It was a corny line to include, but I think he's right. I would call him lazy for not simply watching the documentary, but he may be literally unable to do so.
Oliver Stone's JFK from 1991 was incredibly well-researched and holds up to this day, so I'm excited for his new film.
The 1991 film focused on the "gay cabal" because Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Perry Russo (composited as Willy O'Keefe played by Kevin Bacon) were people that Jim Garrison actually investigated in the 1960s. Garrison always laid the primary blame at the feet of the CIA and FBI, but those were the men at the lower levels that he was able to prosecute. The fact that they were gay was a coincidence and a historical fact. Garrison was slandered as homophobic for investigating them, but he was right to do so because they were guilty as hell.
The only fault of the film, IMO, is the strange portrayal of the sex scene involving those three characters, because it otherizes gay people. However, that scene lasts all of ten seconds, and the core claims regarding those characters involvement in the assassination still hold up.
My first introduction to Oliver Stone's JFK was the Chapo review episode, which overall positively reviewed it but derided it as a gay cabal story like you described. Matt Christman also knocked it for overstating JFK's involvement in Vietnam. When I watched it for myself I was honestly blown away. I was even further impressed after I listened to TrueAnon's six part series on JFK, which contradicted Matt and explained how Stone had gotten that and so many other facts 100% right.
Never dove into the JFK stuff. Can you answer some things for me?
What does solving the JFK case tell you (or tell Stone)? Like whats the lesson or story that I should know? I'm not American so I don't understand what it is about the JFK assassination that needs solving.
How do we know that Stone or the USGov or any investigator looking into this case has got it right? You mentioned that Stone had gotten a bunch of facts 100% right -- how is that known?
The whole thing with the shotty Warren Commission was that if the truth came out and the deep state (CIA + MIC and other players) was involved, it would really shake the pillars of the public's trust in Government institutions. Parenti did a talk on the JFK assasination, JFK and the Gangster Nature of the State, it's not difficult to find (surely on youtube?) and it's a fun listen.
The biggest hole in the Oswald thing was that he was an open Communist, ffs he was even conveniently filmed fighting Gusanos when he was handing out pro Cuba flyers. We're talking about a time when practically nobody had video recording equipment, unlike today where everyone is carrying around a smart phone. This landed him on TV to debate the Gusano.
We just had a thread about astro engineer who got fired because he posted some commie stuff on reddit. Yet, during the Cold War, Oswald was an open Commie during his time in the Military. He defects to the USSR, marries a Russian and returns to back to the USA with little problems. While back in the USA he is befriended by some wealthy anti-Communist Russian expat with ties to the CIA. Weird friendship to say the least. And that wealthy Russian later kills himself.
Solving JFK reveals who really controls our government and the true nature and extent of the national security state. It's also closely tied up with the reasons for the escalation of Vietnam.
We know the Warren Commission got the case wrong because it says things which are physically impossible (magic bullet theory) or easily proven false. The official narrative is largely sustained by people in positions of power gaslighting and misdirecting people into not looking too closely into the matter, rather than providing people with an air-tight narrative.
Here is one example of a fact that Stone got right: the movie has a scene where Earl Warren interviews Jack Ruby in his jail cell. Ruby says some seemingly outlandish and conspiratorial things. It sounds like a lot of dramatic and artistic license was taken with the dialogue, but I was surprised to learn after viewing that the conversation was 100% accurate according to the transcript recorded by the stenographer.
It was a corny line to include, but I think he's right. I would call him lazy for not simply watching the documentary, but he may be literally unable to do so.
Oliver Stone's JFK from 1991 was incredibly well-researched and holds up to this day, so I'm excited for his new film.
The 1991 film focused on the "gay cabal" because Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Perry Russo (composited as Willy O'Keefe played by Kevin Bacon) were people that Jim Garrison actually investigated in the 1960s. Garrison always laid the primary blame at the feet of the CIA and FBI, but those were the men at the lower levels that he was able to prosecute. The fact that they were gay was a coincidence and a historical fact. Garrison was slandered as homophobic for investigating them, but he was right to do so because they were guilty as hell.
The only fault of the film, IMO, is the strange portrayal of the sex scene involving those three characters, because it otherizes gay people. However, that scene lasts all of ten seconds, and the core claims regarding those characters involvement in the assassination still hold up.
My first introduction to Oliver Stone's JFK was the Chapo review episode, which overall positively reviewed it but derided it as a gay cabal story like you described. Matt Christman also knocked it for overstating JFK's involvement in Vietnam. When I watched it for myself I was honestly blown away. I was even further impressed after I listened to TrueAnon's six part series on JFK, which contradicted Matt and explained how Stone had gotten that and so many other facts 100% right.
Never dove into the JFK stuff. Can you answer some things for me?
The whole thing with the shotty Warren Commission was that if the truth came out and the deep state (CIA + MIC and other players) was involved, it would really shake the pillars of the public's trust in Government institutions. Parenti did a talk on the JFK assasination, JFK and the Gangster Nature of the State, it's not difficult to find (surely on youtube?) and it's a fun listen.
The biggest hole in the Oswald thing was that he was an open Communist, ffs he was even conveniently filmed fighting Gusanos when he was handing out pro Cuba flyers. We're talking about a time when practically nobody had video recording equipment, unlike today where everyone is carrying around a smart phone. This landed him on TV to debate the Gusano.
We just had a thread about astro engineer who got fired because he posted some commie stuff on reddit. Yet, during the Cold War, Oswald was an open Commie during his time in the Military. He defects to the USSR, marries a Russian and returns to back to the USA with little problems. While back in the USA he is befriended by some wealthy anti-Communist Russian expat with ties to the CIA. Weird friendship to say the least. And that wealthy Russian later kills himself.
I'll check out the Parenti video on JFK, thanks
https://youtu.be/t21UZxRYYA4
Solving JFK reveals who really controls our government and the true nature and extent of the national security state. It's also closely tied up with the reasons for the escalation of Vietnam.
We know the Warren Commission got the case wrong because it says things which are physically impossible (magic bullet theory) or easily proven false. The official narrative is largely sustained by people in positions of power gaslighting and misdirecting people into not looking too closely into the matter, rather than providing people with an air-tight narrative.
Here is one example of a fact that Stone got right: the movie has a scene where Earl Warren interviews Jack Ruby in his jail cell. Ruby says some seemingly outlandish and conspiratorial things. It sounds like a lot of dramatic and artistic license was taken with the dialogue, but I was surprised to learn after viewing that the conversation was 100% accurate according to the transcript recorded by the stenographer.