How much info in JFK was bogus?

[MikeNarrett]

Hey guys, new to the site and to the JFK investigation. I recently watched the movie JFK, and that really sparked my interest in the murder of JFK. Of course, with it being a Hollywood movie I assumed that it had a few tall tales in it. While doing more research, I came across this site.http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlWhat do you think of the arguments that the site presents and do you think that the site is valid?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

MikeNarrett wrote:Hey guys, new to the site and to the JFK investigation. I recently watched the movie JFK, and that really sparked my interest in the murder of JFK. Of course, with it being a Hollywood movie I assumed that it had a few tall tales in it. While doing more research, I came across this site.http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlWhat do you think of the arguments that the site presents and do you think that the site is valid?That website appears to be a PURE DISINFORMATION site to me. There are a lot of things that he asserts that aren't true. I clicked on a few links, and the one I'm thinking of is the assertion that 544 Camp Street didn't lead to Guy Banister's office. That website doesn't appear to be telling the truth.Regarding Lee Bowers, the author of that website seems to use slanted arguments regarding what Bowers said to Mark Lane. He basically said at one point that whatever attracted Bowers attention to the picket fence "it was not a gunshot." What he's ignoring in his slanted argument is that something DID attract Bowers' attention there, and it COULD have been a gunshot. The author of the Bowers article also talks about understanding things in CONTEXT, and yet he plainly IGNORES the context within which Bowers' statement to Mark Lane were made. For example, given the fact that JFK's head was thrown violently backwards, and given the numerous other witnesses who either saw smoke or heard a shot come from the knoll, given the fact that all the doctors described a fist-sized hole in the back of JFK's head, Bowers' statement about seeing something that caught his attention there at the picket fence makes perfect sense when you take his statements in light of, or in the context of the MOUNTAIN of other evidence. So...the author of that Bowers article is the one who is taking Bowers' statement out of context. He's taking Bowers' statement OUT OF CONTEXT (without considering it in light of the MOUNTAIN of evidence) of the mountain of evidence indicating a shot from the front. Here's Bowers' statement to Mark Lanehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

[MikeNarrett]

Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Here's another area where the author of the article on the website is using deception, in my opinion. Under number 16, titled "Clay Shaw Identified As Clay Bertand," this author seems to fail to mention very crucial information. In Jim Garrison's book, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, page 283, he tells that Clay Shaw GAVE his alias as "Clay Bertand" when Garrison had him arrested and that just as he (Garrison) was going to have the booking officer, Habighorst, testify to it, the judge, Haggerty, wouldn't allow Habighorst to testify because he didn't have his attorney with him when he gave the police his alias when he was being booked. Gee! Why would the author of the website you referenced above fail to tell about this? Simple. It's a DISINFORMATION website, in my opinion. It's a common practice among disinformation people, or people engaging in deception, to only give half-truths. It's the same as lying except that no false statements are made. Instead, statements and information are taken out of context (with no regard for when a statement was made and under what circumstances), and crucial information is never mentioned, thus painting a false picture of reality.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Here's another one.The author, in item number 26, titled "Smoke on the grassy knoll", basically says that witnesses Holland, Dodd, Simmons, and Johnson, did not see the same thing. He's referring to witness Dodd saying that he and his coworkers had all seen "about the same thing." Then the author nit-picks and tries to make a point out of...nothing. He says how one witness thought the smoke there might have come from one of the motorcycles, and blah, blah, blah. He's still referring to one witness's statement that the OTHER witnesses had "seen about the same thing." Somehow, the author of the article seems to try and use this discrepancy to invalidate what? He writes that the witnesses had not seen "about the same thing," and his point is? Nothing, but it sounds like he knows what he's talking about to the not-so-well-read reader.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

MikeNarrett wrote:Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?Disinformation? Not at all. Stone just did his best to stir up interest in the JFK assassination. He presented LOTS of views as to what happened. Any deviation from what actually happened is not relevant to the actual facts of the assassination. For example, it was claimed that Garrison never made the speech that Kevin Kostner did in the movie in the court room. Okay. What's the point? Is that somehow disproving information presented in the movie about the actual facts of the assassination? Does that point take away from the mountain of evidence? NopeThe movie JFK is not a documentary, and yet people are holding it to the same standard. I think that Stone didn't go far enough with his movie. He should have presented even MORE evidence than he did. I'm talking about evidence that is FACT...such as Jack Ruby having worked for Nixon when Nixon was a congressman in 1947 or George H.W. Bush being one of the heads of a bank that was seized by the FBI in WWII for being a NAZI asset. The same people who hold movies like JFK to the same standard of a documentary seem to be the same people who WON'T quote actual documentaries.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

MikeNarrett wrote:Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?I'll answer your question in a shorter version. No, I don't think Oliver Stone attempted to persuade people into thinking that there was a conspiracy using his own disinformation. The crucial facts surrounding the assassination were indeed presented by Stone. If he used "artistic license" in other areas that are not material, so what? It's not a documentary. It's just a movie.

[Bob]

I agree with Pasquale about the site that Mike posted on the very first post. It is disinformational site. Now, did Oliver Stone use some latitude in some of the scenes that were portrayed in the film? Yes. For instance, the character named X, which was played by Donald Sutherland, was in a large part about Fletcher Prouty, but also other people in the Black Ops and CIA world. When you make a movie, even a fairly long one like JFK, you have to do that because of time restraints. There were other scenes as well that Pasquale has already mentioned. But overall, I think Stone did an excellent job on giving the viewers a true idea of what really happened on 11/22/1963. Remember, this film was made in 1991. Almost 20 years ago now. A LOT has come out since then. By the way, Stone wanted to work with Jimmy Files years after JFK was released, but Jimmy wanted no part of working with Stone, because he just didn't like Stone from his first impression. Luckily, Jimmy has worked with folks like Wim and Jim Marrs to help get his story told though. All in all though, I think JFK was an excellent film that is a lot closer to the truth than some people (Poppy Bu$h and Gerald Ford among others) cared to see put on the big screen. That is why the rabid right has tried to paint the film a lie, when in essence it's VERY close to the truth.

[ChristophMessner]

Somehow it is good that the whole truth never comes out completely, that keeps people thinking about right and wrong about those things. Oliver Stones endeavors were remarkable and are to be admired, but the whole movie world is like a huge mind diversive second reality carpeting the real reality and the consciousness of priorities. For example it diverts from the fact, that all this, which layes the ground for such things can happen at all, are far more important as the symptoms. In other words: the text of the constitution is far more important than which bullet flew where. If the constitution would have been in a way, that CIA must not cooperate with Mafia or that people's political education is obligatory and first priority, then the population would never allow single ones to gain so much money and power like the Texas oil men, who brought murderers like LBJ into power. The main thing is not to get the perfect movie of the JFK-murder, but to get the true facts of the JFK-murder into the consciousness of the people, into the school books, into the national admitting-the-truth-is-no-disgrace-but-strength movement.

[saracarter766]

MikeNarrett wrote:Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?oliver stone was not using his disinformation nor does he have any disinformation he's a great director and made the greatest film of all time JFK ranks up there as my favorite film of all time.he did something that probably no other director would've done and that is making a movie which has opened our eyes.at least he had the balls to make it he's a great patriot and i highly admire and respect him for that.the only reason it got critisized is because people now are questioning and wondering what really went on that tragic day of 11/22/63 and apparently the higher ups do not want us questioning and wondering cause they start to get nervous about it.i commend oliver stone and his patriotism and his desire for the truth.