A very good article in Newsweek about Clay Shaw: "Shaw was forced to sell his house on Dauphine [Street] and move into smaller quarters. He was fortunate that his lawyers charged him little but he had to pay about $50,000 in investigative fees," Litwin said. "There was no discovery in Louisiana courts at the time, and so his lawyers had to hire detectives to run down every lead that appeared in the newspapers." "Garrison ruined his life, and Shaw died before his damages lawsuit could be heard. I think an apology is needed," Litwin added. Newsweek tried to contact Oliver Stone about an apology, but it does not appear that he called back. The road to conspiracy hell is paved with the bodies of innocent victims. Clay Shaw is one. Others include Ruth Paine who is, to this day, tarred with allegations she was associated with the CIA; Edgar Eugene Bradley, who was also accused of conspiring to kill JFK by Garrison; Carlos Bringuier, whose wife had a miscarriage because of her worry about his being arrested by Garrison; Dr. George Burkley, who was recklessly accused of being involved in a cover-up by Oliver Stone; Louis Bloomfield, a lawyer from Montreal accused by a communist-controlled newspaper of being involved in a scheme to funnel CIA funds to right-wing extremists in Italy. And there are more. I've just touched the surface.

Five years ago, I was a guest on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, now viewed over 210,000 times on YouTube. Steve had me on his show to discuss my book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak.

Charles Harrelson, He died in prison in 2007 at the age of 68. Just when I thought he couldn't get any wackier, RFK Jr. comes up with this: Here is an excerpt from a transcript: RFK Jr.: You know, Woody Harrelson's dad was involved the assassination, and he confessed multiple times. Vlad TV: Woody Harrelson's dad was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? RFK Jr.: He was not a shooter. What he said his role was, was bringing, when the shooting started from the grassy knoll. A big crowd of people saw the smoke coming up, and they ran up to look at it -- to see what was the source of it. And Secret Service men suddenly appeared on the hill and pushed them all down and said., "you can't come up here." The Secret Service later said they, there were no Secret Service people on that hill. Woody Harrelson, Charles Harrelson's function was to deliver the Secret Service badges to a group of people on the hill. What he says, and what a lot of people say, who were there that day, is that they knew, they did not know it was going to be an assassination. They knew there was going to be an incident, but they never imagined it would be a murder. And a lot of those people realized that they were part of this conspiracy in the death of the president. And they kind of scattered. A lot of them were subsequently murdered themselves, including the key members, Johnny Roselli, who the day that he was, he was, he was the liaison between the CIA and the Mafia, Three Mafia chiefs. The day that he was subpoenaed by the House Assassination Committee he disappeared, was found a week later chopped into small pieces in an oil drum at Biscayne Bay in Miami. And Sam Giancana, when he was subpoenaed to testify, the mob boss of the Chicago outfit, he was subpoenaed to testify for that committee, and he was murdered in his basement by an assassin. Oh, there was over 30 people who were killed, who were witnesses or potential witnesses. And then a lot of people have confessed. Woody's dad was a very, very charismatic guy and very close to -- Woody's talked about this. He actually confessed for the first time while he was in a police shoot-out. So, he was a professional hit man, he had worked for the CIA. He'd been recruited out of the military, worked for the CIA and then worked for the Carlos Marcello mob, and he died in maximum security prison for the murder of a federal judge. He was a very, very interesting character, and he confessed at one time, but then he told Woody the story, which is what he told me. And also, there's photographs of him at the site that day. Vlad TV: Wow. RFK Jr.: If you go on Google and say three tramps, JFK assassination, Dallas, his picture will come up. Vlad TV: Okay. Yep, I'm looking at it right now. Screen shot from this interview when RFK Jr. mentions the three tramps. Where do you even begin with this nonsense? Secret Service men told people on the grassy knoll not to come up? Over 30 witnesses, or potential witnesses, have been killed over the years. Where's Penn Jones when you need him? And as for Charles Harrelson, here is what Vincent Bugliosi writes in his book, Reclaiming History: (page 1471 in the Kindle edition) Charles Harrelson, the father of Hollywood actor Woody Harrelson, was at one time believed to be the youngest of the “three tramps” arrested in Dealey Plaza. For years, many conspiracy theorists believed the three tramps to be the president’s killers (see later text). Harrelson, whose late brother was an FBI agent, is not a nut or a publicity seeker but someone with a long criminal record and reputed mob connections. He was convicted of murdering U.S. district court judge John H. Wood Jr. for a drug kingpin for $250,000 outside the judge’s home in San Antonio on May 29, 1979. At the time of his arrest for the murder, Harrelson, high on cocaine, offered the authorities a deal. He was part of a team of assassins who murdered Kennedy, he said, and would be willing to implicate the other members of the conspiracy in return for his freedom. The feds rejected the deal. Harrelson has since admitted making the story up. “On November 22, 1963,” Harrelson said, “I was with a friend at twelve thirty in the afternoon having lunch in a restaurant in Houston, Texas. I did not kill JFK…I was not in my right mind when I confessed.” Harrelson is presently serving a life sentence for Judge Wood’s murder at a federal penitentiary in Texarkana, Texas. And we know the identities of the three tramps. Charles Harrelson was not one of the tramps. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr. Is RFK Jr. a 9/11 Truther? Of course, RFK Jr. is unclear as to what happened on 9/11. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. RFK Jr. Lauds Jim Garrison Of all the people to quote, RFK Jr chooses a charlatan. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier.

I will be part of an esteemed panel, sponsored by the Mob Museum, on the JFK assassination on November 16, 2023 from 6 to 8 PM. This is a free event, so please pass the word around. Marking the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, a panel of the nation’s foremost experts will explore key elements of this indelible story. Who was Lee Harvey Oswald, and why did he shoot the president? Who was Jack Ruby, and why did he shoot Oswald? Who was JD Tippit, and why did Oswald kill him? What are the Cuban connections to Oswald’s deadly act? And what about Jim Garrison, the New Orleans prosecutor who conjured a conspiracy theory all his own? This dialogue promises a fascinating and enlightening look back at one of the darkest moments in U.S. history. You can RSVP for this free event at this link.

Alfredda Scobey, a lawyer on the staff of the Warren Commission, wrote an important paper about the admissibility of evidence if Oswald had been tried. James DiEugenio misinterpreted her words in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed. I discussed this in my book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza: A central DiEugenio premise is that had Lee Harvey Oswald stood trial, he would have been acquitted. He believes that most of the incriminating evidence, because of anomalies in the chain of possession, would have been thrown out of court. The problem with this unfalsifiable theory is that DiEugenio wants to extend this to historical truth. The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald meant that there was not going to be a trial. The Warren Report noted that “under our system there is no provision for a posthumous trial.” In any trial, it is the defendant who guides the defense, both in strategy and tactics, and with no defendant, one cannot be sure how a trial would have proceeded. Even if Oswald had been tried, there still would have been a need for some sort of investigation. The purpose of a trial is just to determine if a defendant is guilty. That necessitates very restrictive rules of evidence, and thus only a narrow part of the whole story is uncovered. Questions about Jack Ruby, the murder of Officer Tippit, the attempted shooting of General Walker, and a variety of other important areas would still have had to be answered. Richard Mosk, who served as a staff member of the Warren Commission, noted that: The Commission did not utilize an adversary system. Although lawyers persist in extolling the virtues of the adversary system, I doubt whether truth would have emerged from a Commission that presided over a bitter proceeding in which evidence would have been constructed and dissected towards partisan ends, and reconstructed in distorted summations. Mosk felt that “such a method might have resulted in the chaos that sometimes accompanies Congressional Committee hearings.” There are several important differences between a trial and an investigation. The Warren Commission, for example, decided to take testimony from witnesses in private. It is important to note that these hearings weren’t secret; transcripts were published two months after the Warren Report. In a trial, witnesses would have to testify publicly in open court. Mosk noted that many “witnesses, who at first seemed to be hesitant and nervous, seemed to gain confidence in the quiet atmosphere of a private hearing.” The Warren Commission also allowed hearsay. They were interested “in any rumors which might provide leads to a conspiracy.” Testifying in public might have cast undue suspicion on innocent people. Alfredda Scobey, a lawyer on the staff of the Warren Commission, wrote that “the fact is inescapable that the report, although crammed with facts that would not be admissible on the trial of a criminal case, sets out the whole picture in a perspective a criminal trial could never achieve.” For instance, Marina Oswald would not have been allowed to testify at his trial. She would not have been able to confirm Oswald’s ownership of his blue and white jackets. She would not have been allowed to discuss Oswald’s admission of shooting at General Walker or his ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and she would not have been allowed to admit that she took the photographs of Oswald in their backyard. More important, she alone identified the rifle as the one which he owned, and testified that she had seen him practice with it, that it had been moved from New Orleans to Dallas in Ruth Paine's station wagon and that it had been stored in a green and brown blanket in the Paine garage. Scobey believes that other pieces of evidence also might not be admissible at trial. The search in Ruth Paine’s garage might have been unconstitutional because it’s possible that Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald did not give informed consent. She also wonders whether the Tippit murder itself could have been brought up at trial. James DiEugenio completely misunderstands what Scobey wrote: I have always felt that the saga of [Senator Richard] Russell was an underrated and ignored story. I mean, his assistant, Scobey—who he brought up from Atlanta—later wrote an article which said that Oswald would not have been convicted in a real court of law. Scobey did not say that at all. She wrote: If we assume that our defense counsel was very, very lucky, he would be able, if Oswald stood trial, either to exclude or impeach the testimony of a large number of key persons whose accounts add so much to the strength of the report. This is not to say that what would be left, granting the unlikely event of success in all these endeavors, would leave room for a reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt, but the surprising fact is that the conviction in such an event would depend to an amazing degree on documentary evidence and its interpretation by experts. To her, an important part of determining truth was the “documentary evidence and its interpretation by experts.” She writes that “the Warren Report, conceived as a criminal investigation carried to its utmost limits, illustrates the importance of utilizing the laboratory and the expert as sources of the most cogent evidence in criminal proceedings.” And so, DiEugenio is right that a lot of evidence against Oswald might not have been admissible in a court of law. But his perspective is diametrically opposed to that of Scobey. He doesn’t care if Marina Oswald could testify or not, he has no interest in whether the Tippit murder or the attempt on Walker’s life could be brought up at trial, and he really doesn’t care if the search of Ruth Paine’s garage was constitutional. DiEugenio believes that supposed anomalies in the chain of possession of much of the underlying evidence (Oswald’s rifle, the bullet found at Parkland Hospital, etc.) renders them not just inadmissible in a court of law but also renders them inadmissible in an investigation. He has no interest in getting Oswald off on a technicality; he wants the judgment of history to use courtroom standards to declare Oswald innocent of killing JFK. I wanted to include this segment from my book, because I have found a copy of a speech that Alfredda Scobey gave on television in 1967 in which she discussed how the memo was misinterpreted by Mark Lane: Let me begin with a personal reference. I wrote a bar journal article the thesis of which was that the evidence before the Warren Commission was like the brief of evidence on the trial of the case, but that, had Oswald been on trial, much of this testimony (for example, that of his wife) could have been excluded by defense counsel, but that nevertheless Oswald could not have been acquitted because his guilt was overwhelmingly proved by physical, documentary and circumstantial evidence. After stating what a defense counsel might delete, I wrote -- here is the language -- "This is NOT to say that what would be left would leave room for a reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt. Mr. Lane knows as a lawyer knows that if there is no room for a reasonable doubt, the defendant in a criminal case must be convicted. If the jury believes there is a reasonable doubt he must be acquitted. I emphasized I was NOT saying there was room for reasonable doubt. Mr. Lane, on page 59 of the current issue of Playboy writes about this: "Le me add that there is no doubt in my mind that HAD OWALD LIVED TO FACE TRIAL HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. A Commission attorney, Alfredda Scobey, CONCEDED THAT in the January, 1965 issue of the American Bar Association Journal. I said the admissible evidence on a trial would not leave room for a reasonable doubt of guilt. Mr. Lane quotes me as saying I concede his acquittal. Does Mr. Lane find his position so precarious that it's necessary for him to do this to gain the appearance of support in his public interviews? One of the major mistakes of the Warren Commission was to not have a panel of forensic pathologists examine JFK's autopsy photographs and x-rays. Had they commissioned a professional report, there would have been much less speculation about the nature of JFK"s wounds, and the direction of the gunshots. Here is a short description of the TV show on which she appeared: Press-Telegram, February 11, 1967 Here is a facsimile of Scobey's article from 1965: Update Here is an excerpt of a transcript of her television appearance with Mark Lane on February 12, 1967: So, Lane is claiming that he was misquoted in Playboy. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, the Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

I was interviewed this week,

Just click on the link. I was on New Talk I540 from Iowa earlier this week.

I was on Frank Morano's show earlier this week.

Here is another profile of Mark Lane, this time in the left-wing magazine, Mother Jones: Money Quote: Lane was not one to be fastidious with data. The glaring errors and extravagances in some of his statements cast unfortunate doubt on the rest of them. He tantalized the Warren Commission with a story about a meeting a week before the assassination between Ruby, the slain police officer J. D. Tippit (killed shortly after Kennedy) and the man who printed up "Wanted for Treason" posters with JFK's picture on them [sic: it was an ad in the Dallas Morning News]. But the affidavits were never forthcoming. In a press conference to call for a new investigation, Lane disclosed that Robert Kennedy had revealed his sympathy for such efforts in a letter to British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, a supporter of Lane's. Kennedy, Lane said, urged the historian to "keep up the good work." Trevor-Roper vigorously denied the existence of the letter and ultimately denounced Lane. "Lane has never seen a lily without wanting to gild it," complains rival conspiracy researcher Harold Weisberg. "I only wish he were content to steal from others, but he has this urge to invent his own stuff." Update Letters to the editor about this article: Previous Relevant Blog Posts The Case Against Mark Lane A profile from Esquire Magazine. The Mark of Zorro An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship! Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek. Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy" For $25,000 Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document.

The Saturday Evening Post of May 6, 1967 ran a front-page story by James Phelan on the Garrison investigation. Here is a copy of that article: Money Quote: Nine days before Clay Shaw's preliminary hearing on March 14, I met Garrison at the Las Vegas airport. My note had finally worked its way through the stack in his office, and he had called me to apologize. "I've got to get away for some rest," he said. "I'll meet you in Vegas where we can relax and get some sun. I'll tell you the whole incredible story." He came off the plane slump-shouldered and exhausted." I've been going for months on three or four hours' sleep a night, working on this thing seven days a week," he explained. In the next two days we talked for about 10 hours. He told his story in bits and pieces, interrupted with long discursions on the shortcomings of the Warren Report. "What they did on the Warren Commission was send a hundred squirrels out to pick up leaves, acorns and sticks. Each squirrel brought something in and dumped it in a box. Then the head squirrels looked at this collection of junk and tried to reconstruct the terrain where it had been picked up. What it took to solve this puzzle was imagination and evaluation. It was like a chess game-and I once played an expert eight hours to a draw." His interest in the Kennedy assassination, Garrison said, had originated the previous fall when he flew from New Orleans to New York with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana. "Up to that time I had assumed that the FBI had done a competent job," he said, "but I found that Long had some doubts about the solution to the Kennedy killing. He is a knowledgeable Washington figure, so I began to have some second thoughts." On his return to New Orleans, Garrison said, he read a number of "excellent articles and books" criticizing the Warren Report and "realized that something was wrong." He quietly opened his own investigation. "You know how you can pluck at a thread and wind up unraveling a whole coat?" Garrison said. "The thread that unraveled this whole case was the trip that Ferrie made to Houston the day after Kennedy was killed. While everybody in the country was glued to their television sets, Ferrie takes off with two guys and drives through a thunderstorm to Houston. He told the FBI that he had this sudden desire to go skating, and he knew there was a skating rink in Houston. The FBI checked him out and found that he showed up at the skating rink, all right, and they dropped him. But you know what? They never even asked if Ferrie put on his skates! We checked and found that he just stood alongside a wall there that afternoon and told everybody who would listen, 'I'm Dave Ferrie.' We checked the rink and found that there was a phone on that wall. So it seemed plain that this was the message center." At the end of the 10 hours, Garrison had never explained what the "message center" was for, who called Ferrie there or whom Ferrie called. Boiled down, his version of the Kennedy assassination made it out to be the result of a homosexual conspiracy masterminded by Dave Ferrie. "You can understand his motivation," Garrison said. "Kennedy was a virile, handsome, successful man-everything Ferrie was not. In addition, there was the thrill of staging the perfect crime. Remember the Loeb and Leopold case in Chicago? It was the same thing with Kennedy." By the wildly convoluted script that Garrison had pieced together, Ferrie had trained some "Cuban wildcats" to go in and assassinate Castro, but then had "spun them off" and directed them against Kennedy. He claimed that Oswald and Ruby were both homosexuals and were both involved in the plot. He implied that Ruby -- "his homosexual nickname was Pinkie" -- executed Oswald to prevent him from telling all. He claimed that there were at least two other gunmen, firing from the famed "grassy knoll" at Dealey Plaza. He implied-without flatly stating-that he knew who they were. He gave me two Cuban names. Several weeks later I learned that he was planning to interrogate one of them as a cooperative witness, and apparently had recast him from a bad guy to a good guy. Here is a text version of the article. Previous Relevant Blog Posts about Homosexuality Jefferson Morley Doesn't Understand Jim Garrison's Homophobic Prosecution of Clay Shaw Morley ignores Garrison's homophobia. Guilt by Orientation Jamie Kirchick has just published an important article on Oliver Stone, his so-called documentary JFK Revisited, and "his three-decade slander of an innocent man—one who, not coincidentally, happened to be gay." Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even the Boston Phoenix realized that JFK was homophobic. Jim Garrison's Homosexual Shakedown Operation The FBI was warned in 1967 that Garrison might be running a shakedown operation of homosexuals in New Orleans. James Phelan and Mark Lane Discuss Garrison's Homosexual Conspiracy A partial transcript of a conversation between Mark Lane and James Phelan. Garrison Mentions a Homosexual Plot to Yet Another Journalist Garrison talked about a homosexual plot to kill JFK with Max Lerner. A Rave Review of Alecia Long's "Cruising for Conspirators" Alecia Long's book, Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime, is required reading. Jim Garrison Feigns Indignation at the Mention of Clay Shaw's Homosexuality Garrison gets upset for all the wrong reasons. Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? Confidential Magazine in 1968 ran a series, written by a part-time Garrison staffer, about a homosexual conspiracy. Jim Garrison's Pressure on the Gay Community of New Orleans The gay community felt a lot of pressure from Garrison. The QUICK Magazine Series Was The QUICK Article About a Homosexual Conspiracy Written By Jim Garrison? (Part One) An article, supposedly written by Jim Garrison, appeared in the German press, which theorized that a homosexual conspiracy was behind the JFK assassination. Was The QUICK Article About a Homosexual Conspiracy Written by Jim Garrison? (Part Two) Did Jim Garrison write the QUICK article? Was the QUICK Article about a Homosexual Conspiracy Written by Jim Garrison? (Part Three) Further clues about the QUICK article. Jim Garrison Does it Again - Claims Oswald and Ruby were Homosexuals... In another article, Garrison claims that Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals. Did Lawrence Schiller Write the QUICK Article? Some evidence points to Schiller. Did Nerin Gun Write the QUICK Article? Some evidence points to Gun. Final Thoughts on the QUICK Article An overview of the evidence that Garrison believed a homosexual plot killed JFK. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on James Phelan James Phelan's Challenge to Jim Garrison Phelan wrote two letters to Jim Garrison with a challenge. The Contradictions of Perry Russo's Story A memo written by James Phelan on the contradictions in Russo's stories. Two Letters to Jim Garrison about "A Heritage of Stone" James Phelan and Sylvia Meagher write Garrison about his book. James Phelan Writes to Richard Popkin James Phelan and Sylvia Meagher write letters in reply to Richard Popkin.

Another clip from Chris Wallace's interview with Oliver Stone. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: WALLACE: And then there was the movie JFK, which I think it’s fair to — STONE: Okay, here we go again. WALLACE: Well, I think it’s fair to say that that’s what launched your reputation as a conspiracy theorist. STONE: I’m not a conspiracy theorist! WALLACE: So you say you’re not a conspiracy theorist. As we sit here six decades later, who killed John F. Kennedy? STONE: I can’t tell you for sure. But everything seems to point to a government operation. Not the whole government, but the CIA has to be involved. The, the operation itself seems to involve Cuban exiles, we’re working with them, as well as mostly about the community if you remember the Bay of Pigs invasion, and then the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a big beef from Cuba against from these Cubans, right wing American Cubans in America against Kennedy because he wasn’t strong enough and hadn’t gone into Cuba when he was supposed to in 1962. So there was a lot of motivation there. Motivation is very important here. WALLACE: How it that this conspiracy, involving the CIA, involving anti-Castro Cubans, that it has held, that it has remained a secret for 60 years? STONE: Chris, so many people have talked. Some people in the operation … People have said things constantly but the media keeps burying it. It comes out and it’s a headline of sensationalism. I killed Kennedy blah, blah, blah. It gets confusing. So many people have talked? Who exactly? Judyth Vary Baker? RFK Jr. has also claimed that people have confessed to the assassination. In this interview, he claims to have talked to some of the hitmen. Or here, here, or here where he named the mastermind of the JFK assassination. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History A good opinion piece from the Boston Globe. Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone Two letter from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK" A good review of Stone's JFK. Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK. Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK" An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker Wicker reviews JFK for the New York Times and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic" Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison... Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK, Homophobic? The Advocate writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone! This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film JFK from Esquire magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK. George Lardner's internal Washington Post Memo about Oliver Stone Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone. Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films. There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques. The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.

Headline from The Guardian. RFK Jr. recently was on a podcast with Peter Bergen, a CNN reporter who is also an expert on terrorism and Al-Qaeda. Here is an excerpt from the transcript: (page 13) Peter Bergen: The official explanation of 9/11—do you, you buy? RFK Jr.: Which is what? Peter Bergen: Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. RFK Jr.: I don’t know what happened on 9/11. I mean, I understand what the official explanation is. I understand that there is dissent. I have not looked into it. I haven’t examined it. I’m not a good person to talk to about it. Peter Bergen: Well, I mean, so there’s doubt in your mind that al-Qaeda was responsible? RFK Jr.: Well, I know, I don’t know, you know. I know there’s strange things that happened that don’t seem— Peter Bergen: What are the strange things? RFK Jr.: Well, one of the buildings came down that wasn’t hit by a plane. So, you know, was it Building 7 or Building 10? Peter Bergen: That collapsed because two of the world’s biggest buildings collapsed on top of it. RFK Jr.: No, they didn’t collapse on top of it. My offices were down there. My offices were closed— Peter Bergen: So one of the buildings, next to the Trade Center— RFK Jr.: There’s pictures of it collapsing. There’s nothing collapsing on top of it. I mean, listen, I don’t want to argue any theories about this because all I’ve heard is questions. I have no explanation. I have no knowledge of it. But what you’re repeating now, I know not to be true. Bergen then adds this paragraph to the transcript: To clarify — yes, I could have been more precise here – the government’s official report found that Building 7 was hit with debris from the North Tower. That impact caused fires, which led to the building collapse. It’s very well documented and there’s nothing “strange” about it. The conversation continues: RFK Jr.:: It's not something that I, you know, any part of I endorse one way or the other, but I do think that it ought to be permissible in this country to question official narratives. Peter Bergen: I couldn't agree with you more… I’ve spent three decades reporting on al-Qaeda, interviewed bin Laden and, you know, spent a lot of my life, uh, going around the world reporting on this. RFK Jr.: I know you have, I admire you greatly for that. Peter Bergen: But just on the 9/11 investigation, you know, this was the largest criminal investigation in history. There are 500,000 leads, 170,000 witness interviews. You're not accepting that that kind of was a… RFK Jr.: I, I don't tell me what I'm accepting or not, Peter Bergen: Yeah, RFK Jr.: because I never said I don't accept that. Peter Bergen: Okay, but what are you saying? Because you are saying that you still RFK Jr.: I’m saying I have no expertise in it. Peter Bergen: You have, okay. But you still have, still have questions about it? RFK Jr.: Well, I'm not, you know, I haven't read the data myself. And unfortunately for me, Peter, because it's made my life kind of difficult, is I don't always accept official explanations. You would think that RFK Jr. would familiarize himself with the 9/11 Commission and its conclusions. After all, he is running for President. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr.: RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. RFK Jr. Lauds Jim Garrison Of all the people to quote, RFK Jr chooses a charlatan. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier.