Nigel Turner's The Guilty Men

[Bill Grote]

The old saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" must be true. In this case it is "where there's fog, there's someone trying to conceal something.

I remember watching the History channel offering an apology and figuring that for once someone is getting close to the real JFK assasination story. The cover-up is strong and well, as we see in this example of the potentially guilty being protected.

Now if we just had a Bernstein and Woodword and a tabloid that would back them so that we could take "deep throat's" advice and "Follow the money." We might then have an opportunity to see who's behind this part of the coverup.

Bill G.

[John Simkin]

I watched "The Guilty Men" again last night on DVD. It is probably the best in Nigel Turner's series of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". I noticed that Turner wrote, produced and directed the programme and the copyright was held by A & E Networks. How then were the History Channel able to make it "unavailable" to the general public?

Email me if you are interested in obtaining all 9 episodes on DVD.

[Blair Dobson]

jack valenti was also instrumental in overseeing the export of hollywood films all over europe, much to the dismay of the french who wouldnt bow under the pressure and setup a number of cultural funding entities to combat the over run of bad american films in the mid sixties.

in the late 60's he also dealt a final death blow to the ailing british movie industry by refusing to run british films in american theatres.

he wouldn't run french films for that matter either.

valenti was instrumental in "placing" american blockbusters in foreign markets where the market existed only because the foreign policy at the time dictated that the "savages" were not allowed to continue an indigenous film community. this was not only frowned upon but actively suppressed.

americans didnt want to hear what the rest of the world might think.

with the exception of japan, china, france and britain, (who all had some form of indigenous film going on..) after 1965, most foreign countries were flooded with cheaply dubbed 16 mm american made handoffs. Lew Wasserman and co would later do this with re runs of charlies angels, love boat and the like to promote american culture abroad, even if it meant the "savages" all thought americans drove talking cars, lived on cruise ships and drove the general lee down to the moonshine still in your bikini tops...

and that in turn sold advertising which in turn completes the propaganda cycle:

"we don't want you to be like us, we want you to BUY like us"

the cold war wasn't won with swords or secrets, it was won in the livingrooms with pepsi and jordache jeans and a lifestyle of wanton disposable waste.

what the films of the 40's and 50's did for cigarette companies in america, it did cheaply and effectively in foreign countries from the late 60's onward with it's effective and finely tuned nazi media model. oh and it worked well at home too.

and the best part? they were showing re runs of films and tv programs that had already cut a profit.

smart.

but they weren't just selling advertising, they were selling their fascist idea of democracy in the form of murder/ crime and softcore sex shows to countries who's people were always represented as "others":

the korean shopkeep or the african pimp, the japanese warlord, the french *faggots (*used in context) and the mexican maid.

no wonder the rio grand became an olympic pool.

everyone wanted to be rock hudsons poolcleaner..

you americans shouldnt feel so bad though about being regarded as a-team loving hillbillies living on uncle jesses farm:

most of the world thinks us canucks drive dogsleds to igloos in the morning.... we exported the beachcombers.....

this is again indicative not of the content of what is being shoved on the rest of the world but the way in which it's done and why its done.

don't want our films?

fine.. we won't give you access to our medical research etc etc...

we won't hire your actors and we wont show your films.

all of your great character actors are now relegated to being villians in our films etc etc etc...

the americans make billions off overseas film rights..in the sixties, it was millions.

if you ask any french film maker or british film veteran over 40 what they think of jack valenti, they will usually spit in disgust. i have worked with a few over the years and asked the question:

"who killed the british film industry?"

"jack valenti"

i will look for the name of a good doc that damns valenti and post it later. it corroborrates everything i have said.

During the GATT negociation, Jack Valenti, the representative of the US Motion Picture industry for decades, had the following exchange with a French delegate :

JV.: You make wonderful cheeses. Keep it up and let us, alone, make films

FD.: You already make 95% of the movies. What more do you want ?

JV. : 100%, of course.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Blair Dobson]

my above post sounds far more anti american than i meant it to:

i love what america stands for in principle...but that principle is long gone from it's government and hopefully still exists in most of its "people"..

and about the history channel:

after sitting through a cut version of stones JFK , i was horrified to hear that ugly man Anne Medina prattle off about it being a nutjob of a film and how "he" was sure oswald acted alone.

boy, i sure like my history taught to me by an aged, barely watchable host who wears bob hopes old pantsuits....

not defending stones film in anyway, but one would think it would cast a doubt in anyones mind...even Mr. Anne Medina..

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Douglas Caddy' date='Mar 27 2006, 06:58 PM' post='58801']

As I had assisted Barr McClellan, along with J. Harrison, in the very early stages of the research on his book, “Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ killed JFK,” I took a particular interest in how the History Channel reacted to the uproar organized by Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers following its airing of Nigel Turner’s “The Guilty Men.”

In any event such a lawsuit would have merely opened up the entire topic to intense public scrutiny, which would have proved counter-productive to Valenti and his crew.

Doug:

Barr does plan to sue HC. Now I am not sure if this is over the cancellation of The Guilty Men or the disgusting follow up HC did with the "three historians". Barr was libled in that show and the merits of The Guilty men were not at all debated. Did you happen to catch this little peice of trash? I taped it and after it was over J and I talked and J was so angry he was ready to take on HC himself. We referred to these "historians" as the "three stooges".

I also do not think $ was used to stop these shows, I think it was threats of some sort. It would be interesting to hear NIgel Turner's stance, and whether or not he will ever do another episode.

Dawn

ps A lot has been made about the Guilty Men and The Judyth Baker (The Love Story) episodes, but the third one - forgotten its title- (About Liggit) was extremely interesting. J was very involved-behind the scenes of course- with this episode as well.

[John Simkin]

ps A lot has been made about the Guilty Men and The Judyth Baker (The Love Story) episodes, but the third one - forgotten its title- (About Liggit) was extremely interesting. J was very involved-behind the scenes of course- with this episode as well.

The third one was called Smoking Guns and did feature a section on John Liggett. It was a fascinating story that needs to obtain more publicity. The section on Doug Weldon's research into the presidential car was also very good. The witness from Fords (George Whittaker) was very impressive.

[Jack White]

I watched "The Guilty Men" again last night on DVD. It is probably the best in Nigel Turner's series of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". I noticed that Turner wrote, produced and directed the programme and the copyright was held by A & E Networks. How then were the History Channel able to make it "unavailable" to the general public?

Email me if you are interested in obtaining all 9 episodes on DVD.

A&E and HC have the same ownership.

What are details of obtaining all 9 episodes on DVD?

Jack

[John Simkin]

Email message from Gary Mack:

"A&E owns the History Channel. Since The Guilty Men is fiction, they don't show it anymore."

[Douglas Caddy]

[quote name='Douglas Caddy' date='Mar 27 2006, 06:58 PM' post='58801']

Doug:

Barr does plan to sue HC. Now I am not sure if this is over the cancellation of The Guilty Men or the disgusting follow up HC did with the "three historians". Barr was libled in that show and the merits of The Guilty men were not at all debated. Did you happen to catch this little peice of trash? I taped it and after it was over J and I talked and J was so angry he was ready to take on HC himself. We referred to these "historians" as the "three stooges".

I also do not think $ was used to stop these shows, I think it was threats of some sort. It would be interesting to hear NIgel Turner's stance, and whether or not he will ever do another episode.

Dawn

ps A lot has been made about the Guilty Men and The Judyth Baker (The Love Story) episodes, but the third one - forgotten its title- (About Liggit) was extremely interesting. J was very involved-behind the scenes of course- with this episode as well.

This is good news indeed that Barr McClellan plans to file a lawsuit against the History Channel. Barr is a fighter, and not someone to be pushed around when he knows that he is in the right.

Within a few days after the History Channel banned “The Guilty Men” because of the accusation by Valenti & Crew that it was a work of fiction, the HC carried a show on how the pyramids in Egypt were built.

The show obviously was based on mere speculation, as no one today really knows know the pyramids were erected.

So for the sake of accuracy, the HC should have carried a disclaimer at the beginning of its show that this was just one version, among many, of how the pyramids were constructed. It should also have carried a panel of three historians afterwards who could have given their views on whether the show’s theory was sound or whether it was mere fiction or based on a false premise.

By banning “The Guilty Men” and bowing to the pressure of Valenti & Crew, the HC has turned the JFK assassination show into a hot and valuable commodity of which underground clandestine copies are made and distributed with increasing frequency. The HC can hardly file suit against those who make these clandestine copies as doing so would merely bring the spotlight of bad publicity on its own prior act of censorship and cause irreparable damage to its reputation as an educational exponent of “history.”

[Ron Ecker]

Valenti, whose job was supposed to be to promote the film industry (not pick and choose movies for his own reviewing), called Stone's JFK "a propaganda masterpiece and equally a hoax."

[Dawn Meredith]

Email message from Gary Mack:

"A&E owns the History Channel. Since The Guilty Men is fiction, they don't show it anymore."

Interesting, Mack does not post but he sure keeps up with who does. Wonder why. And for whom.

Funny how some researchers just "turn"...Makes one wonder if they weren't on the wrong side to start with.

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

I recently went over to the Discovery Channel's forum and posted a few comments about how horrible I thought their program JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet was. While there, I came across a thread created after one of their other programs. It was entitled Ask An Expert; it had a hundred or so questions, which Gary Mack answered. I found most of his answers to be well-thought out. I was gratified to find that whenever a Posnerite would interject with a "how come conspiracy theorists are so stupid?" type question, Mack would promptly slap him down and point out that there were many reasons to suspect conspiracy, and that even if Oswald fired all the shots there was still the question of motive and whether he had any help. From this, I suspect Gary still suspects conspiracy, just not the giant one proposed by so many others.

[Robert Howard]

While not getting into the historical 'validity' of the History Channel, one would think Mr. Valenti, or others with his worldview had more than a passing role in the 'process' that led to Oliver Stone's JFK not ranking in the Top 100 Movies of the American Film Institute, a fact that echoes other sentiments expressed on this thread. A person can shout at the top of their lungs or write on Forum threads in CAPITAL LETTERS, all they want, that the film contained distortions of fact, etc., but in my view until every single file on the assassination is opened and available to the American people, the truth or falsehood of Stone's 'poetic license' is still not completely settled. At any rate I would wager most 'thinking American's' have enough sense to realize that Stone's mythos is at least equally credible as the spoon fed pablum of 'facts' that the Gerald Posner's of the world dish out in lavish doses.

When and if the truth about November 22, 1963 ever emerges, I submit its corresponding 'media reaction' may be similar to what happened regarding the ostensible resolution of the MLK affair, (see Order's to Kill by William Pepper) in other words 'more of a whimper than a bang.'

The idea could be advanced that the modus operandi of April 4, 1968 was a re-enactment of the one from November 22, 1963, with an even greater deal of sophistry. Qui Bono

[Pat Speer]

I agree, Robert. While Stone's movie may very well have been wrong about what happened, and undoubtedly took poetic license with the facts re Garrison, he was at least honest enough to admit his movie was a "counter-myth." Posner, and Myers' etc. on the other hand, have sold themselves as purveyors of truth, when they deliberately misquote doctors and deliberately misrepresent Kennedy's body proportions, etc. The result: Stone received an unprecedented amount of negative publicity before the release of his film, Posner gets nominated for a Pulitzer, and Myers wins an Emmy. Something's wrong here.

In 1967, Dan Rather interviewed Dr. James Humes on TV. Humes, after receiving talking points by the Justice Department, said that the autopsy photos confirmed the location of the neck wound in the rydberg drawings. When drawings of the autopsy photo portraying the back wound were RELEASED in 1978, however, and showed Humes to have been a xxxx, did Rather go after him? Did any of the subsequent CBS programs on the assassination discuss Humes' lie? I don't think so. (If anyone remembers this topic ever coming up, please let me know.) The bottom line: it's okay to misrepresent the evidence as long as you do it to PROTECT the government. Pardon me while I kick the cat.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

I recently went over to the Discovery Channel's forum and posted a few comments about how horrible I thought their program JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet was. While there, I came across a thread created after one of their other programs. It was entitled Ask An Expert; it had a hundred or so questions, which Gary Mack answered. I found most of his answers to be well-thought out. I was gratified to find that whenever a Posnerite would interject with a "how come conspiracy theorists are so stupid?" type question, Mack would promptly slap him down and point out that there were many reasons to suspect conspiracy, and that even if Oswald fired all the shots there was still the question of motive and whether he had any help. From this, I suspect Gary still suspects conspiracy, just not the giant one proposed by so many others.

As the person responsible for the ACOUSTICS ANALYSIS and BADGEMAN, Gary must

continue to maintain his early posture as pro-conspiracy, else he discredits his own

discoveries completely, leaving him totally in line with Posner. Having been rewarded

for his turnaround with a nice job at the Sixth Floor, he cannot afford to support other

sides of the story. This allows him to maintain a "neutral" position...a pinch of conspiracy

in a bowl full of WCcrap. They have $16,000,000 at stake.

Jack

PS...If there are other things besides the Acoustics and Badgeman Gary disagrees

with Posner on, perhaps he will tell us. I think he also supports the Gordon Arnold

story. What else?

Edited March 30, 2006 by Jack White