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

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

What part of the Vietnam angle was wrong in Stone's film?

I don't know if you know this but I do.

John Newman sketched out those scenes for Oliver and Zach Sklar.

At that time, no one knew more about that material, probably not even Prouty.

If the ARRB was better on certain angles than others, it was good on Vietnam.  I mean even the NY Times and Philadelphia Inquirer admitted this when they printed stories about how the declassified record stated that Kennedy had a plan to get out of Vietnam when he died. (There was no apology issued to Stone.)

Holy cow, you are still repeating these misleading, discredited claims after the facts I presented to you in our exchanges on Selverstone's book??? Unbelievable. 

For the sake of others who may be new to this subject, yes, JFK did have a withdrawal plan, but, as even James K. Galbraith has admitted, that plan was conditional and also called for a continuation of aid to South Vietnam even if conditions on the ground permitted the withdrawal of troops. This is a far cry from the Stone-Newman-Prouty fiction in the movie JFK.

The record is crystal clear, from the White House tapes to JFK's comments in the last few months before Dallas (including the day of Dallas), that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam after the election. Selverstone's widely acclaimed new book The Kennedy Withdrawal thoroughly documents this fact. 

I should add that even most liberal historians, including ultra-liberals such as Edwin Moise and Stanley Karnow, have rejected the Stone-Newman-Prouty fiction that JFK was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. It is simply inexcusable and discreditable to keep repeating this myth.

If nothing else, we need to understand that the Stone-Newman-Prouty claim about JFK's Vietnam intentions is a fringe view that even most liberal scholars reject. This is why Jim DiEugenio was only able to cite one obscure, amateurish author who supports his rejection of Selverstone's book, whereas I was able to cite numerous recognized historians and long-time Vietnam War scholars, from both sides of the political spectrum, who have praised the book (see our discussion on the book in LINK).

Edited May 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

13 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Fascinating stuff. Keep laying it out there Jim . 

Agree.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 5/15/2023 at 10:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Yes that was me and Oliver he had lunch with.

See, the problem is that this is now a package.  Which means it has everything in place for it to get sold.

When you get that many big names--even though some are past their prime like Travolta and Pacino--it is very hard to derail that because everyone smells the money.  This includes the agents and managers.

I could write Mamet, since he gave me his home address.  But I do not think he will reply.

And anyway, they would just replace him.

If he wants a more interesting and accurate screen play, I've got one for him.  Ruby and Roselli: Crossed Paths.  Chicago, LA, Cuba, Vegas, Dallas.  

[James DiEugenio]

I agree that would be a much more interesting and relevant and honest film concept.

 

But see, the producer of the film was related to Giancana. I think he was a grand nephew.

He already did a documentary on the subject, which, painfully, I saw. 

So now, he is intent on rehabbing Sam in a feature film. That is the way it works in TInsel Town.

[Allen Lowe]

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.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, 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.

And Oliver Stone is a Putin supporter. Does that make him untrustworthy to you as well?

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, 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.

Your comment shows that you are another person in this forum who allows your rabid left-wing partisan politics to dominate your thinking on the JFK case. You folks seem to use the JFK case merely as a vehicle to peddle your political views, and who says or implies that no one can truly care about JFK's death if they don't agree with your politics.

Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, one of the most successful pro-conspiracy books ever published, was an ardent Trump supporter. Are you now going to suggest that we should all burn our copies of Crossfire?

Half the country thinks that Trump did a good job. However, very few people agree with Oliver Stone's recent embarrassing claim that Putin is a "great leader" for Russia. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Allen Lowe]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your comment shows that you are another person in this forum who allows your rabid left-wing partisan politics to dominate your thinking on the JFK case. You folks seem to use the JFK case merely as a vehicle to peddle your political views, and who says or implies that no one can truly care about JFK's death if they don't agree with your politics.

Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, one of the most successful pro-conspiracy books ever published, was an ardent Trump supporter. Are you now going to suggest that we should all burn our copies of Crossfire?

Half the country thinks that Trump did a good job. However, very few people agree with Oliver Stone's recent embarrassing claim that Putin is a "great leader" for Russia. 

FIrst of all, Michael, you do the same thing repeatedly here - cite sources as unreliable because of their affiliations, past statements,  etc.  Please stop the bullshit - calling me "rabid" because I disagree with you. Worthy of Marjorie Taylor Green. And please stop the disgustingly dishonest debate method which implies I think we should burn the books of people we disagree with otherwise. Truth is, if this was the standard, with your insane advocacy of our fighting in Vietnam, there would be a giant pyre outside on my lawn. But I respect the JFK work you've done, which proves you are blindly and willfully wrong in this argument - I take these things as they come, and you yourself have brought enormous discredit on your prior work by taking these murderous and reactionary political positions. But I still read your work.

As for not trusting Mamet because of his political positions, it does damage my view of other things he says because it shows such huge intellectual gaps - as do your posts which, yes, would cause me to peruse your other claims with greater skepticism. Anyone who, 50 years later, supports mass murder (the war in Vietnam) is not gonna remain on my reading list.

[Allen Lowe]

15 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And Oliver Stone is a Putin supporter. Does that make him untrustworthy to you as well?

absolutely;  not untrustworthy, but less trustworthy.  It damages his credibility quite seriously.

[Michael Griffith]

17 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

FIrst of all, Michael, you do the same thing repeatedly here - cite sources as unreliable because of their affiliations, past statements, etc. 

You're comparing apples to steak and are avoiding my point. You will never, ever, ever see me question a source's reliability solely because of their political beliefs, whether they be liberal, ultra-liberal, conservative, or ultra-conservative. You will, however, see me question a source's reliability if they have a long history of associating with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, white supremacists, Communists, and cultists.

That's very different from questioning their credibility merely on the basis that they supported Trump or Biden or Hillary or Obama or Romney, etc., which is what you did. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

18 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And Oliver Stone is a Putin supporter. Does that make him untrustworthy to you as well?

I really do not understand this kind of back and forth.  Or what it is doing on this site.

Whatever Oliver Stone thinks of Putin, that has nothing to do with what he does on the JFK case.  And I don't think that whatever Mamet thinks of Trump should be on the table either. When Oliver and I talked to Mamet, none of the political stuff he talks about elsewhere came up at all.  

What I am trying to delve into is this:  is there any validity to the Giancana thesis? Cohen joyously billed this thread  because this was going to be a JFK film by someone other than Oliver Stone.  As if Stone's creation of the ARRB was something to be scorned.  Or his giving time for people like Henry Lee, Gary Aguilar, John Newman, and Richard Mahoney was something that was detrimental.

What I want to know is this: what will be in this new film that will advance the JFK case forward with anything that is credible?  Does anyone in their right mind think that Double Cross was something credible? Because I will tell you right now--its a pile of BS. And, unlike Cohen, I have proven that out.  More than once.

There are a total of two credible books on Giancana, one by Brashler and one by Roemer. Neither one of them posits the case that Giancana was in on the JFK hit.  The only way one can make that case is to defy all the laws of evidence and logic. And say that somehow, Exner--a provable xxxx-- was credible.  Or maybe Jonathan prefers the hatchet man Sy Hersh?  Who wrote one of the very worst books ever on JFK?

I will be writing about this at length soon.  Unlike Cohen, I did my homework.

Edited May 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

This is the longest story I have seen on this project.

Its even worse than I thought, at least at this stage.

Rosselli was a hit man, and Oswald shot Tippit after Nicoletti lost him.

Cohen and his man Litwin will be happy, this will set us all back.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11019271/New-film-relative-Mafia-boss-sheds-fresh-light-Presidents-assassination-60-years-on.html

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

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.

Edited May 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:14 AM, Michael Griffith said:

...the Stone-Newman-Prouty fiction that JFK was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences... the Stone-Newman-Prouty claim about JFK's Vietnam intentions is a fringe view...

Could you cite where the presumed "Stone-Newman-Prouty" claim specifically maintains that "JFK was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences". I think you have, yet again, used a straw man fallacy to advance an argument. 

[Bob Ness]

46 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Could you cite where the presumed "Stone-Newman-Prouty" claim specifically maintains that "JFK was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences". I think you have, yet again, used a straw man fallacy to advance an argument. 

I think he's arguing the opposite. Maybe I missed something. Something about we should have incinerated the Commies regardless of the consequences to farmers who couldn't care a less about Communism or Capitalism, and in fact only cared about whether they had food for their families. That's the lesson I got anyway.