horrible. I don't know about Posner because I haven't read his book.

I'd prefer it be a written debate myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Tracy leaves out.

I extended the debate option to Mr Case Closed first. I then said, and you can bring Willens, Griffin, and Slawson and hand off the questions and replies among you.

I would only ask for one other person on my side. Numerical advantage of 2-1 for them. I then extended it to Kirchick also, making it 5-2.

Posner would not reply. Neither would Kirchick.

I then sweetened the offer. I said that since he and Kirchick likely have agents, they could sell the rights: radio, streaming, podcast, broadcast, DVD  or even give it to an agency.  Since this would be an historic event with that line up.

Clearly, Posner wanted no part of me.  Even though he and Kirchick would have the numeric advantage. And be making money, since my side would take nothing.

So what happens, he brings in Fred to create a distraction from his lack of cajones.  My whole idea was predicated around the fact that you would have a combination of the WC, and their MSM defenders on stage, a cross section of the American Establishment.  Opposed to two critics with some credentials and name value.  What value would the Canadian neocon version of David Horowitz bring?  Zilch. And they know that.

So neither Posner nor Kirchick will reply to my offer.  Which is what I expected. But hoped against. This is who Mr. Case Closed really is.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...