"Killing Kennedy Movie"

[Tommy Wilkens]

I watched the movie last night and was not surprised at how it all ended up.But I was at least glad to have seen that they at least glossed over Oswald's friendship with "GEORGE" !!!!! as he was referred to in the movie.That was a total white wash if I have ever seen one. They didn't mention that Lee Oswald's new friend "GEORGE" had been under the watchful eye of the US State Department and a red flag had been placed on his passport for close watch and he was suspected of being a German Nazi spy. And they didn't mention one hint that Lee Oswald's new friend GEORGE had an extensive file with the Office of Navel Intelligence , the FBI , the United States Customs Agency , The Immigration and Naturalizations Services , and most of all had a "TOP SECRET" file with the C.I.A .For those who watched the movie "GEORGE" was George De Mohrenschildt a deep cover contract agent for the C.I.A.

[kenmurray]

The movie which is supposedly based on 0'Reilly's book knew who "George' last name was! I didn't waste my time watching such junk.

[Tommy Wilkens]

Yes kenmurray I am aware they knew his name .That is my point ,,,why didn't they use his full name ??? If he was so innocent like some think what would be the harm in naming him in the movie for all to see and hear ???? And I told his name in my post because believe it or not kenmurray there are people out here who have never ever heard of George De Mohrenschildt. The guy lived his life out in the shadows always one step ahead.The guy was a pro at what he did.

[kenmurray]

Oh I know Tommy. I'm sure O'Reilly had some say in this movie and he was fully hear who "George" was.

[kenmurray]

I have posted this before but this is O'Reilly's big fib concerning him tracking down "George" when he was a young reporter:http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/oreilly ... ation_fib/

[Tom Bigg]

O'Reilly is quite a hypocrite and his scholarship is shoddy to say the least. What kind of self respecting biographer starts a book with a verb form like "killing"? Asinine! But the NY area is full of bullying, snarling, mean spirited politicians and self involved journalists. You can learn quite a bit more just reading Lew Rockwell which has been running JFK murder conspiracy articles virtually every day. The white washers and ditto heads really don't want the truth anyway.

[Andre Murel]

I watched the movie last night and one simple question accured to me.Why spend all the efford making such a movie? Although the movie was based on a book and the romantised human side of JFK was shown, I find it weard that nowerdays the single shootertheory is still being used as a basis for a book and movie.

[Randy Bednorz]

Andre Murel wrote:I watched the movie last night and one simple question accured to me.Why spend all the efford making such a movie? Although the movie was based on a book and the romantised human side of JFK was shown, I find it weard that nowerdays the single shootertheory is still being used as a basis for a book and movie.Look at the whole landscape over time. There are several reasons for the old Lone-Nut cover-story.First, there's Oswald's sojourn in USSR. We HAVE the Kammer memorandum -- probably left in Oswald's file by accident. Looking just at Wisner's big tantrum over the IG report on "Operation Zapata" [Bay of Pigs] -- there was a bias against creating paper trails. Then -- looking at Angleton's clinical paranoia at that time -- you wouldn't want a paper trail of people infiltrating USSR -- especially if you were obsessed with the suspicion there was a Soviet mole inside CIA. Finally, we know that "Oswald wasn't the only one:" we have the stories of Hemming and Nagel; Prouty's recollection of Marines trained at Camp Lejeune for that purpose, and Marchetti's recollection of the same thing. If you can't buy the memoirs of the two "fifth-columnists" Prouty and Marchetti, then just look at Angleton's behavior after the assassination -- his "Monster-Plot" theory that Soviets would send "phony defectors." Likely, inasmuch as they may have tried, Angleton would be no less obsessed because of an American plan for "phony defectors." No different than Helms insertion of a note about MKULTRA budget increases in the Oswald 201 File -- they assumed if CIA was doing this or that, then so was KGB.Penkovsky had been recruited by two CIA agents posing as students; Oswald posed as a student -- ostensibly to attend a college in Finland. So CIA would have an understandable incentive to suppress all but the Lone Nut explanation: what would become of successful infiltrators?Now fast forward to the present, while considering the political dimension to this "Catch 22." Conspirators -- at most a handful but we'll "keep the hope alive" -- took advantage of this environment, knowing that these imperatives would conceal their work. There were POLITICAL BENEFICIARIES, so we look at Bush-41, LBJ, Hoover and others.This has always been "political." There would be incentives to fabricate evidence and suppress evidence -- all under the "GEO-political" guise of National Security. Now -- there's the highly-probable link between "Rubbers" and Phillips. Phillips says so. We had Bush-41 stonewalling the 92 Records Act and absconding with the list of ARRB candidates. An unusual match -- between Phillips' "Mr. Rubbers" character in his "Carlos" book, and Bush-41's nickname "Rubbers" created by Wilbur Mills.As soon as the Stone film preview and the Records Act passage in Congress, an entire choir of Right-wing (or conservative) pundits were disparaging the film and the declassification project. All of the vocal (emphasis: "vocal") Lone Nut advocates come from one corner of the political spectrum. Even today, John Kerry departs from the Lone Nut myth, but he's careful to attribute conspiratorial origins to KGB and Castro. As he said, he probably didn't study or "look into" the CIA angle -- didn't even mention the Mafia, which is also part of a smokescreen of half-truth. His regression to the pre-Warren-Commission mythology could just as easily be a calculated remark with a political agenda; Don't alienate the Right Wing any further, so you throw out this remark giving credence to their paranoid delusions.So "Killing Kennedy" is nothing new. It's just a rehash of Gerald Ford's "Portrait of an Assassin." The conservative pundit historian-wannabes are either delusional in their worship of an old myth, or they really fear that their own political icons -- with major contributors in Texas industry -- really had something to do with it.At the moment, I'm comfortable that Bush-41 was just acting as a telephone answering service for Phillips. I could also be comfortable that -- as presbyter or beneficiary -- Bush may have taken directions more than he gave them -- from CIA careerists like Dave Phillips.But even this sort of suggestion would precipitate a gravitation of money into publishing more "Lone-Nut"-ism."Lone-Nut"-ism supports GOP Cold War advocacy and justification. It supports a purely ideological propaganda against the Liberal Left.UPDATE: Does anyone want me to explain this further -- or would anyone wish to challenge it to expect my remarks as comment? This isn't about my "political orientation" or "ideological beliefs." It's about how beliefs -- myths -- affect public opinion and its wider, more general set of beliefs and inclinations. The old Oswald canard is a story about a young guy from miserable single-parent circumstances who went into the Marine Corps and simply "read books." The nutcase implication is that "reading the wrong books can turn you into an ideologically-driven Lone Nut." For instance, the absurd conclusion that "reading the Quran and converting to Islam automatically makes you a Fundamentalist and terrorist." The "Communist" angle buttresses ideological notions about the role of government. It allows people to make judgments about public issues with kneejerk accusations about "Socialism," which derive from the mythological horror stories -- the "Oswald killed JFK because he read bad books" among them.Fact is, "Das Capital" was a theory of history attempting to answer Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." You can trace the origin of the "class-conflict" or "class-struggle" idea to James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -- and to thinkers before that who examined such historical periods as the ascendant Roman Empire.