Finally: A New, Non-Oliver Stone Film About The JFK Assassination

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

Bravo👋

Standing O

[Ron Bulman]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Everyone should read the above article for two reasons.

First, its the longest one I have seen on this project.

Second, its from Celozzi.  He is the producer and wrote the first draft of the script.

If Mamet follows this outline, the film will be against just about everything we have been fighting for, both in its specifics and in general: the deference to real scholarship.

Oswald was on the Sixth Floor and he was shooting?

Rosselli was in Dealey Plaza and he actually shot Kennedy?

Nicoletti was driving around with  TIppit and this was how Oswald was going to escape?

Oswald shot Tippit, but Nicoletti lost him?

Giancana called in Ruby, who was willing to do the deed since he knew he was dying of cancer?

This is against everything that we are supposed to be for in this case. Its essentially the Warren Commission stirred by Bob Blakey.  It will make Jonathan and Mike Griffith's buddy, Fred Litwin, exuberant.

I have some ocean front property in Amarillo I'd like to sell Mr. Celozzi.  Or maybe another one in Arizona.  Both?

Note a young Taylor Swift and others singing along in the back ground.

 

[Norman T. Field]

Iirc, Mr. Celozzi is the nephew of Sam Giancana. Caveat Emptor. 

[James DiEugenio]

That is correct Norman, but its his grand nephew.

What is so bizarre about this is that its based on Giancana's brother's memories-his name is Joe.

Are we to forget that another brother, this time Chuck, wrote a book about Giancana and the JFK case, and its not really the same as this version if the Celozzi interview is accurate?  

Can you make this stuff up?

[Michael Griffith]

On 5/18/2023 at 4:43 PM, Allen Lowe said:

we need to remember that Mamet is a Trump supporter and has been quoted as saying Trump did a great job; this immediately makes him, to my mind, extremely untrustworthy.

Look, it's very simple: I have never said, and never will say, "John Doe is extremely untrustworthy because he is an Obama supporter [or a Biden or Hillary supporter] and has been quoted as saying Obama did a great job." Such a statement would show me to have a rabid, extreme partisan mindset. Yet, you said that Mamet is "extremely untrustworthy" because he's a Trump supporter and has been quoted as saying Trump did a great job.

There are plenty of conservatives who don't buy the lone-gunman theory, but you and many others here act like a person cannot really care about JFK's death and understand its ramifications if they are not liberal. Some of you folks even accuse conservatives of being a manifestation of a Fourth Reich, of being "fascists," "dangerous," etc., etc. 

You and others keep ignoring the fact that JFK was a centrist Democrat who was fiscally conservative, who advocated a gigantic tax cut for the rich, who privately condemned Halberstam's coverage of the Vietnam War as biased and harmful, who said in June 1963 that "the Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today," who took a decidedly centrist approach to labor unions and declined to accept extreme union demands, who gave military personnel a larger pay hike than Eisenhower gave them, and who said the following about his increases in national defense on the very day he was murdered:

          In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. (Remarks at the Breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Look, it's very simple: I have never said, and never will say, "John Doe is extremely untrustworthy because he is an Obama supporter [or a Biden or Hillary supporter] and has been quoted as saying Obama did a great job." Such a statement would show me to have a rabid, extreme partisan mindset.

Geez... so much for bona fide historical scholarship... 🙄

Most knowledgeable scholars would rank Obama among the better Presidents in American history.

But in Michael Griffith's Rambo/MAGA-verse of alternate historical reality, those scholars all, apparently, have a "rabid, extreme partisan mindset." 

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/historians-rank-presidents-in-c-span-survey-trump-scores-41st-obama-10th/

[Michael Griffith]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:00 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Geez... so much for bona fide historical scholarship... 🙄

Most knowledgeable scholars would rank Obama among the better Presidents in American history.

But in Michael Griffith's Rambo/MAGA-verse of alternate historical reality, those scholars all, apparently, have a "rabid, extreme partisan mindset." 

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/historians-rank-presidents-in-c-span-survey-trump-scores-41st-obama-10th/

You always jump to extreme conclusions, because of your rabid leftist ideology. My point, which you totally avoided, was that I don't automatically consider an author "extremely untrustworthy" just because they supported Obama or Hillary or Biden. I was contrasting my tolerant, open-minded attitude with Lowe's reflexive condemnation of Mamet, which was based solely on Mamet's support and praise of Trump. I did not say one word about the merits of supporting and praising Obama, Hillary, Biden, etc. 

In case you'd like to know, I think Obama was a better president than George W. Bush. I support a number of things that Obama did, especially the Affordable Care Act and his making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. I think Obama usually handled himself with class and maturity, unlike Trump. Obama proved he was willing to reach reasonable compromises on some issues. Obama was very pro-veteran. To his great credit, and in contrast to Bush's refusal to do so, Obama pushed through concurrent receipt for disabled veterans, so that they were no longer forced to give up most of their disability pension as an offset for their retiree pay. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

You always jump to extreme conclusions, because of your rabid leftist ideology.

Posted without intentional irony... 🙄

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Posted without intentional irony... 🙄

So you're just going to continue to ignore the point? 

You see, you guys go into automatic attack mode when you find out that a given researcher does not agree with your politics. I, on the other hand, never summarily attack a researcher just because they voted for a different candidate than the one whom I supported. That's one of the big differences between us. Since my ideology is not rabid or extreme, I do not automatically question a researcher's trustworthiness just because they voted for someone for whom I did not vote. 

Only a rabid partisan would say something like "Mamet is extremely untrustworthy because he supports and praises Trump." That juvenile statement assumes, among other things, that only people who did not vote for Trump can be trusted on the JFK case. That's as bad as if I were to say, "any researcher who voted for Obama or Biden is extremely untrustworthy on the JFK case." 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

So you're just going to continue to ignore the point? 

You see, you guys go into automatic attack mode when you find out that a given researcher does not agree with your politics. I, on the other hand, never summarily attack a researcher just because they voted for a different candidate than the one whom I supported. That's one of the big differences between us. Since my ideology is not rabid or extreme, I do not automatically question a researcher's trustworthiness just because they voted for someone for whom I did not vote. 

Only a rabid partisan would say something like "Mamet is extremely untrustworthy because he supports and praises Trump." That juvenile statement assumes, among other things, that only people who did not vote for Trump can be trusted on the JFK case. That's as bad as if I were to say, "any researcher who voted for Obama or Biden is extremely untrustworthy on the JFK case." 

 

 

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Edited May 22, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Can we get back to the subject matter, please?

I just began a two part article on this projected film based on Celozzi's 2011 documentary about his great uncle. I finished part One.

If that documentary is any indication of what is going to be in the feature film, and from the interview that seems the case, then man,  its going to be off the wall.

In Part 2 I plan to hone in on the differences between the two brother's memories.  I mean its like everyone in the Giancana family wanted to make some dough off of Sam posthumously. 

 

[Michael Griffith]

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Oh my goodness. Take a course in critical thinking. It is pointless trying to reason with you.

 

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your argument is here? Have you ever taken a 101 course in logic or critical thinking? I ask because you don't seem to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. 

You present your opinion of Trump as a fact; indeed, you present your view of Trump's performance as a fact that is so clearly established and widely acknowledged that you believe that anyone who disagrees with it has, by this act alone, given you "good reason to doubt" their judgment about history and politics. Such a position shows a severe lack of basic logic and critical thinking skills, not to mention a lack of objectivity and balance.

Your stance is a modest step back from Allen Lowe's discreditable claim that anyone who supports Trump is "extremely untrustworthy," but it still shows a marked lack of basic reasoning skills. 

This might be news to you, but when Donald Trump ran for reelection in 2020, the majority of voters in 25 out of 50 states voted for him. 74.2 million Americans voted for him, constituting 47% of all voters. He received 12 million more votes than he did in 2016. (And, for the sake of argument and brevity, we'll just ignore the evidence of serious election fraud in seven key states in the 2020 election, such as, to cite just one example, the unprecedented, historic, and gigantic disparity between Biden's alleged vote total and his number of counties won.)

I might just add that until the pandemic hit, Trump had given us the best economy we had seen since the 1990s. For the first time in eight years, we saw an increase in the vital area of manufacturing jobs (we actually suffered a net loss in such jobs under Obama). My personal take home pay increased by nearly $300 per month thanks to the Trump tax cuts. Capital that was parked overseas began to flow back to America after Trump lowered our corporate income tax rate from the insane level of 35% down to the competitive level of 21% (the average corporate income tax rate in Asia ranges between 18% and 21%). The average price of gas stayed well below $3 per gallon during the entirety of Trump's presidency. Under Trump, the real estate market stayed near historic highs. Under Trump, inflation never rose above 2.3% (under Biden, it's averaged over 6%). We became a net exporter of energy again for the first time in ages under Trump. Trump scrapped the fatally flawed NAFTA trade deal and replaced it with the far better (and more pro-labor) USMCA. As most vets will tell you, Trump made substantial improvements in VA health care for veterans. 

Could these facts be why Trump won 25 states and received 47% of the popular vote when he ran for reelection in 2020, even according to the official final tally, in spite of his frequently rude and unpresidential behavior, his pettiness, his crassness, and his combativeness? 

Now, if we were talking about the 9/11 Truther claims, that would be a very different matter, since the overwhelming majority of educated people reject them as nutty, bizarre, obscene, and baseless, and since virtually all scientists who have examined those claims have found them to be nutty, bizarre, obscene, and baseless. So, yes, you could reasonably say that if someone embraced 9/11 Truther nuttiness, that would be a valid reason for questioning their reasoning, judgment, and credibility. It should be mentioned that you embrace those whacky claims.

Or, if we were talking about such other fringe theories such as the claim that the Holocaust never happened or that the Moon landings were faked, yes, in those cases, you could reasonably say that if someone embraced those claims, that would be a valid reason for questioning their reasoning, judgment, and credibility. 

But it is ridiculous to say that just because Mamet supports Trump, "we have good reason to doubt his judgment" or that he is automatically "extremely untrustworthy." Such talk indicates an extremist, rabidly ideological, and uneducated mindset. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh my goodness. Take a course in critical thinking. It is pointless trying to reason with you.

 

Says the right-fielder who repeatedly refers to center-fielders as "far left."  🤥

(Not to mention his inability to distinguish between historical facts and partisan disinformazia.)

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

On 5/22/2023 at 12:39 PM, W. Niederhut said:

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Expand  

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your argument is here? Have you ever taken a 101 course in logic or critical thinking? I ask because you don't seem to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. 

 

William Niederhut is correct and Michael Griffith wrong, at least about Trump, as I will demonstrate.

It is common practice to give credit to the president for the good things that happen during his presidency, and blame him for bad things. One has to be a scholar (or scholarly) to know where credit and blame truly belong.  That is the reason I don't look at regular polls to see how presidents are ranked by average people. Instead I base my beliefs on how historians and  experts of various stripes vote in presidential polls.

The C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey of 2021 ranked the presidents as follows:

(Click to zoom in.)

 

Obama is ranked at #10, right between Ronald Reagan and LBJ. Donald Trump ranked at #41, fourth from the bottom.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

You present your opinion of Trump as a fact; indeed, you present your view of Trump's performance as a fact that is so clearly established and widely acknowledged that you believe that anyone who disagrees with it has, by this act alone, given you "good reason to doubt" their judgment about history and politics. Such a position shows a severe lack of basic logic and critical thinking skills, not to mention a lack of objectivity and balance.

 

The presidential survey I presented above perfectly matches what Niederhut said about Trump. And about Obama. The points Michael makes in the above paragraph above is wrong on every count.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Your stance is a modest step back from Allen Lowe's discreditable claim that anyone who supports Trump is "extremely untrustworthy," but it still shows a marked lack of basic reasoning skills. 

 

I don't recall what Allen Lowe said. But I will note that anybody who thinks Trump was a good president is one who "shows a marked lack of basic reasoning skills."

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

This might be news to you, but when Donald Trump ran for reelection in 2020, the majority of voters in 25 out of 50 states voted for him. 74.2 million Americans voted for him, constituting 47% of all voters. He received 12 million more votes than he did in 2016. (And, for the sake of argument and brevity, we'll just ignore the evidence of serious election fraud in seven key states in the 2020 election, such as, to cite just one example, the unprecedented, historic, and gigantic disparity between Biden's alleged vote total and his number of counties won.)

 

I'm not sure why Michael quotes all these numbers that didn't get Trump elected. But you can see that he believes Trump's Big Lie, which all the judges who ruled on it said that there was no evidence for.

Sources:

Donald Trump: The Big Lie
Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

 

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I might just add that until the pandemic hit, Trump had given us the best economy we had seen since the 1990s. For the first time in eight years, we saw an increase in the vital area of manufacturing jobs (we actually suffered a net loss in such jobs under Obama).

 

But recall the 2007 financial crisis that economists feared would lead to another Great Depression under Obama. Obama passed a stimulus package right away when he first took office. By the time the stimulus package began, the unemployment rate had risen to 10%, as can be seen in the chart below. From then on the unemployment rate steadily dropped. The rate continued to drop after Obama's term and stayed low till the coronavirus hit, around 2020, the last year of Trump's term.

 

 

Given that Trump didn't pass any major legislation other than his tax cut for the wealthy, it's not a surprise that historians don't give him credit for the economic rise at the beginning of his term. That rise was just a continuation of the rise that resulted from Obama's stimulus package.

Here's another chart that reveals that the economic improvement during Trump's presidency was merely a continuation of the increase during Obama's second term. BTW, the drop in GDP in 2020 was due to the coronavirus.

 

 

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

My personal take home pay increased by nearly $300 per month thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

 

Michael's take home pay increased by $300 per month under Trump due to his tax break for the wealthy. And so Michael thinks that was a good thing. I wonder if he knows that the take home pay for 50%of Americans increased by less than $10 per month? These are low income American who make too much to qualify for any government benefits for the poor, live paycheck-to-paycheck, and often can't make ends meet.

In contrast, the wealthy who work take home an extra $3000 per month. Gee, the people who need it the least get the most.

I wonder if Michael knows where this money to pay for the tax cut is coming from. The answer is, it is being added to the national debt. So how do Republicans expect to eventually pay for it? Well, they could raise taxes to pay for it. But that would just be undoing their tax break, wouldn't it? So no, that's not their plan. What they want to do is refuse to raise the tax ceiling till Biden agrees to reduce programs for the poor. (That's going on right now.) They know that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a credit rating drop for the United States and probably a global recession. That's a strong incentive for Biden to go along with their plan.

If Michael doesn't know about this, he's not been paying attention.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Capital that was parked overseas began to flow back to America after Trump lowered our corporate income tax rate from the insane level of 35% down to the competitive level of 21% (the average corporate income tax rate in Asia ranges between 18% and 21%).

 

I don't really understand how that is supposed to work. I suspect it is more complicated than that.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

The average price of gas stayed well below $3 per gallon during the entirety of Trump's presidency.

 

While it is true that gas prices were low during Trump's presidency, I wouldn't assume that that had anything to do with Trump's policies. Gas pricing is quite complicated.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Under Trump, the real estate market stayed near historic highs. Under Trump, inflation never rose above 2.3% (under Biden, it's averaged over 6%). We became a net exporter of energy again for the first time in ages under Trump. Trump scrapped the fatally flawed NAFTA trade deal and replaced it with the far better (and more pro-labor) USMCA. As most vets will tell you, Trump made substantial improvements in VA health care for veterans. 

 

I'm sure there were some good things that happened during Trump's time in office, some that may have resulted from his policies. But overall he was bad president. Ranked #41.

And he was certainly bad for low-income people. He even wanted to get rid of Obamacare. Possibly the one piece of Obama legislation that Michael approved of.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Could these facts be why Trump won 25 states and received 47% of the popular vote when he ran for reelection in 2020, even according to the official final tally, in spite of his frequently rude and unpresidential behavior, his pettiness, his crassness, and his combativeness? 

 

Ohhhh, that's the reason Michael brought that up earlier. His point is that Trump was good enough that he was close to winning the election!

There are two other, more likely, reasons:

1. Close to half the population is conservative and would vote Republican under most circumstances.
2. Trumpism is a cult following and his followers would vote for him no matter what.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 6:22 AM, Michael Griffith said:

[It] is ridiculous to say that just because Mamet supports Trump, "we have good reason to doubt his judgment" or that he is automatically "extremely untrustworthy." Such talk indicates an extremist, rabidly ideological, and uneducated mindset.