"Mr. X" scene from the movie "JFK" ( 17 mins. )

[Robert Morrow]

On 5/13/2024 at 11:51 AM, Gerry Down said:

Oliver Stone himself has now distanced himself from the Mr. X scene in that it's central focus being on Lansdale is incorrect.

I don't disagree with you BUT could you give me documentation on this - Oliver Stone saying Lansdale was not involved in killing JFK?

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

First of all, since I wrote a reply to Vince Bugliosi on this, let me say that what is so remarkable about this scene is this:  for the first time in a dramatic feature film that was seen by millions, the public was informed of the crimes of the CIA in overthrowing governments and attempted and successful assassination plots.  All done with first rate skill and impact.  Plus a scene stealing performance by Sutherland.  What ease the man had, exhibiting complete authority and control.

When they sit down after that walk he then begins to inform Garrison about the Cuba project, MONGOOSE, and then Vietnam.  That segment about Vietnam utterly enraged the MSM and academia. Because hacks like Halberstam and Sheehan had been selling this BS about Johnson's policy being a continuation of Kennedy's policy. Which was complete and utter horse dung, and Johnson was part of that BS.  When X references NSAM 263 and 273, those were shockers: that in the space of a few days, LBJ had more or less cancelled 263 and said he was not going to let Vietnam go the way China did.  Can you imagine comparing South Vietnam with China?  All of this is true.  Even the scene with the generals talking about Kennedy like they did, that was borne out with the declassification of the Missile Crisis tapes.

If anything, the film did not go far enough in that regard since work by others--Goldstein, Kaiser, Blight-- has furthered what Prouty and Newman did with Stone. And Newman has gone further also in the second edition of his book.  There is a scene in that book where Kennedy comes into a meeting he called, he was deliberately late.  This took place right after the debate on NSAM 111 had concluded.  JFK sat down, made some small talk and then declared "Once policy is decided those on the spot either implement it or they get out."  He paused and then said, "Now who is going to implement my policy on Vietnam?"  And McNamara raised his hand. This is why Johnson says in the film, you control McNamara and you control Kennedy. Everything said about Vietnam is pretty much dead on.  And this is what made the MSM go into a spastic state since what they had been preaching for decades was shown up as pure myth.  Plus this provided a reason for JFK's murder.

As per Lansdale, Stone always said that Lansdale was a dramatic device, that someone like Lansdale was enlisted to draw up a plan.  But since he had been running MONGOOSE he was a pretty good figure to use.  Was it him?  Who knows.  

What is really surprising  about Stone's film is how close he got without the ARRB.

BTW, that Washington scene did not really need to be done with Mr. X, Fletcher Prouty.  If I had been advising Stone at the time, I would have used Nagell in the park, and then I would have had Garrison flying home and opening up a letter from a history professor at Ohio U. The guy wrote him a 26 page handwritten essay about the death of Kennedy and the escalation of the VIetnam War. Can you imagine what a scene that would have been?  With Garrison smoking his pipe, one light on in his study,  a narrator reciting the letter, intercutting scenes of him reading with the scenes in Indochina of Rolling Thunder and combat troops arriving.

Too many people who know little or nothing about New Orleans or the film--who have not even read The Book of the Film-- have a tendency to pontificate about both subjects, to the point they sound like Dan Rather, Edward Epstein or Tom Brokaw.

 

PS. The NSAMs 55-57 were designed to begin to turn over the larger covert actions of the CIA to military intel. This is one reason why the DIA was created.

 

 

Oliver Stone specifically included a desk plate that said "Lansdale" in his movie JFK. That is not a dramatic device; that is practically indicting Gen. Edward Lansdale in the JFK assassination. What if he had put the name "DiEugenio" on that desk; would you have any doubt about who he was indicting for the JFK assassination?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Please note that when Sutherland goes into his speculation, he says words to the effect that a phone call is made to someone, maybe to someone like his superior officer.

This qualifies the scene as subjective.

There are very large medium shots of LBJ later,   and there is the thing about NSAM 273, and "just get me elected and I'll give you your war".

I know Stone does not think LBJ was involved.  But these things work dramatically and, for reasons stated above, this is qualified as subjective.

Also note how he qualified the actual hit team, could be out of a camp near Athens Greece, Cubans, Mafia hire.

He was trying to make the point that this must have been a high level plot, not a Mafia hit job, or some Cuban exiles, etc.

And he was trying to say that VIetnam was a much overlooked possible reason for the murder of Kennedy.

BTW, the real turnaround in Indochina policy was in March of 1964, with NSAM 288.  But you allow things like that in a dramatic presentation.  And that is what the last part of this is.

[Gerry Down]

On 5/13/2024 at 6:16 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Really? There is so much more to that interchange between X and Garrison than just the Lansdale inference.  Stone shouldn't backtrack the entire scene because of the Lansdale issue imo. The X revelations were far more reaching and factually correct in their entirety.

Well, in so far as the Lansdale thing anyway.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

I don't disagree with you BUT could you give me documentation on this - Oliver Stone saying Lansdale was not involved in killing JFK?

He said it in some one of his interviews over the last year or two. Not sure which interview that was though.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let me tell a little story about this scene. From the set.

 

First, Sutherland was not the first choice.  Oliver Stone wanted Brando.  But there were two problems.  First, he wanted a lot of money.  Second, it was pure dialogue, really a monologue.  There was no way they could have built that many poster boards along the way. Especially since he is supposed to be looking at Garrison.

Secondly, if you know anything about acting, as the saying does, Sutherland has his character nailed from the start.  To put it mildly, Costner does not. He basically is just flailing about the surface.  So Stone had to coach him up a lot.  Once, Sutherland walked away toward the monument, out of ear shot, and said, "If he know what the heck I was saying maybe that would help!"

 

 

Edited May 15 by James DiEugenio

[Gil Jesus]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

First of all, since I wrote a reply to Vince Bugliosi on this, let me say that what is so remarkable about this scene is this:  for the first time in a dramatic feature film that was seen by millions, the public was informed of the crimes of the CIA in overthrowing governments and attempted and successful assassination plots.  All done with first rate skill and impact.  Plus a scene stealing performance by Sutherland.  What ease the man had, exhibiting complete authority and control.

When they sit down after that walk he then begins to inform Garrison about the Cuba project, MONGOOSE, and then Vietnam.  That segment about Vietnam utterly enraged the MSM and academia. Because hacks like Halberstam and Sheehan had been selling this BS about Johnson's policy being a continuation of Kennedy's policy. Which was complete and utter horse dung, and Johnson was part of that BS.  When X references NSAM 263 and 273, those were shockers: that in the space of a few days, LBJ had more or less cancelled 263 and said he was not going to let Vietnam go the way China did.  Can you imagine comparing South Vietnam with China?  All of this is true.  Even the scene with the generals talking about Kennedy like they did, that was borne out with the declassification of the Missile Crisis tapes.

If anything, the film did not go far enough in that regard since work by others--Goldstein, Kaiser, Blight-- has furthered what Prouty and Newman did with Stone. And Newman has gone further also in the second edition of his book.  There is a scene in that book where Kennedy comes into a meeting he called, he was deliberately late.  This took place right after the debate on NSAM 111 had concluded.  JFK sat down, made some small talk and then declared "Once policy is decided those on the spot either implement it or they get out."  He paused and then said, "Now who is going to implement my policy on Vietnam?"  And McNamara raised his hand. This is why Johnson says in the film, you control McNamara and you control Kennedy. Everything said about Vietnam is pretty much dead on.  And this is what made the MSM go into a spastic state since what they had been preaching for decades was shown up as pure myth.  Plus this provided a reason for JFK's murder.

As per Lansdale, Stone always said that Lansdale was a dramatic device, that someone like Lansdale was enlisted to draw up a plan.  But since he had been running MONGOOSE he was a pretty good figure to use.  Was it him?  Who knows.  

What is really surprising  about Stone's film is how close he got without the ARRB.

BTW, that Washington scene did not really need to be done with Mr. X, Fletcher Prouty.  If I had been advising Stone at the time, I would have used Nagell in the park, and then I would have had Garrison flying home and opening up a letter from a history professor at Ohio U. The guy wrote him a 26 page handwritten essay about the death of Kennedy and the escalation of the VIetnam War. Can you imagine what a scene that would have been?  With Garrison smoking his pipe, one light on in his study,  a narrator reciting the letter, intercutting scenes of him reading with the scenes in Indochina of Rolling Thunder and combat troops arriving.

Too many people who know little or nothing about New Orleans or the film--who have not even read The Book of the Film-- have a tendency to pontificate about both subjects, to the point they sound like Dan Rather, Edward Epstein or Tom Brokaw.

 

PS. The NSAMs 55-57 were designed to begin to turn over the larger covert actions of the CIA to military intel. This is one reason why the DIA was created.

 

 

Well said. Anyone looking for a motive to assassinate the President need to study American history after WWII and the history of his Administration. When you put the assassination in the context of history, it's easy to see that this was a political murder. Some call it a coup d'etat, but I believe it was a counter-coup, the coup being Kennedy's victory in 1960. His policies and his behavior while in office were seen by the security state as a threat to the nation. How would the country's institutions react if faced with a President who they feared was a serious threat to the National Security ? We see how today political differences can create hate among folks. Was there enough hate for Kennedy in the CIA, FBI, Military and Secret Service to bring these elements together ? Were their political views the cement that joined them in a plot to remove his protection and drive him into an ambush in the "City of Hate" ? Did they prefer the foreign policies of LBJ over JFK ?

And what of all the warnings to Kennedy not to go to Dallas ? Did all of these people know beforehand of Oswald's plan to kill the President ? I have documents of people who stated as early as mid-April 1962 that there was a plan to "get rid" of Kennedy in Dallas.

Oswald wasn't even in the US in April of 1962. He didn't return until June.

How could Oswald plan this murder "weeks or months in advance" ( as Henry Wade claimed ) when the motorcade route wasn't made public until three days before the assassination ?

How could this genius Oswald, who was smart enough to get the gun into the building without anyone seeing it and hide it in a place where no one would find it, be stupid enough to throw away his jacket and keep on his person the very handgun that tied him to the Tippit murder ?

Why after a successful "escape" from the TSBD via bus and cab, did he not flee the Tippit murder scene the same way ? Why did his M.O. change ? They were looking for a cop killer on foot. Why did he flee on foot ? Why didn't he hail a cab on East Jefferson ?

Why did he choose to draw attention to himself by trying to beat the Texas Theater out of a 90 cent ticket when he had $ 13.87 in his pocket ?

No, none of it makes sense.

 

[Robert Morrow]

11 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

He said it in some one of his interviews over the last year or two. Not sure which interview that was though.

Well when you find the documentation, which I do not doubt, please post it up here. Thank you.

Btw, Gen. Edward Lansdale, in a rage over the death of Diem and his own political castration, was up to his eyeballs in the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson resurrected Lansdale's career.

 

[Robert Morrow]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Please note that when Sutherland goes into his speculation, he says words to the effect that a phone call is made to someone, maybe to someone like his superior officer.

This qualifies the scene as subjective.

There are very large medium shots of LBJ later,   and there is the thing about NSAM 273, and "just get me elected and I'll give you your war".

I know Stone does not think LBJ was involved.  But these things work dramatically and, for reasons stated above, this is qualified as subjective.

Also note how he qualified the actual hit team, could be out of a camp near Athens Greece, Cubans, Mafia hire.

He was trying to make the point that this must have been a high level plot, not a Mafia hit job, or some Cuban exiles, etc.

And he was trying to say that VIetnam was a much overlooked possible reason for the murder of Kennedy.

BTW, the real turnaround in Indochina policy was in March of 1964, with NSAM 288.  But you allow things like that in a dramatic presentation.  And that is what the last part of this is.

Question: since you are so close to Oliver Stone you might know this.

Does Oliver Stone believe that General Edward Lansdale was involved in the JFK assassination? Meaning, did Lansdale help to kill JFK?

[Donald Willis]

On 5/13/2024 at 5:07 AM, Gil Jesus said:

Aren't you the guy who propagates that Allen Smith was really Allen Tippit ?

Aren't you the same guy who propagated in the newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk back February '22 that James Jarman was shooting from the 5th floor window ?

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Ns0OUTPTlxA/m/kmPGwqePAAAJ

And you have the nerve to question the credibility of Oliver Stone ?

A reference for anything serious ? There's a lot of historical FACT in this scene.

Where do you get your references from ?

If you wanna trash what Stone says in this scene, then feel free to post evidence to refute it.

You're saying that Richard Bertolino is SkyThrone is No True Flags Here is 19efppp?

[James DiEugenio]

Is that really true Don?  He thinks Smith is Tippit's son?

 

Nice one Gil, about not paying for the ticket when he had 10 x more than enough to pay for it.

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Gil, about not paying for the ticket when he had 10 x more than enough to pay for it.

What is Gil's point, though? Does he think Oswald did it because he wanted to get caught? And what does it have to do with the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK?

[James DiEugenio]

To abide by Mark, and getting back to the scene.

If you recall, Oliver, Zach Sklar, Fletcher and John Newman, were all pilloried about this angle--that JFK was getting out of Vietnam and after his murder, LBJ changed the policy and escalated to 540 K combat troops and Rolling Thunder.  

So the film had two barrels in the shotgun:  Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy., and the media missed a strong possible motive and had been covering that up through shills like Halberstam and Sheehan ever since.

Then came the ARRB and in late 1997 they declassified the notes of the Sec Def May 1963 conference.  

Not only was Kennedy getting out of Vietnam, but McNamara was after them to get out even faster then they wanted to leave. And it was all there in Black and White. They couldn't deny it. And so the major papers now had to eat crow, and they did e.g. NY TImes and Philadelphia Inquirer.

But then the fallback for the loony left e.g. Chomsky was that Kennedy was only doing that in a winning situation.  LOL, ROTF. 

But then John Newman got hold of McNamara's debriefs.  He explicitly said there that he and Kennedy had decided that once the training mission was over, they were getting out no matter what the situation was.  America could not fight the war for Saigon. End of story.  Stone was right and the MSM was wrong.

And the field of Vietnam studies has not been the same since.

 

Edited May 16 by James DiEugenio

[Kevin Balch]

Oswald having a clandestine meeting in the theater conflicts with trying to get in without paying for a ticket. A clandestine meeting is  not supposed to attract attention. Trying to sneak in to a theater has a risk of being caught and not being able to meet your contact as well as drawing attention to oneself.

The reports of Oswald momentarily sitting next to several theater goers in a mostly empty theater would be a poor way to meet someone without attracting attention. Sounds like something out of Get Smart!

During the first 5-10 minutes of entering a darkened theater on a very bright, sunny day (which it was), one is as blind as a bat.

I don’t find Butch Burroughs credible. He never said anything about Oswald arriving at 1:07 or buying popcorn until years later.

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

To abide by Mark, and getting back to the scene.

If you recall, Oliver, Zach Sklar, Fletcher and John Newman, were all pilloried about this angle--that JFK was getting out of Vietnam and after his murder, LBJ changed the policy and escalated to 540 K combat troops and Rolling Thunder.  

So the film had two barrels in the shotgun:  Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy., and the media missed a strong possible motive and had been covering that up through shills like Halberstam and Sheehan ever since.

Then came the ARRB and in late 1997 they declassified the notes of the Sec Def May 1963 conference.  

Not only was Kennedy getting out of Vietnam, but McNamara was after them to get out even faster then they wanted to leave. And it was all there in Black and White. They couldn't deny it. And so the major papers now had to eat crow, and they did e.g. NY TImes and Philadelphia Inquirer.

But then the fallback fro the loony left eg. Chomsky was that he was only doing that in a winning situation.  LOL, ROTF. 

But then John Newman got hold of McNamara's debriefs.  He explicitly said there that he and Kennedy had decided that once the training mission was over, they were getting out no matter what the situation was.  America could not fight the war for Saigon. End of story.  Stone was right and the MSM was wrong.

And the field of Vietnam studies has not been the same since.

 

Why did McNamara stick it out for so long on Vietnam under LBJ?

Would South Vietnam have been able to be held together until after the 1964 election?