Breaking News: Oliver Stone Used Fake Oswald Handbills - Twice

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I'm not saying that I agree with any of his opinions (or even care what they are) just that in these days it is refreshing for someone to still question the government.  In the old days, leftists were advocates for free speech and protested wars.  They no longer do that.  In fact, they are among the most ardent supporters of censorship and endless war.

Here is Seymour Hersh on his relationship with Stone. "In Reporter [Hersh's autobiography], he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off."

In Stone's world, Hersh couldn't be just wrong, or used, or ignorant, or misled. No, the only answer is that he must be a CIA agent. It is interesting that how one views JFK - Stone sees him as some sort of Henry Wallace type who would have ended the Cold War; Hersh see him as a liberal Cold War hawk - influences so much of what one thinks happened. In an odd way that makes sense. If you believe in this large conspiracy involving so many people then it must have been because JFK was such a threat to them. If, on the other hand, you see JFK as a supporter of the Cold War, as a pragmatic anti-communist, then the idea is, as Hersh said, preposterous.

It really does come down in many ways to the question of not "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but "Who was JFK?"

Added: Here's Hersh's account from his book. He was working with Stone on Stone's script for his movie on Noriega/Panama. Hersh is scathing about the Kennedys and the covert war on Cuba and the assassination attempts. He says that Church simply covered up for JFK's knowledge about the plots. The idea that they were sincerely trying to find some sort of rapprochement with Castro is, in my view, nonsense. They had concluded, correctly I think, that there was no middle ground/agreement to be found with him. Their efforts were a ruse.

[Richard Smith]

Here is Seymour Hersh on his relationship with Stone. "In Reporter [Hersh's autobiography], he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off."

In Stone's world, Hersh couldn't be just wrong, or used, or ignorant, or misled. No, the only answer is that he must be a CIA agent. It is interesting that how one views JFK - Stone sees him as some sort of Henry Wallace type who would have ended the Cold War; Hersh see him as a liberal Cold War hawk - influences so much of what one thinks happened. In an odd way that makes sense. If you believe in this large conspiracy involving so many people then it must have been because JFK was such a threat to them. If, on the other hand, you see JFK as a supporter of the Cold War, as a pragmatic anti-communist, then the idea is, as Hersh said, preposterous.

It really does come down in many ways to the question of not "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but "Who was JFK?"

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.  Maybe it makes them feel better.  At least someone is pulling the strings even if they are bad guys instead of completely random nuts who can kill even the most powerful person in the world.  That kind of arbitrary world can be unsettling.  Maybe it complies with some psychological or ideological need to believe there was a conspiracy behind JFK's death that conforms or promotes their world view.  Maybe it is just fun to play the contrarian to accepted conclusions.  The flat Earthers.  A way to gain attention by taking an opposing side from the status quo.  Ironically, not unlike Oswald himself.  I think Stone legitimately believes his own nonsense, though.  He is not just trying to make a buck or garner attention like Mark Lane.  There are people in black helicopters behind all these events in his world.  He is likely a control freak who can't allow for random factors to be the explanation of important events.  It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.  Maybe it makes them feel better.  At least someone is pulling the strings even if they are bad guys instead of completely random nuts who can kill even the most powerful person in the world.  That kind of arbitrary world can be unsettling.  Maybe it complies with some psychological or ideological need to believe there was a conspiracy behind JFK's death that conforms or promotes their world view.  Maybe it is just fun to play the contrarian to accepted conclusions.  The flat Earthers.  A way to gain attention by taking an opposing side from the status quo.  Ironically, not unlike Oswald himself.  I think Stone legitimately believes his own nonsense, though.  He is not just trying to make a buck or garner attention like Mark Lane.  There are people in black helicopters behind all these events in his world.  He is likely a control freak who can't allow for random factors to be the explanation of important events.  It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.

And some people are in desperate need of there not being a conspiracy.

One thing is for sure, both sides have in common that neither looks at the evidence honestly.


It is impossible for these types to view the evidence in a neutral way.  The evidence and circumstances in this case, however, are straightforward and point directly to Oswald beyond any doubt.

Says the guy who can not produce that so-called "conclusive" evidence nor can he present an argument about the evidence without misrepresentations and outright lying. 

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps it fulfills some deep psychological need for “Richard” to arrogantly feign certainty without any substantiation, or even any understanding of the evidence, while hiding behind an alias.

[Jon Banks]

Here is Seymour Hersh on his relationship with Stone. "In Reporter [Hersh's autobiography], he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off."

In Stone's world, Hersh couldn't be just wrong, or used, or ignorant, or misled. No, the only answer is that he must be a CIA agent. It is interesting that how one views JFK - Stone sees him as some sort of Henry Wallace type who would have ended the Cold War; Hersh see him as a liberal Cold War hawk - influences so much of what one thinks happened. In an odd way that makes sense. If you believe in this large conspiracy involving so many people then it must have been because JFK was such a threat to them. If, on the other hand, you see JFK as a supporter of the Cold War, as a pragmatic anti-communist, then the idea is, as Hersh said, preposterous.

It really does come down in many ways to the question of not "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but "Who was JFK?"

Added: Here's Hersh's account from his book. He was working with Stone on Stone's script for his movie on Noriega/Panama. Hersh is scathing about the Kennedys and the covert war on Cuba and the assassination attempts. He says that Church simply covered up for JFK's knowledge about the plots. The idea that they were sincerely trying to find some sort of rapprochement with Castro is, in my view, nonsense. They had concluded, correctly I think, that there was no middle ground/agreement to be found with him. Their efforts were a ruse.

Unlike Oliver Stone, Sy Hersh is not a fan of JFK. He wrote some pretty gossipy stuff about Kennedy.

However, Hersh has been as critical of the US national security state as Oliver Stone (if not more) and most recently accused the Biden administration and CIA of blowing up Germany's Nord Stream pipelines.

 

[Jon Banks]

Some people simply need there to be a conspiracy.  Maybe it makes them feel better.

In some cases, that may be true. The world is complicated and in some ways, conspiracy theories help us make sense of complicated events that are difficult to explain.

However, JFK assassination conspiracy theories persist due to the evidence and the lack of transparency from the US government. I mean, if Oswald was just a "nobody" and the case is so "straightforward", why is there so much secrecy around the JFK files almost 60 years later? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that question.

[Ted Shields]

In some cases, that may be true. The world is complicated and in some ways, conspiracy theories help us make sense of complicated events that are difficult to explain.

However, JFK assassination conspiracy theories persist due to the evidence and the lack of transparency from the US government. I mean, if Oswald was just a "nobody" and the case is so "straightforward", why is there so much secrecy around the JFK files almost 60 years later? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that question.

Because the CIA were up to some really dodgy sh1t back then and some of the people are still alive and/or have families.