Oliver's Stone's Poverty of Imagination

[Steve M. Galbraith]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-s-poverty-of-imagination

I watched his so-called documentary on the weekend. Yup, great cinematography, and great editing. But the content was just a bunch of soundbites with no coherent view of the evidence. And while the film bemoans that Lee Harvey Oswald did not receive a trial, it also presents a lot of hearsay evidence that would also have been excluded. Here is my initial take on the film.

Fred Litwin

Stone, DiEugenio et al have too vivid of an imagination and not a absence of one. This is Garrisonite conspiracism.

They're like the "cargo cultists" who think the only reason "X" occurs is because powerful forces - a God or Gods - make "X" happen. The only way the most powerful man in the world could be brought down is by great forces and not a nothing like Oswald. So they build these stories, perform these rituals of CIA misbehavior to explain why "X" occurred. Mock meetings between Shaw and Ferrie. And Veciana and Phillips. And this or that person and another one. All of this brings "X" to life. Great events must have a great cause behind it.

As to a trial: This is a dodge, an attempt to move the discussion away from what happened in the court of history to a court of law. Nobody would argue that Nixon was innocent of obstruction because he couldn't get a fair trial or that the evidence was tainted by Congressional hearings. Or substitute any other historic event for the assassination. We never discuss event "X" this way. Not unless we're in a law class.

It's also revealing that they use a legalistic standard to examine Oswald's guilt - no chain of custody here therefore we throw this out, other legal problems there therefore we throw that out  - but then use all sorts of hearsay and rumors, i.e, the Garrison approach, to indicts others in the assassination. One standard to judge Oswald; one very low one to judge everyone else. That's not fooling anyone, I hope?

Stone made a HBO movie a few years ago where he argued that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that we wouldn't have had a Cold War. That that engagement was due to the hawkish policies of Truman. Nothing about Stalin, nothing about the occupation of Europe, nothing about the betrayal of Yalta. It's a cargo cult view of the world where "X", the Cold War, was caused by great forces in the US. We're discussing misleading news, fake news, reckless conspiracy claims: well nobody does it better - and he is good at it - than Stone.

[Robert Reeves]

Even had there been a LHO trial, the very best that could have resulted from a CTer perspective is that Oswald was found not guilty.  Such a verdict, however, would not preclude his being guilty or somehow prove a conspiracy.  It would simply mean that a jury found reasonable doubt.  Much more likely, however, is that a 1964 Dallas jury would have convicted Oswald in about two seconds based on the overwhelming evidence against him.  To save his own skin, Oswald might even have plead guilty in return for filling in the historical record relating to the events of the assassination similar to James Earl Ray.  After a few years in prison, Oswald would then have cultivated the CTer crowd by hinting at the involvement of others to garner attention and sympathy for himself.  So no clarity would have ever come from Oswald himself or a trial. 

It's ultimately the evidence that controls these determinations.  In the case of the Lincoln assassination, there is clear and overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy.  In the JFK assassination, there is no such evidence.  Absent something new coming to light, which seems unlikely after nearly six decades, the only reasonable conclusion is that LHO assassinated JFK and there was no conspiracy in the commission of this crime.

This reeks, literally is wafting across the fields on a warm summers day and everyone within 10 miles can smell it's very definitely bullshiit,

I think you should wonder much harder, like really really study, about how you got to be so trusting of governments. This might go some way to ultimately deciphering why your creative imagination has such a lofty controlling influence upon your views of Oswald.

[Jon Banks]

Stone made a HBO movie a few years ago where he argued that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that we wouldn't have had a Cold War. That that engagement was due to the hawkish policies of Truman. Nothing about Stalin, nothing about the occupation of Europe, nothing about the betrayal of Yalta. It's a cargo cult view of the world where "X", the Cold War, was caused by great forces in the US. We're discussing misleading news, fake news, reckless conspiracy claims: well nobody does it better - and he is good at it - than Stone.

Stone is a great Director but not a scholar of history. The series you're referring to, "the Untold History of the United States" was written by history professor, Peter Kuznick (American University).

https://edspace.american.edu/nsi/peter-kuznick/

Kudos to Stone for letting academics and people with expertise in history and medicine do most of the talking in his latest documentary.

At this point, people know what to expect when they watch any Oliver Stone movie. He wears his political views on his sleeve and often puts political messages in his films. Lots of film makers insert subtle political messages in their films but Stone has always seemed to treat his films as a form of political activism.

The Kennedy assassination broadly is a rorschach test for how individuals view the government and political power. So we all bring our personal and political biases with us to these discussions of the Kennedy assassination and history. I assume that those who are more distrustful of the government and have alternative views of history are more likely to suspect that there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder.

I'm probably to the Left of most people here and my views on politics and history align more closely with Stone's.

[Richard Smith]

I watched about an hour of this nonsense.  Even within that hour I lost count of how many people who were involved in the conspiracy according to Stone.  At least a hundred.  Some are random people somehow coerced into the cover up.  Others are high ranking government officials.  It's laughable and stale recycled CTer nonsense.  Just repeating many of the same debunked theories over and over.

[Patrick Jackson]

Good documentary LNers wont like at all.
What was the most fascinating to me is the quality of films and photos shown. Too bad we do not have access to high quality films and photos.

[Jerry Freeman]

And yet many of the talking heads in the film provide anecdotes that are hearsay ...
    Gerald Ford supposedly told Valéry Giscard d'Estaing that there was a conspiracy.

    Secret Service agent Elmer Moore told Jim Gochenaur that he pressured Dr. Malcolm Perry to say that Kennedy's throat wound was an entrance wound. Moore also told Gochenaur that the Secret Service was behind the prosecution of Abraham Bolden.

    Dr. Donald Miller said that Dr. Perry told him that Kennedy's throat wound was one of entrance.

    Dr. George Burkley admitted to two researchers that there was more than one gunman firing at Kennedy.

    Robert Knudsen supposedly told his wife and son that an autopsy photograph had been altered.

It's hearsay if it disagrees with the official yarn...
But if it supports the Commission creed then it's "admissible verity"...sweet.