A very good article in Le Soleil with a Ukrainian viewpoint. À propos d’Oliver Stone à Québec... POLINA KHRYSTIUK ET EVHENIA VIATCHANINOVA Au nom de la campagne « Sauver l’Ukraine » (About Oliver Stone in Quebec) On behalf of the "Save Ukraine" campaign (English Translation) VIEWPOINT / The tour of Oliver Stone in Quebec City as part of the Festival du cinéma de la Ville de Québec (FCVQ), a close friend of Vladimir Putin and one of the too many transmission belts of the Kremlin's discourse and Russian propaganda, makes us react. As soon as we read the first press release last April, announcing Mr. Stone's visit to Quebec City, we were struck by the lack of sensitivity of the organizers and sponsors of the FCVQ. Mariupol has suffered a horrific siege; looting, accounts of gang rape and images of innocent civilians and children being killed by brutal Russian invaders in Butcha and Borodianka near Kyiv have made the headlines. Politicians no longer hesitate to "call a spade a spade", i.e. to raise the possibility of genocide. We hoped that the FCVQ or its sponsors would insist that this visit be at least postponed, however it was clear that the Festival wanted to increase its visibility a little too much thanks to this star, following two years without activities due to COVID-19. This visit was reported by the media as being too expensive (especially for taxpayers), and was devoted to a film on the fate of the 35th American president (which hardly justifies its "documentary" style, if we are serious). Yet, the media all did seize the opportunity to address the controversy surrounding Mr. Stone's admiration of Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, the local media, including our public broadcaster, have been less than rigorous in their research, having taken word for word what came out of the mouth of a conspiracy theorist in an interview, arranged by the public relations experts. And now, according to the media, Mr. Stone is even emerging as a great diplomat and promoter of peace in Ukraine! Many media outlets concluded this week that Mr. Stone condemned the invasion as a mistake, without mentioning his several comments justifying Russian aggression since 2014 and his support for Russia in the weeks leading up to the invasion arguing that there was no evidence of such intent with the Russians. We can't help but note that Mr. Stone continued to praise Russia after his first public "soul-searching" message, while spreading lies about the "fake corpses of Butcha" and other nonsense, which only serve to poison people's hearts and minds. What else could one really expect from a man whose son until the day of the invasion hosted a show on an international TV channel owned by the Kremlin and who believes in the conspiracy theories of QAnon? What else could we really expect from a man who asked the Russian president in 2019 to become his daughter's godfather, according to the official transcript of the interview posted online by the Kremlin? Let's be clear: This visit and the public platform that the FCVQ gave Stone presented national security risks. The notoriety surrounding his presence in Quebec for several days risks the strong propagation of the lies he shared through his documentary on Ukraine, his interviews with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, as well as his numerous messages on social media. It doesn't take a social media analyst to see immediately how this high-profile visit has emboldened local influencers and useful idiots (many of whom are anti-vaccine activists, by the way) to continue their pro-Russian propaganda activities. In announcing the visit, Director General Genois said that Mr. Stone's meeting with the Quebec public will provide "a world of opportunity for questions and conversations. No, Mr. Genois, the world is already filled with enough people who lend themselves to Kremlin disinformation and the propagation of alternative facts harmful to democracy and serving the cause of authoritarian governments. It seems that every era has its own Leni Riefenstahl. Today, it is Oliver Stone, and you, Mr. Genois, the FCVQ with its sponsors, have chosen to host him without taking into account political and especially human sensibilities. #### Here is how everybody can help the people of Ukraine. And a reminder: JFK Supported Ukrainian Independence Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory! Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

Dr. David Mantik has sent a response to researcher Paul Hoch in which he admits that Steve Roe was right -- that Elmer Todd's initials are indeed on CE 399. Here is a link to Steve Roe's ground-breaking article on CE 399. He was the first researcher to find proof that Elmer Todd did initial the bullet. And here the post I wrote on Steve Roe's bombshell discovery. Here is Dr. David Mantik's response in full: CE-399: A Response to Steve Roe by David W. Mantik June 13, 2022 Here is the Roe article in question: 11 June 2022 A Single Photograph Disproves Oliver Stone’s Conspiracy Claim The Unfounded Attack on CE 399’s Chain of Custody By Steve Roe Washington Decoded: A Single Photograph Disproves Oliver Stone’s Conspiracy Claim First, kudos to Mr. Roe for introducing new evidence into the JFK case—he has located NIST images at NARA (from 2015-2016) that show the initials of Elmer Lee Todd on CE-399: High Resolution Digital Images and Three Dimensional Topography Data of Bullet Artifacts Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (archives.gov) In June 1995, another Steve (an astronomer, who regularly views faint stars in photographic films) and I did not see Todd’s initials on CE-399. We did not exult at our apparent discovery—nor we did not report this to any third parties; furthermore, my still-available notebook contains no exclamation points. Consistent with our sober efforts, we also confirmed that the lands and grooves matched the claims of the Warren Commission—although previously published images had suggested otherwise. I suspect that if we returned to NARA today, we might well not immediately spot Todd’s initials. After all, without bright lighting (which we did not use) or without glancing at them via multiple angles (which we surely did), they are indeed rather faint and difficult to see, especially compared to the other 3 sets of initials. Although a loupe might have been useful that day, I do not recall that we used one. After all, my own extreme myopia in 1995 made a loupe almost redundant. That this is a challenging task has been confirmed by John Hunt’s similar conclusions (Figure 1). [Unfortunately, the pertinent website seems inactive at present, although I have accessed it within the past year.] Figure 1. Images from John Hunt at http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html The reader can try his or her own eyes by viewing Figure 2A, which contains an online image (of 8 total images) from photos.html (maryferrell.org). Note that various magnifications and perspective are illustrated at that website (accessed June 15, 2022). For more options, see Figures 2B and 2C. The NIST images are at Figures 3 and 4 below (the latter is a magnified view). For comparison, the NIST images for Robert Frazier’s initials are at Figures 5 and 6 (the latter is a magnified view). Figure 2A: Photo Set: NARA Evidence Photos: "Magic bullet" Figure 2B. Bullet Found on Stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital (archives.gov) Figure 2C. CE 399: Bullet found on stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex. (see 17 WH 49, introduced at 2 WH 374) Figure 3. NIST image of Todd’s initials (ET) Figure 4. NIST image (magnified) of Todd’s initials Figure 5. NIST image of Robert Frazier’s initials Figure 6. NIST image (magnified) of Robert Frazier’s initials So, has CE-399 now suddenly become legitimate? Well, that seems unlikely, but the reader can judge for him/herself by reviewing the following essays. Was the CE 399 Magic Bullet Planted? : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk) The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical than We Knew (history-matters.com) The Impossible One Day Journey of CE 399 (kennedysandking.com) Then there is the matter of a different bullet described by one of the 1963 White House physicians, Captain James Morningstar Young, MD. This bullet was not reported at all by the Warren Commission—nor was it discussed by Steve Roe. It is, however, discussed in more detail in my forthcoming hardcover book, JFK Assassination Paradoxes. We now know that at least five individuals may all have described the same bullet: Young, Mills, Martinelli, Osborne, and Stover. Even the autopsy radiology technician, Jerrol Custer, may have seen it. In conclusion, my apologies to JFK researchers for not seeing those ET initials in 1995—and I would congratulate Steve Roe for following da Vinci’s advice: If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings [my emphasis]. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman also agrees with da Vinci: Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. In that case, perhaps Steve Roe will next pay attention to my optical density data [“my own findings”], taken directly from the extant JFK X-rays. ##### Dr. Mantik put in a bad link to the original John Hunt article. The original John Hunt article is here. I find it interesting that Dr. Mantik did not use any magnifying equipment when he was examining CE 399 at the National Archives. But it is heartening to have somebody who appeared in JFK: Destiny Betrayed admit that he was in error and to admit it graciously. Other responses to Steve Roe's article have been as anticipated. Matt Douthit claimed that he couldn't see Todd's initials: And Vince Palamara took a very different line: Not only are the initials there, but the E and the T "look mighty big." Perhaps added later? This was indeed predicted by Steve Roe in his article: What next? A claim that the initials “ET” were added recently to CE 399, after Hunt, Mantik and Stone noted their absence? Such a theory would have to explain how it was that in 1996—10 years before Hunt’s first article—Tammi S. Long, an ARRB attorney/analyst, specifically noted the presence of Todd’s initials on CE 399 in her review of the chain of custody. Long wrote, . . . SA Johnson [sic] gave the bullet to James Rowley, Chief, USSS, on 11/22/63 upon his return to Washington, DC. Chief Rowley gave the bullet to [FBI] SA Elmer Todd (Todd marked it with his initials), 11/22/63 . . . . SA Todd gave the bullet to SA Frazier at the FBI lab . . . . I can personally verify that I have seen the item identified as CE 399 in the National Archives, JFK Collection, at College Park, Maryland. On April 23, 1996 . . . . I was able to descern [sic] the initials representing the chain of custody [emphasis added] of item CE 399.[8] Stone and DiEugenio, who claim to stay abreast of all the latest assassination-related research, should have known about the landmark NARA/NIST effort and could have fact-checked Hunt’s and Mantik’s claims about missing initials. That they did not bother tells everyone all they need to know about their spurious documentary. Not surprisingly, James DiEugenio is not going to give up on his now-debunked claim: Of course, NIST does not say it was there. In fact, Pat Speer has pointed out, once you know where the initials are, you can also see them in Hunt's photographs. The photos are taken from slightly different angles. The photo in the Roe article was taken with the bullet tilted slightly away from the camera, so as to accentuate the gouge at the top of the bullet. The photo in Hunt's article, on the other hand was taken with the bullet flat to the camera. Even so, one can see that the ET in the Roe photo starts beneath the gouge at the top of the bullet and runs towards a nick on its right side. When one looks at this location in the Hunt photo, moreover, one can make out a blurry ET in this exact same location. As shown below... (And no, it's not remotely surprising to me that no one noticed this before. Keep in mind that I got sucked into this rabbit hole because nobody had acknowledged an obvious bullet hole in the so-called mystery photo, and that I was also able to locate the EOP entry hole in the back of the head photos. People don't see what they don't want to see--and it's usually because they look in the wrong location.) And here is his slide illustrating the initials on both photos: All of this showcases the poverty of imagination in JFK: Destiny Betrayed. They didn't check, or question themselves about, much of anything in their so-called documentary. Oliver Stone suffers from a failure in imagination. Yes, he can imagine a massive conspiracy and coverup. But he cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Thank you, Steve Roe, for performing an act of real research. And thank you to Dr. David Mantik for realizing the importance of Steve Roe's discovery. 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.

I have just published an article on my friend Terry Glavin's substack. Terry is one of the finest journalists in Canada - his weekly column in the National Post is must-reading. I strongly recommend that people purchase subscriptions to his substack. Why, indeed. In the thick clouds of public-relations bumpf attending to this week’s big event in the cultural life of Quebec City, there is nothing to explain why this is happening. But it is, and from the reports on the CBC, La Presse, and in all the usual press-release redistribution platforms and ‘zines of the kind that masquerade as arts journalism in Canada, you would never even know what, exactly, is going on here. So, for the record, this is what is happening in Quebec City this week. A fantastically wealthy Hollywood has-been who has asked the bloodthirsty Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin to be his daughter’s godfather is being welcomed with open arms by some of the city’s more notable and lavishly subsized high-society personalities. A yesteryear darling of Oscar night awards ceremonies, his most recent contributions to cinema include an eight-part 2021 series titled Qazaq: History of the Golden Man. It’s an encomium to Nursultan Nazarbayev, the wilted, famously-photshopped and recently semi-retired supreme leader of Kazakhstan. You would never know this from what the Quebec Film Festival has had to say about the splendid occasions they’ve managed to arrange for this superstar this week, and you will have learned nothing about the bloated gargoyle the city’s special guest has become since his last Oscar win in 1991, for the disgracefully revisionist JFK, for cinematography and editing. The film was also nominated for best picture that year. It was also furiously protested by gay rights groups, because it made a truth-seeking folk hero of a corrupt and vicious persecutor of innocent gay men, and fabricated evidence to lay a trumped-up charge against a gay man for conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The real-life villain of the story wa New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison. The fictional hero of Stone’s treatment was played by Kevin Costner in the lead role. Please read the entire article. 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

In March 1969, the New York Times called Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw, “One of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American jurisprudence.” The only evidence Garrison had that Shaw had conspired to kill JFK was the false memory of a man who had been injected with sodium pentothal and then hypnotized on three occasions. Not only were the best years of Clay Shaw’s life stolen, but he was outed to the world as a homosexual, and one with a predilection for S&M. With a large part of his savings depleted, he was forced to come out of retirement and go back to work. He sued Garrison for $5 million in damages, but the case floundered when he died of cancer in 1974. One would have hoped that that would have been the end of it. In 1988, Garrison wrote a self-serving memoir, On the Trail of the Assassins, that once again defamed Clay Shaw. Rosemary James, a former journalist for the New Orleans States-Item, said the book was a “well-written, fast-moving, exciting piece of cold war spy genre fiction.” Unfortunately, Oliver Stone believed it was a work of non-fiction. He felt it “read like a Dashiell Hammett whodunit,” and that Garrison was “somewhat like a Jimmy Stewart character in an old Capra movie.” He read the book three times and purchased the movie rights for $250,000. Not surprisingly, gay groups were incensed at Stone’s film. David Ehrenstein, a writer for The Advocate, said that “Oliver Stone’s JFK is the most homophobic film ever to come out of Hollywood.” How could it not be? After all, Jim Garrison exploited homosexuality all throughout his non-existent case. For a brief but crucial period, Garrison thought that Kennedy was killed by a homosexual conspiracy. JFK effectively destroyed Oliver Stone’s career. In his zeal to portray the United States as a malignant player on the world stage, he has since produced a variety of hagiographic documentaries on dictators like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, and most recently, Nursultan Nazarbayev. He sees NATO and Ukraine as being threatening to Russia. He even blamed the United States for tensions regarding Taiwan. Oliver Stone’s new documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, shows that he is susceptible to conspiratorial thinking unimaginable to JFK researchers from the 1960s. By giving conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio free rein over the course of four hours, Oliver Stone has redefined gullibility. A tiny amount of due diligence would have told Stone that DiEugenio’s analysis of the evidence is not just wrong, but easily debunkable. 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 seems to have no interest in 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.” (page xiv) In any trial, it is the defendant who guides the defence – both in strategy and tactics- and with no defendant, one can not 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 been 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 they weren’t secret – transcripts were published a couple of 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 backyard photographs. 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. Alfredda 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 both Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald might not have given informed consent. She also wonders whether the Tippit murder itself could have been brought up at trial. Scobey notes: 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. 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. 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 would not be 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 the existence of supposed anomalies in the chain of possession of much of the underlying evidence (Oswald’s rifle, CE399, 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 declare Oswald innocent of killing JFK. There was a time when JFK researchers would argue about CE399’s so-called ‘pristine’ condition. Because it is now clear that its appearance is entirely consistent with the wounds it caused, conspiracy theorists have to take a new tack. James DiEugenio would have you believe that issues with its chain of possession can only mean that somewhere, between Dallas and Washington, the conspirators changed the bullet. But Kenneth Rahn noted that the “the window of opportunity [to plant items] came well before anyone knew what kind of fragments to plant and where.” How would conspirators know the nature of the wounds of Connally and Kennedy? How would they know what kinds of fragments or bullets to plant? What if they planted an extra bullet? The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found at about 1 PM on November 22nd. It was kept by the Dallas police until about 11:45 PM at which time it was released to the FBI. We know with certainty that CE399 was fired by Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. If the conspirators planted it at Parkland, they would have had to fire the bullet well before the assassination. Perhaps the conspirators switched out the bullet in Washington. But CE399 was in the possession of the FBI on the evening of November 22nd, well before they took possession of the rifle. Does DiEugenio believe the Dallas police fired the rifle and sent the bullet to Washington? Since DiEugenio believes that multiple gunmen wounded and killed JFK, the conspirators must have expected that a lot of fragments would have been recovered. How could they know that CE399 would not be a bullet too many? But that’s just one example. DiEugenio and Stone would have you believe that: JFK’s brain was substituted. Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano was planted. Autopsy photographs have disappeared Backyard photographs were faked. An extra bullet disappeared. The hole in the windshield was covered up. JFK's doctor, Admiral Burkley, was involved in the cover-up. Who could organize all of this? Who would have decided what evidence was needed and when? How many people were involved in this coverup? On any of the details, DiEugenio, and hence Stone, is silent. As they must be. Because there is a not a shred of evidence to support any of this. And so, when you ask DiEugenio about how this supposed conspiracy unfolded, he won’t answer. He said on the Education Forum that “In the talk I will give in San Francisco this weekend, I will explain that one of the things I told Oliver [Stone] was that I did not think we should advance a theory as to how the crime was actually committed. Because that had been the graveyard of others.” But every now and then, DiEugenio lets you have a peek at his conspiracy. Here he talks about Curtis Lemay: (emphasis added) In my opinion, LeMay was a part of the pre planned cover up. I believe the cover up was planned with the conspiracy. JFK: Destiny Betrayed is an intellectual monstrosity. Oliver Stone was hoodwinked by a conspiracy theorist who is more than willing to reject any piece of physical (or other) evidence which does not fit his case. If the major pieces of physical evidence are fraudulent, then there is little possibility that any theory might turn out to be "true.” However weak, evidence could at least refute theories, but Mr. DiEugenio would like to destroy the entire empirical edifice of the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone wasn't just hoodwinked. He was wittingly hoodwinked to bring DiEugenio's cockamaimy theories to the mainstream. Unfortunately, DiEugenio has enabled Stone to continue his JFK fantasy -- one that is based on a tendentious factual analysis based on seemingly serious footnotes. What next? Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK: Destiny Betrayed "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Otto Otepka Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers into believing that Otto Otepka uncovered evidence that Oswald was a fake defector. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads by Claiming Jack Ruby was Signaled Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, alleges that Jack Ruby was signaled by car horns in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. The evidence clearly shows that there were many horns being sounded in the basement. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Supposed Extra Bullet, Part Two Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers by intimating that that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This is simply not true. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Oswald's Income Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, makes the erroneous claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was not paid for his last quarter of service in the U.S. Marines. Oliver Stone Disses the Sixth Floor Museum JFK: Destiny Betrayed needlessly, and unfairly, criticizes the Sixth Floor Museum. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Supposed Extra Bullet Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, alleges that an extra bullet was found in JFK's limousine the evening of the assassination. This is just not true. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on CIA Involvement in Plot against de Gaulle JFK: Destiny Betrayed alleges the CIA was involved in an assassination plot against French President Charles de Gaulle. Scenes from a fictional film are used to buttress the allegation. The truth - the CIA had nothing to do with the supposed plot. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Allen Dulles and the Warren Commission The evidence is clear - Robert Kennedy wanted Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. What Ever Happened to Jim Garrison? Jim Garrison is AWOL in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass Oliver Stone Admits "JFK Revisited" is a Flop Oliver Stone is disappointed that no major movie or TV reviewers have commented on his so-called documentary. Oliver Stone Claims the Zapruder Film was Altered Yes, Oliver Stone is an alterationist. "Guilt by Orientation" - The CIA Strikes Again! James Kirchick's terrific article on Oliver Stone and homosexuality. Is the JFK assassination linked to 9/11 and Covid-19? Just when I thought conspiracy theorists couldn't get any crazier. Two Important Posts Debunk "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell debunks a series about JFK Revisited on the WhoWhatWhy website, and Andrew Jackson debunks the film on Quora. Both articles are well worth your time. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer really develop a completely different set of autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that has ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited Oliver Stone's JFK: Destiny Betrayed Film Never Checked the Facts Steve Roe finds additional evidence that debunks the allegation in JFK: Destiny Betrayed that Oswald not paid by the Marines for the 3rd quarter of 1959. Oliver Stone Disses the Sixth Floor Museum Stone and DiEugenio falsely accuse the Sixth Floor Museum as openly promoting Oswald as the Assassin. Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited Screenwriter Reprimanded by ARRB in 1998 An exchange of letters between James DiEugenio and Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB. Is This How Real Documentaries Are Made? There is some 'interesting' editing in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Screen Writer Crawfishes on Dallas to Chicago Airmail Overnight Delivery James DiEugenio changes his story on the Klein's money order. Debunking Another JFK Myth - Overnight Mail from Dallas to Chicago Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio doesn't understand the history of the mail deliver in the United States. JFK Revisited: More Deception and Half-Truths The truth about Jack Ruby and the FBI. JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, greatly misleads its viewers on JFK's attitudes towards the CIA. Screen shot from JFK Revisited regarding downsizing of the CIA Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:33:33) David Talbot: Jack Kennedy did stand firm. He did not send in the military, he did not make it into an even bigger global crisis than it already was. Kennedy is just furious. He knows he's been lied to, deceived by his senior military and intelligence advisors. He announces that the Agency is going to be downsized, and he vows, famously, he tells friends, he's going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. It wasn't just the Bay of Pigs that angered President Kennedy, when it came to the CIA. In that same month, in April of 1961, he was also being lied to about a coup in France. A military coup that was aimed at overthrowing President Charles de Gaulle, one of our strongest allies. Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? The answer is perhaps. There are no contemporaneous sources for the quote. All we have is a New York Times article from April 25, 1966, "C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool," by a team of correspondents including Tom Wicker, John Finney, Max Frankel, and E.W. Kenworthy. The article noted: "And President Kennedy. as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted "to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." Rather than saying that Kennedy said this to friends, it would be more accurate to say that the New York Times claimed in 1966 that Kennedy had said this to a (high-ranking), (unnamed), subordinate. There is a difference. You can find a good history of the supposed quote here: The phrase “splinter into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds” actually dates back to at least the early 19th century and has decidedly religious origins. You can find versions of the phrase in Methodist sermons from 1819, in letters from clergy of the 1840s, and in fiction of the early 20th century. Is the quote reliable? A bit of humor: All we do know is that this could be another game of Telephone, not unlike the way we see quotes morph on the internet today. And as Abraham Lincoln once told his secretary Fakesy Kennedy, quotes from a third party after you’re dead aren’t the most reliable sources. The same New York Times article also said: The critics shrug aside the fact that President Kennedy, after the most rigorous inquiry into the agency's affairs, methods and problems after the Bay of Pigs, did not "splinter" it after all, and did not recommend Congressional supervision. Arthur Schlesinger, in his book, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, was measured in his evaluation of the leadership of the CIA: (page 492) None of this is to suggest that the CIA constituted, in the title of a popular exposé, an “invisible government” or that its influence was always, or often, reactionary and sinister. In my experience its leadership was politically enlightened and sophisticated. Not seldom CIA representatives took a more liberal line in White House meetings than their counterparts from State. The Kennedys actually chewed out Richard Bissell, CIA Deputy Director for Plans, for inaction on Cuba: Here is an excerpt from the Church Committee Interim Report: Did JFK cut the budget of the CIA by 20%? This figure comes from Arthur Schlesinger's book: (page 492) "The Agency itself suffered from doubt and gloom after Cuba, and it was feared that drastic measures would cause total demoralization. Instead, Kennedy moved quietly to cut the CIA budget in 1962 and again in 1963, aiming at a 20 per cent reduction by 1966." Because of the secrecy of the CIA's budget, we can't be sure just how much JFK cut the CIA budget. It certainly appears that the 20 percent number was a goal. The budget for the CIA in 1963 was $550 million. I am not sure if the budget decreased in 1963 from 1962. The CIA budget appears to have also declined in the early years of the Johnson administration: Some of the decrease of the CIA's budget that Schlesinger talks about for 1962 was because JFK moved some functions to the Department of Defense. New York Times, April 29, 1961 National Security Council Action Memorandum 57, dated June 28, 1961, transferred some paramilitary operations to the Pentagon: When John McCone became the new Director of the CIA in October 1961, Kennedy sent a memo outlining some changes: Kennedy was not that interested in any sort of oversight: Here is what Tim Weiner, in his book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, said about John and Robert Kennedy: (page 180) In his wrath after the Bay of Pigs, John Kennedy first wanted to destroy the CIA. Then he took the agency's clandestine service out of its death spiral by handing the controls to his brother. It was one of the least wise decisions of his presidency. Robert F. Kennedy, thirty-five years old, famously ruthless, fascinated with secrecy, took command of the most sensitive covert operations of the United States. The two men unleashed covert action with an unprecedented intensity. Ike had undertaken 170 major CIA covert operations in eight years. The Kennedys launched 163 major covert operations in less than three. Kennedy revamped covert action. He set up the Special Group, or the 303 Committee, to oversee the clandestine service with McGeorge Bundy as its chairman: (page 181) The members were McCone, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and senior deputies from Defense and State. But until very late in the Kennedy administration it was left to the CIA's covert operators to decide whether to consult with the Special Group. There were more than a few operations that McCone [Director of the CIA after Dulles] and the Special Group knew little or nothing about. In November 1961, in the greatest secrecy, John and Bobby Kennedy created a new planning cell for covert action, the Special Group (Augmented). It was RFK's outfit, and it had one mission: eliminating Castro. The Kennedys were serious about getting rid of Castro, and they started Operation Mongoose: (page 185) The Kennedys did not want to hear that [that the CIA had limited intelligence on Cuba]. They wanted swift, silent sabotage to overthrow Castro. "Let's get the hell on with it," the attorney general barked. "The President wants some action, right now." Helms saluted smartly and got the hell on with it. He created a new freestanding task force to report to Ed Lansdale and Robert Kennedy. He assembled a team from all over the world, creating the CIA's largest peacetime intelligence operation to date, with some six hundred CIA officers in and around Miami, almost five thousand CIA contractors, and the third largest navy in the Caribbean, including submarines, patrol boats, coast guard cutters, seaplanes, and Guantanamo Bay for a base. Some "nutty schemes" against Fidel were proposed by the Pentagon and the White House, Helms said. These included blowing up an American ship in Guantanamo Harbor and faking a terrorist attack against an American airliner to justify a new invasion. Here is a memo from October 1962: Note the emphasis on sabotage: The Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] opened the meeting by saying that higher authority is concerned about progress on the MONGOOSE program and feels that more priority should be given to trying to mount sabotage operations. If all of this is an example of "scattering to the wind" then it is surely time to update the definition. Researcher Tracy Parnell covers much of the same ground with a few important links about JFK using the CIA in Laos. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Joe Bob Briggs, aka Joe Bob Goes to the Drive In reviewed Oliver Stone's JFK in 1991: By Joe Bob Briggs Drive-In Movie Critic of Grapevine, Texas Several of my cousins are movie stars now. They got parts in the new Oliver Stone movie they're making in Dallas called "JFK." Oliver refuses to reveal what the letters "JFK" stand for, and if you ask him for a copy of the script, he sends six security guards to your house with "Riders on the Storm" blaring out of their ghetto blasters, and they won't leave until you sign a statement that says, "I will never reveal what is in Oliver Stone's movie, even after the movie comes out." In other words, "JFK" don't stand for "Just For Kicks." There's some heavy security surrounding this project, and Oliver's just a little touchy on the subject. First he told the press, "I'm not saying it IS a conspiracy-theory movie, and I'm not saying it's NOT a conspiracy-theory movie. Is this room bugged? I don't think the whole story has been told, but, after all, we're just making movies here. Are you CIA? I don't think this is a valid issue to be discussed in the press. Marina Oswald's KGB contact has, however, been following me for 12 years." I happen to have some opinions on this subject, mostly because my cousin Wilbur was hired as an extra to stand in Dealey Plaza carrying an umbrella that fired poison darts. Then there was my cousin Horace, who was part of the thirteen-man submachine-gun squad concealed behind the Grassy Knoll during the filming of the assassination scene. But most of my information comes from Blanche Verona, my sister-in-law, who was hired on the special effects crew. It was her job to wire Jackie Kennedy's pillbox hat with a miniature spy camera. I don't mean to say this guy is paranoid, but, out of the 27,000 people who have come to Dallas over the last 30 years trying to prove conspiracy theories, Oliver Stone may be the number one loony in the bin. Remember the British guy who spent two years getting permission to dig up Lee Harvey Oswald's body so he could check his teeth? Well, this movie is evidently WEIRDER than THAT. First, it's based on a book by Jim Garrison, the former New Orleans district attorney who's done nothing for the last 25 years but invent NEW conspiracy theories, including one where Kennedy was killed by elephant handlers in the Barnum and Bailey Circus because he wasn't doing enough to protect the endangered gorillas of Borneo. Next, he hires Kevin Costner to BE JIM GARRISON IN THE MOVIE! Let me repeat that. The main role in the movie "JFK" is not JFK. It's not LBJ. It's not Governor Connally or Jackie or Chief Justice Warren or Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby. The main role in the movie is this FLAKE from Nawluns. Of course, if you asked Oliver, the only reason we think Jimbo Garrison is a flake is that he's been persecuted by the media conspiracy, the Cuban conspiracy, the FBI conspiracy, the CIA conspiracy, the conspiracy of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, the conspiracy of all the employees at the Texas School Book Depository, and now the conspiracy of all guilty Texans to whitewash what their state did to the president. We have a few theories about "JFK" ourselves. It stands for Just Full of Krap.

More and more people are starting to notice just how unhinged Oliver Stone is on politics. The Mediaite website discussed his podcast interview with Lex Fridman, where he once again floated the idea of the United States using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Speaking with podcast host Lex Fridman on Tuesday, Stone said, “Is the United States gonna start — they’re making a lot of noise in the United States press about Russia using nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. That’s a lot of noise. Again, going back to my analogy when the United States starts, that it starts the conversation going it’s in the interest of the United States for Russia to be pinned with any kind of chemical or nuclear incident.” He continued, “For example, it’d be very, not simple, but it would be possible to explode a nuclear device in Donbas and kill thousands of people. And we would not know right away who did it, but of course the blame would go right to Russia. Even if it didn’t make sense, if there was no motivation for it, it would just be blamed on Russia.” “The United States might well be the one who does that false flag operation. It would not be beyond them. They would, it would be a very dramatic, uh, solution to seal this war off as a major victory for the United States,” Stone added. “That’s terrifying,” Fridman said. “But when you walk across that line you can potentially never walk back.” Stone replied, “Well, I think the United States is calculating that it’s dangerous yes, I agree. But I think the neo-conservative arrogance is such that they really believe they can push their advantage to the max now.” Their conclusion? Here is how everybody can help the people of Ukraine. And a reminder: JFK Supported Ukrainian Independence Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad? Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

Oliver Stone tweeted this week, to his 223K followers, his concern about the United States using nuclear weapons in Ukraine: Money quote: “I wonder if the U.S. is setting the stage for a low-yield nuclear explosion, of unknown origin, somewhere in the Donbass region, killing thousands of Ukrainians. Of course, if that happened, God forbid, all the world's eyes would be trained, like a Pavlov dog, to blame Russia… regardless of who launched the device.” Any sane person would regard this as just plain delusional: Stone’s conjecture is misleading and unsubstantiated. He sidesteps a key U.S. point – that use of a nuclear weapon could lead to a dangerous escalation with devastating consequences, not just for the region but for the world. And Stone overlooks the fact that it’s Russia, not the United States, that has made threats to go nuclear, ratcheting up tensions. In fact, the United States has refused to raise its nuclear posture: Oliver Stone posted the same statement on Facebook: -- Neocon Objectives -- I’ve been following the Ukraine situation since 2014 with Robert Parry leading the way as a teacher. I’ve followed the burnings in Odessa, the persecution without legal rights and murders of journalists, mayors, politicians, and citizens. I’ve followed the banning of the main opposition party, which had higher polls than the Zelenskyy government. I’ve been shocked by the sheer hatred expressed against the Russian-Ukrainian minority. It’s a long and sad story devolving from the 2014 coup, co-engineered by the U.S., which stripped Ukraine of its neutrality and made it vociferously anti-Russian; in the eight years since, some 14,000 innocent people in the Ukraine have been killed, none of which was seriously covered by our media. I’ve watched with mounting fear these past weeks as Victoria Nuland once again emerged out of the blue, warning the Russians and us -- the target audience -- that if the Russians use a nuclear device of any kind, there’ll be hell to pay. This was quickly picked up by a host of Administration officials and TV channels in the following days, amplifying the same idea -- Russia going nuclear. All this coming because of Putin’s restatement of Russia’s nuclear policy, which btw is not as aggressive as our nuclear posture. This made me wonder, why repeat this over and over? First, there were all the war crimes charges which came fast and furious and need serious investigation and evidence. As a result, I wonder if the U.S. is setting the stage for a low-yield nuclear explosion, of unknown origin, somewhere in the Donbass region, killing thousands of Ukrainians? Of course, if that happened, God forbid, all the world’s eyes would be trained, like a Pavlov dog, to blame Russia. That guilt has been set up already in advance, regardless of who launched the device. This usage would certainly impact the remaining 50% of world opinion, which isn’t in the Western camp. Russia would be the Satan, the Beelzebub. Keep in mind, it’s hard to know where a nuclear device is fired from, especially in a fast-moving situation like this war, in which it seems Russia can be accused of any behavior, no matter how preposterous. It would probably take a few days to find out the truth, but the truth isn’t important. The perception is, and the U.S. is running a perception war with great skill and blunt force, saturating the CNN/Fox airwaves and our satellite countries in Europe and Asia as I’ve never seen before. In doing this, we’d be one step closer to getting what we hope is another Yeltsin, who can create for our country another huge ideological and business opportunity. But, more important, in the bargain, isolate China from Russia. Of course, China would be the next target if Russia falls. This, I believe, is the dream scenario of the neoconservative anarchists in our government to make what they deem a better “rule-based world.” Emphasis added above. As the article referenced above notes: Russian troops in Ukraine have left behind mass graves of civilians and Ukraine defenders, dead bodies on the streets, victims of indiscriminate shelling and bombing, with many killed execution style and showing signs of torture and violent treatment. Oliver Stone has not uttered one word of regret about his support for Vladimir Putin. Not one word of support for the Ukrainian people. Not one word about the atrocities of the Russian military in Ukraine. Nothing except to blame the United States. And this is the great political strategist who brought us JFK and JFK Revisited? Here is how everybody can help the people of Ukraine. And a reminder: JFK Supported Ukrainian Independence Previous Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise" Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked... Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Relevant Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

This story starts with an HSCA interview of Thomas Beckham in October of 1977. He was a con man who had conned Jim Garrison (see my book, On The Trail of Delusion, for full details) and he had an amazing story for the HSCA. You can read more about Beckham on my various blog posts: Thomas Beckham's Book, Remnants of Truth, Part One. Did Thomas Beckham Know Lee Harvey Oswald? Why Did Jim Garrison Want to Speak to Thomas Beckham? Jim Garrison's Memo to the HSCA Regarding Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham, Part One. Jim Garrison Exhibits to his HSCA Memo on Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham Here is what Thomas Beckham told the HSCA: Now, who in their right mind would believe any of this? Well, the first incarnation of the HSCA did, and they even brought Beckham to New Orleans in May 1978 for a complete deposition. In addition, the conversation above with Beckham was recorded and word got out that there was a "confession" tape. Jim Garrison called radio conspiracy nut Ted Gandolfo in February 1978 and claimed that "I wish I could you the progress they have made. It's past conspiracy. It's past prima facie. It's solid evidence on tape. I mean there's no question about it." In the 1990s, Gandolfo and others charged that the HSCA had covered up the tapes. The two HSCA investigators, L. J. Delsa and Bob Buras, were intrigued by the package of documents Beckham received from G. Wray Gill. They contacted Garrison and wondered if perhaps he had more information. Here is his reply: Clara "Bootsie" Gay was a poet and artist. who also worked at a painting supply company in New Orleans, and her lawyer was G. Wray Gill. Harold Weisberg had heard a story about her, and here is the first mention of Bootsie in the Garrison files. This lead was not followed up. The next mention was after the Clay Shaw trial in one of the Garrison memos regarding new leads: Then, Fred Soule, head of the Vice Squad, interviewed Al Clark: Soule then interviewed Bootsie Gay: Soule sent this undated note to James Alcock. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a copy of the sketch: Then Soule interviewed some of the other people in Gill's office: It does seem strange that Bootsie Gay would just walk into Gill's office on the Saturday after the assassination, and go through Ferrie's desk. After all, she was just a client. Joan Mellen claims it was the Tuesday after the assassination - after Bootsie had heard about Ferrie being the subject of attention by the FBI and the Secret Service. It seems equally ridiculous to think that David Ferrie would leave a map of Dealey Plaza on his desk. My guess is that Bootsie had a good imagination. Delsa and Buras believed that Bootsie's diagram and Beckham's diagram were the same (really?) but could find no linkage between Beckham and Bootsie. But guess who takes Bootsie quite seriously? Here is what James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed, writes: (page 216) "When she head about Ferrie being questioned by Garrison's office, she called up Gill and noted the tumult on the other end of the phone. One secretary said words to the effect that Mr. Gill knew nothing about this. She then went to his office. Clara looked over at Ferrie's desk and she saw what looked like a diagram of Dealey Plaza: it was a drawing of a car from the perspective of an angle above, the car was surrounded by high buildings, reminiscent of Dealey Plaza." Gee, DiEugenio is just a tad more certain about this than I think he should be, no? It's all not that surprising given that James DiEugenio references all sorts of non-existent evidence. Check out my blog post about Sergio Arcacha Smith and his supposed possession of a map of the Dallas sewerage system - DiEugenio discusses non-existent photos of Dealey Plaza, a non-existent recording, and the non-existent sewer system map. Enough evidence, in his mind, to convict Sergio Arcacha Smith. But wait, there's more! DiEugenio writes in his book Destiny Betrayed: (page 294) "What makes all this violent witness intimidation more startling is what Robert Tanenbaum stated to the author in an interview for Probe Magazine. He said that he had seen a set of documents that originated in the office of Richard Helms. They revealed that the CIA was monitoring and harassing Garrison's witnesses. As Tanenbaum stated it, he had a negative view of Garrison up until the time he became Deputy Counsel of the Housel Select Committee on Assassinations. Then he read "all this material that had come out of Helms's office, that in fact what Garrison said was true. They were harassing his witnesses, they were intimidating his witnesses. The documents exist. Where they are now, God only knows." Update In April 2022, I visited Tulane University to have a look at the archives of Congressman F. Edward Hébert. He was friends with Bootsie Gay and she often wrote him letters. Here is a picture she sent Hébert: She often visited the law offices of G. Wray Gill who represented her on various cases. She met David Ferrie who impressed her and she wrote Hébert asking for help in his fight against Eastern Airlines for reinstatement. She wrote this letter to Hébert asking for help for Ferrie: She writes on the first page, "Eddie, I presume in closing a letter for you to check and forward a file under separate cover in hope you will your useful good self and advise me if there is any way to help my friend." Hébert answered her: She then sent another note on April 28, 1963 to Hébert: I am not sure when this was sent: She writes: Eddie - This Mr. Ferrie made two trips for me (I was without funds) paid his own expenses -- did not charge for his time and brought about my settlement I'll soon receive from Florida - B - He is a good man. He is honest - Mr Bel is attorney for Air lines Atlanta Georgia I believe it was he who did the dirty work. And she enclosed this: Bootsie Gay's notation is at the bottom. She notes that Mr. Ferrie wrote this...and she asks for Hébert's help. Hébert wrote her back After the assassination of JFK, Bootsie wrote a long letter to Hébert: Dec 29 -- 1963 Dear Eddie: I perhaps should have written sooner but simply hated to do so for actually I am embarrassed. I feel I have (although innocently) done you a grave injustice. I seem to grow more trusting of people the older I get instead of wiser. It seems the past should have taught me a few thing but it hasn't. I've been taken on so many business deals and run into unscrupulous lawyers etc but this last thing has truly humiliated me beyond measure. As you know Wray Gill and his son have represented me in a civil matter + being a criminal attorney I have in my many visits to his office seen some Weirdos but naturally did not meet them. One day a while back I encountered a strange looking man + when I asked about him (I thought he was a client) the secretary told me he worked there as investigator + was brilliant [?] + a devoted Catholic etc -- so I ran into him a number of times in Gill's office, quite naturally, He was always saying his Rosary and seemed like maybe a little fanatic re Religion but kind so in the course of my numerous visits he said. he mentioned you + I were friends (how he knew I do not know) + I said 'yes' I had known you + your family for years so he tells me the story of his being mistreated + could I ask you to help. I asked Mr. Gill + told him I had never asked your help on any matter but he (Gill) seemed so anxious to help this man (Dave Ferrie) supposed to be Dr. Ferrie I believe -- that Gill told me not to hesitate to ask your help so I took his advice -- only trying to help an employee of Gill's feeling the air lines had done him an injustice (he blamed a young man whom he said was a smart alec + alcoholic who personally disliked him from Atlanta Ga. -- + that it was a thing Dealing in personalities - + Mr. Gill I think even flew to Florida to try to have him reinstated with air line + took a former FBI man Bannister [sic] to help so I assumed he must be a nice man who had been a victim of circumstances. However, when I got your letter + told Mr. or Dr Ferrie you could not or would not intervene he was furious -- + didn't speak to me again - I thought him rude + strange so woman like I wrote a note + left on his desk + it said "Talking religion is one thing but living it is another" + signed Bootsie Gay. Well - the stenographer told me he went into a fit. so he hated me then on. I forgot the thing + chalked it off - but lo + behold a few weeks later I look in the paper -- he had been arrested + the notice read the D..A.'s office was holding him for the F.B.I. + Secret Service. I nearly dropped my bridgework. I went to the phone + before I could ask Alice Guidruz or the other lady who works for Gill "she asked me if I had heard about Dave Ferrie + I said I saw paper" Her reply was it was on T.V. + radio + their office was in a turmoil -- + I was furious that I had been not only introduced to him in their office but allowed to write you re him -- I was told Mr. Gill knew nothing about him -- it was all news to him. Now I have enough sense to know F.B.I. + Secret Service do not pick up people at random -- There must have been smoke there -- so I was called into the office where Mrs. Francevitch was packing all this man's personal papers etc -- to send to him -- he was told if he walked into the office all would walk out (the female help I mean) I told her she should turn over all his papers to the FBI or secret service (none of my business I guess) but I felt they should have let these men come to office + see if there was anything there of value to them -- or whatever he was picked up for -- I have never found out why they wanted him. I knew better than to ask Gill so I asked Mr. Bernstein (his associate) what should I do -- + he said "Forget it" but I have found I can't + wish to get it out of my system. All I can say is please forgive me for any embarrassment I may have caused you but I swear on all thats Holy -- I didn't mean to do anything but help someone -- but never again. Is there anything I should do Eddie or say to anyone Please advise me (off record + personally) how I should react. I want to do what is right + I don't want authorities to think I know this man for I don't He must have done something pretty evil to be wanted by three law agencies -- if I ever knew or felt I knew anything that should he reported to any law officer I would never forget that I am a good citizen + a darn good + loyal American + no one better ever say differently or they have a fight on their hands. I may be wrong in writing all this + annoying you with it however I do not dare discuss it with anyone else + I wish to get it off my chest -- The thing that has upset me too was the lady in Gill's office said "Mrs. Gay if I were you I wouldn't call Mr. Gill's house for a while for I'm sure his phones are tapped" -- + I told her I didn't care who (law enforcement) listened to any of my conversations to Gill or anyone else -- my legal business is legitimate naturally so they are all welcomed to listen. I feel I'm no criminal + I'm not implicated in anything other than trying to collect money due me + property (17 yrs. due me) so what do I have to hide -? I thought this was silly. Don't you? I kept the calls up + still do -- for I have nothing to hide -- I surely meet some nice People at times -- If I don't hear from you I'll forget this but If you deem it proper for me to go to the authorities + tell them the truth that I don't know anything just what I've told you and that is it -- I'll do so -- Anyway I wish a prosperous + grand 1964 honey to you, Gladys, Dawn + family. As ever, Bootsie That's the letter. There is no mention of any map found on David Ferrie's desk. Not a word. Now have a look at how Joan Mellen, in her book A Farewell to Justice, reports the story: (page 84) The story about Regina Franchevich picking up a chart is not in Bootsie Gay's letter to Hébert. And so what Joan Mellen is doing is melding together Bootsie's letter and her later story to Jim Garrison. An honest researcher would note that the contemporaneous record does not corroborate her later story about the map. No serious researcher can give any credence to the story Bootsie Gay told Garrison about a map of Dealey Plaza being found on David Ferrie's desk.

Once the so-called Garrison investigation became public, all sorts of people came out of the woodwork. Arthur Strout was fortunate. He had the good sense to go home before it was too late. Boston Traveler March 16, 1967 Strout was given a ticket to go to New Orleans: Boston Traveler, March 17, 1967 Boston Traveler, March 19, 1967 He was missing, and his father was not impressed: Boston Traveler, March 23, 1967 He was drunk: New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 24, 1967 Oops! Boston Traveler, March 28, 1967 At least Mr. Strout turned back. Other people went forward with their crazy stories - like Clyde Limbough, Raymond Broshears (see below), Edward Girnus, Edward Whalen, Fred Leemans, Raymond Cummings, and of course, Perry Russo. Have a look at some of the posts on Raymond Broshears. He was quite the fabulist, and yet, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Dick Russell find him credible. Update I have uploaded a telephone call between Strout and a Garrison investigator: Previous Relevant Posts on Raymond Broshears Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells All to Stephen Jaffe and Mark Lane! David Ferrie's Roommate Reveals the Assassination Plot! Reverend Raymond Broshears Reveals the Shaw-Ferrie Link! Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells Even More in New Orleans! What do JFK conspiracy books say about Raymond Broshears? Reverend Raymond Broshears Talks to the HSCA Reverend Raymond Broshears Makes a Startling Revelation! The good Reverend writes about Jim Garrison

Over the last week, I have been in New Orleans. I visited four different archives and checked out the JFK-related sights with my buddies. I started by examining the papers of Sharon Litwin, who was a friend of Clay Shaw. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists believe, I don't believe there is any relation between us. She was from the UK and she married Martin Litwin -- he is not in our family tree. Sharon Litwin had a copy of Clay Shaw's journal and she wanted to write a book about the case. Unfortunately, she was turned down -- here is one such rejection letter: Sharon Litwin died in 2016. I then went to Tulane University to have a look at some of papers of F. Edward Hébert who was a congressman from New Orleans. He had a file on Jim Garrison and some correspondence from Clara Flournoy (Bootsie) Gay. You can read her story here. She told Jim Garrison that there was a map of Dealey Plaza found on David Ferrie's desk in G. Wray Gill's office right after the assassination. She wrote Hébert a 13-page letter about David Ferrie in December 1963 -- take a guess on whether she mentioned a map of Dealey Plaza. I will be publishing that letter next week. She also wrote Hébert in early 1963 to try and get him to help David Ferrie with his case for reinstatement from Eastern Airlines: I also examined two small files from the Hale Boggs papers related to Jim Garrison. Nothing earth-shattering but I will be posting a few items in the next few weeks. Then it was on to see the JFK-related sights from my buddies. On the way to Lee Harvey Oswald's house on Magazine Street, we passed Tipitina's, a famous bar where my company, NorthernBlues Music, actually recorded a CD years ago: Here is the cover of Mem Shannon Live: A night at Tipitina's, which NorthernBlues Music released in 2007. Mem was a taxi driver who became a blues musician. You can buy his CD here. Oswald's house is now a law office. The Oswalds lived on the side apartment (the door to the right of the main door): Across the street someone was cutting down part of a tree, which looked somewhat dangerous: Here is a corner store just a few block away: A few blocks down Magazine Street was the Napoleon branch of the New Orleans Public Library, which is where Oswald took out books. It is still a library branch: That's my friend Ed on the phone in the front of the library. The front doors are original: Here is what the library looked like in the early part of the twentieth century: We then drove further down Magazine Street to have a look at Reily Coffee, where Oswald worked as a greaser for two months in 1963. The offices of Reily are still there: Right next door to Reily is the parking garage where Oswald used to hang out during his breaks: A few blocks away is the notorious intersection of Camp and Lafayette - on one side was 544 Camp Street which Oswald stamped on a few brochures (but not on his flyers) and around the corner was 531 Lafayette where Guy Banister had an office. The two entrances did not go to the same part of the Newman building: The Newman building has been torn down. The street you are looking at is Camp Street. Layayette runs perpendicular to Camp Street (where the red brick goes down the block). This is how it looked in the 1960s: A points to 544 Camp Street and B points to 531 Lafayette. On the right hand side is the John Minor Wisdom U.S. Court of Appeals. Interestingly, Wisdom upheld the judgment of Judge Christenberry that Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for perjury could not continue. Here is the front of that building: In the early 1960s, there was a post office on the first floor. This made Garrison a tad suspicious. But the Post Office left the building in 1961 and Oswald did not have his PO Box in this building. He had it around the corner in the F. Edward Hébert Federal Building (see below). Across the street is Lafayette Square: That is a statue of Benjamin Franklin: Lafayette Square is ringed by a number of amazing buildings. One such building is the F. Edward Hébert Federal Building: Here is Gallier Hall, which served as City Hall when it was first built: Did Oswald attend this meeting at Gallier Hall in May 1963? New Orleans States-Item, May 21, 1963 Next stop was to find the printing company where Oswald printed up his flyers. An old street painting... We couldn't find the exact address. Further up on Magazine Street, I found the law offices of the firm that defended Garrison in Clay Shaw's civil suit: That's me and Steve Roe. We then went to Metairie Cemetery to have a look at Jim Garrison's grave. It took a while to find it, but before we did, Bill stumbled across this: Just around the corner was Garrison's grave: We then drove to David Ferrie's home on Louisiana Avenue Parkway: Ferrie had the top apartment. And then to Saint Bernard Memorial Gardens in Chalmette, Louisiana: I guess the CIA doesn't pay for elaborate graves. Then it was time to go on to Bourbon Street for some partying. On Royal Street, we found the Court of the Two Sisters: Gene Davis used to work here; Dean Andrews claimed that Helen Girt had once introduced Gene Davis to him as "Clay Bertrand." In addition, Leander D'avy also supposedly worked here as the doorman and he came up with some amazing stories. Here we all are in lobby of our hotel: From left to right: Matthew Kordeski, Ed Murray, Bill Brown, Fred Litwin, and Steve Roe. Here we are having lunch: New Orleans street scene: On Sunday, we went to the former site of the International Trade Mart on the corner of Camp and Common Streets: The Trade Mart is no longer there, but you can see the corner where Oswald handed out his leaflets. You can see the corner here in a photo from 1966: Here is a view from the corner. Note the building to the left of red one -- you can see that building clearly in the photo below of Oswald: Here is Oswald leafletting: We then went to Clay Shaw's house at 1313 Dauphine Street: The red door is the entrance and Shaw's apartment is on the left. Around the corner from Shaw's home is the plaque honoring him on Governor Nichols Street: I gave a little talk about Clay Shaw: Not too far away....a lovely street scene: Here's another jazz band: We then got caught in a rain storm and took shelter at Cafe du Monde where we had some beignets. Here is Bill Brown: Want a poem? On Monday, I headed up to Shreveport to examine the papers of Ned Touchstone who was the editor of The Councilor - a racist newspaper. As an example, here is a letter that John Rarick, who was a judge and soon to become a congressman, wrote to Touchstone: Here's a letter from a Director of the National States Rights Party: Here's a document which indicates that Ned Touchstone was working with General Edwin Walker: Here is part of page one of The Councilor from June 1967: I don't doubt that Touchstone actually talked to Russo. I've already posted excerpts of Russo's statements in which he believed that Ferrie liked Fidel Castro. The next day I visited the Hammond campus of LSU to examine the papers of John Rarick who became a congressman. He had a file of news clippings from the Garrison case, and Jim Garrison had written to him about his prosecution for bribery in 1971. I then drove about thirty miles to Kentwood, Louisiana where Clay Shaw is buried: At the airport in New Orleans, there was an interesting display of guns that had been confiscated from people: I certainly hope they are catching 100% of the guns passing through the airport. You would not see this sort of display at a Canadian airport.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, greatly misleads viewers on Admiral George Burkley and his supposed views on conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:01:28) Screen shot from JFK Revisited Whoopi Goldberg: The one physician present at both Parkland Hospital and the Bethesda morgue was George Burkley, Kennedy's personal doctor. Arlen Specter did not depose George Burkley, but Burkley did an interview with the JFK Library in 1967, and was asked this question: Question: Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body? Burkley: I would not care to be quoted on that. Dr. Donald Miller: The reason he didn't say anything was he was intimately involved in the coverup. Whoopi Goldberg: Burkley signed the autopsy descriptive sheet with the bullet in the back at the level of T3. He also signed Kennedy's death certificate, which also placed that wound in the back. That death certificate is not in the Warren Commission volumes and the descriptive sheet in the Commission volumes does not have Burkley's signature. In 1977, through his lawyer, he wrote a letter to Richard Sprague, Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He said he had information indicating that "others besides Oswald must have participated" in the assassination. Whoopi Goldberg: He was willing to talk about it at this time. Sprague, who made clear his intention to fully investigate the CIA's involvement, was forced out two weeks later. Dr. Burkley submitted a written statement to the House Select Committee but there is no official record of him being deposed as a witness. Douglas Horne: In 1982, he told JFK researcher Henry Hurt "I know there was more than one gunman." And when Henry Hurt tried to recontact Burkley for more details, Burkley cut him off at the knees, "I don't want to talk about it anymore." Douglas Horne: The very next year, Burkley talked to Michael Kurtz, another JFK researcher, told him that he knew there was a conspiracy to kill the President and that he recalled an exit wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Now that's a very significant statement, that the only doctor we know of who was present at both Parkland, for treatment, and at Bethesda, during the autopsy, told Michael Kurtz in 1983 that Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head. When Kurtz tried to recontact Burkley, Burkley cut him off at the knees, "I don't want to talk about this anymore." Dr. Burkley was deceased by the time the Review Board was impaneled. So then [ARRB General Counsel] Jeremy [Gunn] decided, well, we can ask the executor of his estate, his daughter, to sign a waiver so that we could go to the law firm, that Mr. Illig used to work for, since he was deceased also, and see if there were any records in the files of Mr. Illig that would have revealed what it was he wanted to tell the HSCA, in detail. And she said she would do that. Douglas Horne: And then Jeremy called her on the phone, she had completely changed her mind and adamantly refused to sign it and terminated the phone call. Screen shot from JFK Revisited There are so many misleading statements in the above segment that it's hard to know where to start. I will start with Dr. Burkley and his supposed interviews with JFK conspiracy theorists. JFK Revisited says that Burkley "told JFK researcher Henry Hurt that 'I know there was more than one gunman.'" That is not what Burkley told Hurt. On page 49 in Reasonable Doubt, Hurt writes: In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Believing in a conspiracy in the JFK assassination is not the same thing as believing there were multiple gunmen. The ARRB also made a similar error: In the late 1970s, at the time of the HSCA’s investigation, Dr. Burkley, through his attorney, suggested to the HSCA that he might have some additional information about the autopsy. As you can see, Mr. Illig's letter to the HSCA did not mention the autopsy: The use of Michael Kurtz as a reliable source in JFK Revisited is problematic. Over the years he has made several dubious claims, and even some conspiracy theorists do not take him seriously. Pat Speer even questions whether he really interviewed Dr. Burkley: If Kurtz had actually interviewed rarely-interviewed doctors such as Canada, Burkley, Humes, and Fisher he would almost certainly have mentioned them before mentioning his interview with a more commonly-interviewed subject as Shaw. That only makes sense. Paul Hoch noted in his systematic 1992 speech on the evaluation of evidence in the JFK assassination: On interviewing witnesses: I don't have any experience worth mentioning, so I'll make just one point: Watch out for principals who have become buffs, and are basing conclusions on information outside their areas of direct knowledge or expertise. If John Rosselli, for example, knew there was a shot from the knoll, it might not have been from inside knowledge, but because some of his friends, like many others, heard Mark Lane's stump speech. If Admiral Burkley believed in a conspiracy, it might not be because of his supposed inside knowledge of the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Stay tuned: There are several additional blog posts on Dr. Burkley in the pipeline. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer really develop a completely different set of autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.