Critics Still Attacking Oliver Stone's "JFK" Film With Same Old "Factual Deviancies" Crap.

[Joe Bauer]

Regards Stone's 1991 "political thriller" film "JFK" which I just viewed again yesterday.

Are we still reading the same "factual deviancies" criticism cr*p that has been expressed with outrage by Stone haters since before the film was even released ... 33 years ago !?

Yes, unfortunately.

Stone himself has admitted his use of much dramatic license in telling his JFK film "story" so many times it's actually nauseating to still read this same old childish outrage criticism which has been rendered mute and by Stone himself!

Stone has said, his goal was to create an alternate reality dramatic story...to "counter-balance" the Warren Commission lone nut finding one regards the assassination of JFK.

The film was never created to be a strict fact reporting documentary.

Who would pay money to see such a dry docu-film like that?

If the viewers of JFK believed more of Stone's film story than the Warren Commission version... that says it all regards how little trust the majority of Americans ( and millions overseas ) have had in the Warren Commission and their final report "lone nut" conclusion regards the truth about the JFK event... for 60 years!

An unprecedented dark suspicion minded lack of trust and confidence that had festered inside of them for almost 30 years before Stone's JFK film.

The integrity failure of the Warren Commission and those that created and promoted their work and finding is what the JFK film was all about.

Stone's film reflected this societal mistrust mind set and was actually a visceral release of their three decades long pent up gut wrenching angst regards feeling and/or sensing something disturbingly wrong about the government's findings about JFK...and the MLK and RFK murders as well...imo anyways.

And let me add once again...Stone's JFK film was just as dramatically gripping, intriguing, moving and over-all entertaining yesterday as it was when I first viewed it twice in theaters when it first came out 32 years ago.

In so many ways.

The opening scenes ( in old newsreel black and white ) leading up to the flash backs of JFK's limo getting closer and closer to Dealey Plaza with ever building military drum roll tension had everyone in the viewing audience on the edge of their seats ... culminating with the loud rifle gun shot "BOOM" and birds flying off the top of the Texas Schoolbook Depository building just SHOOK the audience ( audible gasps and cries ) like I had never seen in an adult audience theater before.

The most powerful film beginning I have ever seen.

That highest level entertainment staying power film achievement is proof of the film's greatness imo. A real masterpiece. Definitely one of the greatest American films ever made.

Every character in the film ( dozens) just holds you in their performances. 

And is there any other American film with so many of our top award winning actors in the cast?

That could have backfired into a dizzying "too much" ensemble jumble, but Stone remarkably made it all work which is an incredible film production achievement in itself imo.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Here you go Joe.

Epstein was one of the worst, so I took him to the proverbial Woodshed. Twice.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein

Edited January 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

By the way Joe, in my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I did a scene by scene comparison of the long version of the film with the state of the case after the ARRB.

I specifically broke down the first 16 scenes.

It turns out that, if anything, Stone and Zack Sklar underplayed it.  There were about four scenes in which the facts were even worse than was depicted in the film.

The reason I did this was due to Bugliosi and his unbelievable amount of hot air about this issue.  I did not do the whole film since, that would have been kind of boring for the reader.  So I summarized the rest.  (PP. 190-94)

There are things people can disagree about, like the 3 tramps, and the Dallas doctors at the Shaw trial. 

But if one allows for composite characters, and the fact that Stone and Sklar preface speculative scenes by saying "Let us speculate shall we..." then Stone's film is closer to reality than most. 

 I concluded that chapter with this:

"The media went after the film for three reasons: they had bought into the Warren Commission cover up almost immediately, they had joined in the trashing of Jim Garrison in 1967, and they never made the connection between JFK'S assassination and the escalation of the Vietnam War.  They were derelict in their duties and the American public suffered for it.  The film shoved that failure in their fact.  And, understandably, they did not like that."  

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add, I really think that whole Vietnam issue was a major reason why the MSM went after the film.

See, the last of the Commission volumes was issued in November of 1964. 

About three months later, LBJ sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.  He actually had them filmed going ashore at Da Nang.

To my knowledge, no MSM reporter shouted, hey is there a connection here?  

So when Oliver used Prouty/Newman to show they were wrong, they really did not like it.

But he was right and the ARRB proved that in an even stronger way than he did back in 1991.

Its really kind of amazing when you think of it.

I think it was part of the whole thing about keeping the lid on, which David Brinkley talked about and Joe McBride put in his book.  Brinkley said words to the effect, yes this is very bad, but its not like the government was overthrown.

What else do you call a coup David?  It's an overthrow for political purposes.

In this case, it was actually an assassiantion.

Edited January 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Sorry about that mistake I made above with the wrong URL.

Its corrected now with my two part Epstein piece.

If you have not read them, they came out  pretty well.

Epstein was one of the worst back in 1991.  He is still pretty bad.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add, I really think that whole Vietnam issue was a major reason why the MSM went after the film.

See, the last of the Commission volumes was issued in November of 1964. 

About three months later, LBJ sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.  He actually had them filmed going ashore at Da Nang.

To my knowledge, no MSM reporter shouted, hey is there a connection here?  

So when Oliver used Prouty/Newman to show they were wrong, they really did not like it.

But he was right and the ARRB proved that in an even stronger way than he did back in 1991.

Its really kind of amazing when you think of it.

I think it was part of the whole thing about keeping the lid on, which David Brinkley talked about and Joe McBride put in his book.  Brinkley said words to the effect, yes this is very bad, but its not like the government was overthrown.

What else do you call a coup David?  It's an overthrow for political purposes.

In this case, it was actually an assassiantion.

I think arguments can made there was a hard coup in 1963, that is the intel state replaced one President with another. 

Then a soft coup in 1974, in which the intel state, through democratic processes, replaced one president with another, but unelected president. (Did a CIA op to bug the DNC somehow land in Nixon's lap?)

In my view, a case can be made that an even softer coup happened in 2018-22, when the intel state, and allied media and globalists, replaced an elected president with another elected president (the whole Russiagate-Russian bots hoaxes, and former CIA Director Michael Morell authoring op-eds in the NYT, even before Trump was elected, that he was not fit for office). 

It would be nice if the intel state did not manipulate the White House and choose it occupants. 

BTW, these intel state coups do not reflect on the merits of the deposed. I happen to think JFK was a great leader, and RMN and Trump were poor leaders. Nixon was a war criminal. 

Side note: RMN was deposed after asking to see the Bay of Pigs files. Trump said he would blow the JFKA open, but then caved...but Trump arranged to be able to come back and release JFK files in his second term. 

Did a threat to expose the JFKA lead to Nixon and Trump being deposed? I suspect there is more to the story, but the question is worth raising. 

 

 

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There are things people can disagree about, like the 3 tramps, and the Dallas doctors at the Shaw trial. 

I sometimes wonder about the three tramps. Hypothetically, if an intelligence agency like CIA was involved in the assassination, we’re talking about the top experts in the world in backstopping identities to hold up under intense long term scrutiny by enemy organizations like the KGB.

Basically, I’m not sure that a couple newspaper articles and belated FBI interviews are really enough to completely rule out the possibility that the tramps were somehow involved. Sure it’s a hell of a stretch, and the lead is ice cold because it would likely be impossible to prove anything, but IF there was some sort of CIA connection, what happened at the police station and again in 1992 is exactly what we’d expect to see with backstopped cover identities. 

I think people often underestimate the type of stuff the CIA was capable of. We shouldn’t waste a lot of energy on this sort of thing - theorizing without supporting evidence, etc., but is it really wise to think that an agency full of geniuses devoting their lives to deceiving the top intelligence agencies on the planet couldn’t fool a couple street cops and some concerned civilians? I don’t think so. 

[Ron Bulman]

40 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I sometimes wonder about the three tramps. Hypothetically, if an intelligence agency like CIA was involved in the assassination, we’re talking about the top experts in the world in backstopping identities to hold up under intense long term scrutiny by enemy organizations like the KGB.

Basically, I’m not sure that a couple newspaper articles and belated FBI interviews are really enough to completely rule out the possibility that the tramps were somehow involved. Sure it’s a hell of a stretch, and the lead is ice cold because it would likely be impossible to prove anything, but IF there was some sort of CIA connection, what happened at the police station and again in 1992 is exactly what we’d expect to see with backstopped cover identities. 

I think people often underestimate the type of stuff the CIA was capable of. We shouldn’t waste a lot of energy on this sort of thing - theorizing without supporting evidence, etc., but is it really wise to think that an agency full of geniuses devoting their lives to deceiving the top intelligence agencies on the planet couldn’t fool a couple street cops and some concerned civilians? I don’t think so. 

I guess we shouldn't delve into the Weberman theory of two set's of tramps.  The shadows in the pictures.  The train stop after Bowers released it because he saw men climbing on down the track towards Union Station around two o'clock.  The men in the grain car.  Documented, then it disappeared.

[Joe Bauer]

Bump.

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:45 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Regards Stone's 1991 "political thriller" film "JFK" which I just viewed again yesterday.

Are we still reading the same "factual deviancies" criticism cr*p that has been expressed with outrage by Stone haters since before the film was even released ... 33 years ago !?

Yes, unfortunately.

Stone himself has admitted his use of much dramatic license in telling his JFK film "story" so many times it's actually nauseating to still read this same old childish outrage criticism which has been rendered mute and by Stone himself!

Stone has said, his goal was to create an alternate reality dramatic story...to "counter-balance" the Warren Commission lone nut finding one regards the assassination of JFK.

The film was never created to be a strict fact reporting documentary.

Who would pay money to see such a dry docu-film like that?

If the viewers of JFK believed more of Stone's film story than the Warren Commission version... that says it all regards how little trust the majority of Americans ( and millions overseas ) had in our official government conclusion regards the truth about the JFK event.

An unprecedented dark suspicion minded lack of trust and confidence that had festered inside of them for almost 30 years before Stone's JFK film.

The integrity failure of the Warren Commission and those that created and promoted their work and finding is what the JFK film was all about.

Stone's film reflected this societal mistrust mind set and was actually a visceral release of their three decades long pent up gut wrenching angst regards feeling and/or sensing something disturbingly wrong about the government's findings about JFK...and the MLK and RFK murders as well...imo anyways.

And let me add once again...Stone's JFK film was just as dramatically gripping, intriguing, moving and over-all entertaining yesterday as it was when I first viewed it twice in theaters when it first came out 32 years ago.

In so many ways.

The opening scenes ( in old newsreel black and white ) leading up to the flash backs of JFK's limo getting closer and closer to Dealey Plaza with ever building military drum roll tension had everyone in the viewing audience on the edge of their seats ... culminating with the loud rifle gun shot "BOOM" and birds flying off the top of the Texas Schoolbook Depository building just SHOOK the audience ( audible gasps and cries ) like I had never seen before.

The most powerful film beginning I have ever seen.

That highest level entertainment staying power film achievement is proof of the film's greatness imo. A real masterpiece. Definitely one of the greatest American films ever made.

Every character in the film ( dozens) just holds you in their performances. 

And is there any other American film with so many of our top award winning actors in the cast?

That could have backfired into a dizzying "too much" ensemble jumble, but Stone remarkably made it all work which is an incredible film production achievement in itself imo.

As I've said before, I believe the movie JFK was monumentally important and basically accurate in its essential thrust. 

Stone's one major blunder in the movie was his implication that General Edward Lansdale was a key figure behind the assassination. Stone made this horrific gaffe because he relied on Fletcher Prouty.

Some due diligence would have quickly revealed that Prouty's claim was utter nonsense and slanderous garbage. Lansdale liked and admired JFK, grieved over his death, and opposed the introduction of large numbers of American troops in South Vietnam. Lansdale opposed most of the Taylor-Rostow recommendations on Vietnam. He opposed LBJ's escalation in 1965 and criticized U.S. military operations as misguided. By the way, Lansdale also opposed the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It is a red flag of Prouty's quackery that, of all people, he identified Edward Lansdale as one of the master plotters who wanted JFK dead in order to vastly escalate the war effort in Vietnam. 

 

[B. A. Copeland]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

As I've said before, I believe the movie JFK was monumentally important and basically accurate in its essential thrust. 

Stone's one major blunder in the movie was his implication that General Edward Lansdale was a key figure behind the assassination. Stone made this horrific gaffe because he relied on Fletcher Prouty.

Some due diligence would have quickly revealed that Prouty's claim was utter nonsense and slanderous garbage. Lansdale liked and admired JFK, grieved over his death, and opposed the introduction of large numbers of American troops in South Vietnam. Lansdale opposed most of the Taylor-Rostow recommendations on Vietnam. He opposed LBJ's escalation in 1965 and criticized U.S. military operations as misguided. By the way, Lansdale also opposed the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It is a red flag of Prouty's quackery that, of all people, he identified Edward Lansdale as one of the master plotters who wanted JFK dead in order to vastly escalate the war effort in Vietnam. 

 

Hey there Michael. I think, with all due respect, we should give Mr. Stone credit for continuing to study the material through the years. He stated unequivocally last year that he no longer puts any stock to Col. Prouty's Lansdale allegations. I came across this post sometime ago from Doug Campbell (of the Dallas Action Podcast):

Now that above quotation is sourced from this video:

https://youtu.be/-Rh7yrIOmY0

Timestamp for the quote is at about 00:44:43. It seems to me that Stone is acting in a good faith of sorts of what I think is a good quality to found in the research of many fields: keeping the mind open to new developments and being willing to welcome new ways of thinking about an old puzzle due to said new developments and evidence.

Edited March 30, 2023 by B. A. Copeland

[Michael Griffith]

27 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Hey there Michael. I think, with all due respect, we should give Mr. Stone credit for continuing to study the material through the years. He stated unequivocally last year that he no longer puts any stock to Col. Prouty's Lansdale allegations. I came across this post sometime ago from Doug Campbell (of the Dallas Action Podcast):

Now that above quotation is sourced from this video:

https://youtu.be/-Rh7yrIOmY0

Timestamp for the quote is at about 00:44:43. It seems to me that Stone is acting in a good faith of sorts of what I think is a good quality to found in the research of many fields: keeping the mind open to new developments and being willing to welcome new ways of thinking about an old puzzle due to said new developments and evidence.

That is great to know! Thank you for the information. I'm very glad to see that Stone has ditched Prouty's Lansdale claims. 

And, yes, I do give Stone plenty of credit for continuing to research the case. His latest documentary, JFK Revisited, is fantastic. I've praised it to the hilt in interviews and on my JFK site. 

Thanks again for the information!

[Joe Bauer]

I am a tremendous admirer of Oliver Stone but not to the blindly loyal degree that I could never have any disagreeing takes on even one of his points of view.

Obviously, I am not as informed as Stone...to a laughable degree.

Yet, I still wonder if there are others in the JFKA research zietgeist who may have enough other knowledge of Lansdale to not dismiss him entirely in the affair.

And regards the photo of the stiff bearing posture, blockish back of head shape and odd hand and arm swinging motion and ring bearing man walking past the tramps in Dealey Plaza...without more scientific proof I don't feel anyone can inarguably say it is or is not Lansdale.

Digital and computer enhanced technology in human figure and motion identification has advanced to the point that I believe the best experts in that field "could identify" the Dealey Plaza man as Lansdale ( or not ) to a scientifically proven degree of certainty, greatly by comparing the Dealey Plaza photo to many other full body photos and perhaps videos of Lansdale.

And same with the well known full facial photo of a man in Dealey Plaza while JFK is being driven by that bears a resemblance to "Rip Robertson" that is so look-a-like it is remarkable.

Another prime photo piece worthy of the latest facial recognition technology study imo.

There is also a picture of an E. Howard Hunt similarly built and dressed man walking up to the grassy knoll area from the open grass area across the street.

We all do know that E. Howard Hunt wasn't having a Chinese restaurant lunch with his wife in the DC area right at the time of JFK's assassination.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Tom Gram]

47 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

There is also a picture of an E. Howard Hunt similarly built and dressed man walking up to the grassy knoll area from the open grass area across the street.

We all do know that E. Howard Hunt wasn't having a Chinese restaurant lunch with his wife in the DC area right at the time of JFK's assassination.

 

I usually roll my eyes at a lot of these inconclusive DP photos, but I’ve gotta say, that guy really does look like a Hunt doppelgänger, at least from a distance. He’s wearing what looks like the exact same hat and tan jacket that Hunt was wearing in photos taken during Watergate, and if I recall he’s just causally strolling up to the GK alone with his hands in his pockets looking like a sketchball. Like you said, Hunt’s story about his whereabouts that day is bulls***, so who knows? 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Joe Bauer]

51 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

He’s wearing what looks like the exact same hat and tan jacket that Hunt was wearing in photos taken during Watergate, and if I recall he’s just causally strolling up to the GK alone with his hands in his pockets looking like a sketchball.

Sketchball...HA!