On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

Clay Shaw and Jim Garrison are mentioned for maybe 1-2 minutes in the 120 minute version of JFK Revisited.

No one who has watched JFK Revisited can conclude that it covers the same exact stuff as Stone’s 1991 ‘JFK’ movie.

[Jon Banks]

I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.

I mentioned before that response by Stone when asked about the smearing of Shaw: he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." My guess is that this is what he and DiEugenio are doing. They think they're fighting a war against the secret "they" that really runs America, to wit, this mix of "deep state" actors and military industrialists and quasi-fascists in Wall Street and elsewhere. And so in such a battle if innocents get hurt that's just the price that will be paid. It's a nasty business; collateral damage will happen.

If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.

I guess if you believe the Cold War was caused by the US, by Truman's policies, by the "national security state" and "military industrial complex" and you think that JFK was going to end all of that - Stone, DiEugenio and the absurd Jim Garrison did - then it makes sense on some level that the assassination was engineered by them. That's providing a twisted sort of motive but never explains how.  In any case, it is sheer nonsense and completely false that the East-West conflict was caused solely or even predominantly by the West. I mean good lord, Josef Stalin a victim?

Do I agree with everything Oliver Stone says? No.

But I appreciate how he has used his platform as a world famous Hollywood filmmaker to expose and elevate the JFK research community and other important causes.

After all, it was his 1991 JFK film that moved Congress to do the JFK records Act (which Biden voted for yet hasn’t abided by as President).

Stone is an artist first and historian second. Art that gets people to think and discuss difficult subjects is well-done. Art that leads to important legislation is even better than well-done…

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.

Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?

Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred

Usually Oswald defenders here don't like it when people make claims about him that make him look bad. They examine the claims under the proverbial microscope.

Here we have Stone making claims about Oswald and some alleged connection to a racist like Banister and all of a sudden their high standards of evidence against him disappear.

I know, I know, it's the internet <g>.

[Jerry Freeman]

Given that it is written in Russian that substantially narrows the list of possibilities in Dallas to Marina or DeM. 

Why? Also [because you believe yourself an expert on the matter] can you link a picture of that statement?
[Hunter of fascists]
Also again...can you state how you believe that statement came to be found?

[Jon Banks]

Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?

Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.

Both Stone and Fred have clearly biased opinions.

The facts that people choose emphasize or choose to omit is the biggest indicator of bias.

I don't mind people having biases so long as they're upfront about it.

[Bill Brown]

Here's one even old sour puss Oswald might enjoy:

Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Otto.
Otto who?
Otto know. I’ve got amnesia.

Knock-Knock.
Who's there?
Roger.
Roger who?
Roger Weidmann.

[Rick Plant]

I don't know how credible George DeMorenschildt is but his book on Oswald humanizes and shows his complexity more than most other books.

I'm still undecided on what role Oswald played in JFK's assassination (co-conspirator or patsy?) but I'm unconvinced that he was just a deranged madman.

I agree with you on that, but it really depends on who is writing the book. These authors never spent time with Oswald to actually know him. They get their information from what other people have said about him. Nobody in this forum knew Oswald personally, so for Richard Smith to make an absolute statement about Oswald regarding his personality when he never knew the man is absolutely false.