Breaking News: Oliver Stone Used Fake Oswald Handbills - Twice

[Jon Banks]

Stone doesn't question US government policies, he's hostile to them. Every single time. He uses the same thinking on American foreign policy that he does with the JFK assassination: that is, conclusion first - a conspiracy happened/the US is wrong - and then finds facts to support those views.

Questioning all governments is a good practice because all governments lie or deceive their own citizens. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Stone's 1991 JFK film led to the ARRB which was good thing. Government transparency is good. 

It's a judgment first, facts second world view. Is there a single US policy that he doesn't think was wrong? Just one? He thinks that if the US elected Henry Wallace as president in 1948 that the Cold War wouldn't have happened. Even though Wallace himself later admitted that his views about Stalin and Moscow were completely wrong, that he was duped by the Soviets (several of his campaign advisers were actual Soviet agents including one John Abt; yes, Oswald's Abt). Likewise, is there a single people piece of evidence that he thinks implicates Oswald? Just one? Answers, no and no.

Oliver Stone produced but didn't write the source material for "The Untold History of the United States". It was mostly written by historian and college professor, Peter Kuznick. So no, you can't simply dismiss the content of that series as if it was entirely based on Stone's knowledge of history. In reality, Stone isn't a historian. He typically works with real historians to help him produce his projects.

There's usually more than one side of the story for all historical events. Professor Kuznick, Howard Zinn, and others of their ideological persuasion tend to offer an alternative view of American and world history. It's just a different point of view. You can take or leave their spin on historical events like any other group of historians.

[John Iacoletti]

If it doesn't make a difference, then why did Oliver Stone use a fake handbill twice? And why are people
like James DiEugenio denying.

I’m not their spokesperson. And yes I did read it. What difference does it make?

[Michael Walton]

Here's the thing. Oswald was recorded handing out these leaflets. Some may have had the Camp address, some may not. The Camp address is very well-known for being where a bunch of right wingers hung out, including Banister and Ferrie.

If Oswald was handing out leaflets and they were stamped Main Street and that address was linked to Commie left wingers, then it would surely bolster his Red sympathies. But that's not the way it happened. It was Camp Street, where Banister and Ferrie were known to haunt. Ferrie knew Oswald too as seen in the photo.

So again - big deal about whatever Stone did. It's the bigger picture that matters, Fred. You're just here trying to get more views for your blog and whatever else you're trying to sell.

[Fred Litwin]

You are making things up. NONE - I repeat ZERO - of the Oswald handbills had 544 Camp Street stamped on them. Banister's office
was not at 544 Camp Street - he was at 531 Lafayette street, just around the corner. The two offices were NOT connected. Anybody
going to 544 Camp Street in the summer of 1963 would just find the offices of two unions.

fred

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald handed out materials with the Camp St address. Why is Fred deliberately trying to obfuscate this?

[Ted Shields]

The Camp address is very well-known for being where a bunch of right wingers hung out, including Banister and Ferrie.

And the Carlos Bringuier more importantly.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

At the time Oswald handed out the flyers the building at the 544 Camp Street Address was, according to its owner, largely unoccupied. There were no "right wingers" in the building during that time. The owner of the property, Sam Newman, was interviewed by the HSCA. He said this:



Banister's office was located in a different building around the corner on Lafayette Street. But it wasn't at the 544 Camp Street Address. And again, according to the owner of the building, no "right wing" or anti-Castro groups had offices at the 544 address when Oswald was handing out the flyers.

Fred shows this at the links he provided, links that apparently some people are unwilling to read.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

And the Carlos Bringuier more importantly.

I think - just a guess - that Oswald was being "provocative" by putting that address on some of the pamphlets (as you know, he tried to provoke Bringuier as well). The Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), a major anti-Castro group, once had offices in the building at the 544 Camp Street address. The CRC was a CIA supported group that coordinated anti-Castro activity from the US. But they had reportedly left shortly after the missile crisis was resolved in October of 1962. One of the group's leaders, Sergio Arcacha Smith, left New Orleans for Miami at that time and apparently he closed the office that was there. I'll guess that Oswald knew the CRC had offices there and thought by putting their address on the pro-Castro pamphlets he could cause some mischief. Then when he found out they had moved, he stopped (why put it on a handful of pamphlets - not the handbills - and then stop?). Again, lots of guessing and spit balling.

As the owner of the building testified, at the time Oswald was handing out the pro-Castro material there were no anti-Castro Cuban groups with offices there. It was largely an empty building. Banister's office was located around the corner at a different address. If you read the HSCA's investigation they go into some detail explaining all of this.