Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

"JFK" The Movie

Okay 2T, this is one conspiracy of yours I believe.

I have the directors cut of the film and have been to Dallas and Dealy plaza many times. I've read probably 5 or more books on the subject as well.

Just like Van Halen said... The world is controlled by, "Old men and oil companies."
 
Slaves??

What about the people of Iraq who are slaves to their evil oppressor Saddam Huessein?

What about the people of Afghanistan who barely have a government and for years suffered from bouts with anarchy?

What about nations of central Africa who are involved in tribal wars?

What about the corruption of numerous Latin American governments and the unfair distribution of wealth?

Now. . .you tell me how these nations are functioning?? Are the people who live in these countries slaves?

Your geo-political bullshit is getting old, as you seem waste incredible effort on stereotyping how the United States functions. What about your own nation? How about looking at things on a macro scale for a change?

I for one am proud to be an American and I am pleased with the government. The government in this country has provided plenty of opportunities for everyone in and out of this country. I look at things in a positive view. Have you ever heard of globalization?? Probably not. Nations are working closely together to help build a world of stability, but your visions fall short of envisioning a positive world. Instead, you choose to bash the US with your useless ramblings of slavery and ridiculous political cartoons that mean nothing.

I have nothing against you as a person, but I can't stand these pessimistic views.
 
louden_swain said:
Slaves??

What about the people of Iraq who are slaves to their evil oppressor Saddam Huessein?




Besides the fact that the American imposed sanctions have destroyed anything that might be called an economy in Iraq, they are stuck in the same cycle of lies, fear-mongering and misinformation as American citizens are stuck in.


What about the people of Afghanistan who barely have a government and for years suffered from bouts with anarchy?



You can thank the US who sponsored, armed and funded the Taliban.


What about nations of central Africa who are involved in tribal wars?



You can thank European colonizers that arbitrarily drew borders and caused many of the regional warfare that would have otherwise been contained because of tribal borders.


What about the corruption of numerous Latin American governments and the unfair distribution of wealth?



You can once again thank the USA for destroying S. America and its economies in the name of democracy


Now. . .you tell me how these nations are functioning?? Are the people who live in these countries slaves?

Your geo-political bullshit is getting old, as you seem waste incredible effort on stereotyping how the United States functions. What about your own nation? How about looking at things on a macro scale for a change?



Geopolitics and America's actions in that arena have everything to do with almost every nation in the world.


I for one am proud to be an American and I am pleased with the government.




Good for you. I, as an American, am not happy with MY government. Unless you are anti-American, then you should be more than happy to have people like me criticize MY government.


Instead, you choose to bash the US with your useless ramblings of slavery and ridiculous political cartoons that mean nothing.



Yes, everything is bubblegum and cotton candy.
 
Kevin Bacon played a very convincing twink in that movie.
 
Isn't it funny how the USA is always the world's bad guy until we open up the checkbook? And then it's America that's the 2-faced greedy ones right?

Besides the fact that the American imposed sanctions have destroyed anything that might be called an economy in Iraq

Let's also not forget here that without western intervention(not necessarily USA), Iraq would have no oil industry to base an economy on.

USA bashing gets very old to read and hear.....everyone thinks they are superior to the US,yet everyone tries to emulate us,move here for a better opp/quality of life.....they believe they're culturally superior,yet David Hasslehoff is a big time rock star in europe???? give me a break.....Once again,when the $$$$$ flows,gee what great guys we are. 2thick,I haven't hardly posted here although I've been reading for awhile......and all you seem to post here is negativity towards america....I admit I'm not sure where it is you are from(i know thats a virgin Isle flag) or where you live now,yet you said you're an American citizen? If that's true,and you think this is such a horrible place to be,why don't you move?? Why stay? There must be somewhere that would fit your political view if the USA doesn't. I can't hardly believe that you can take a hollywood movie as absolute reality or reflection of foriegn or domestic policy.....that's like believing that every australian you meet is going to be dressed in leather and hanging with a buddy b/c you saw Mad Max.
Sorry if you think this is an attack on you,b/c it's not...it's just that I never see you offer a solution,just complaints.

Z
 
Testosterone boy said:



WTF :confused:


This is all we get from the learned mind of Stumpy? What a dissappointment.:(

I'm not in the mood to discuss serious matters.

Is that OK, sir?
 
zeeman66 said:
Isn't it funny how the USA is always the world's bad guy until we open up the checkbook? And then it's America that's the 2-faced greedy ones right?

It is called blood-money. They pay for their past transgressions.


Let's also not forget here that without western intervention(not necessarily USA), Iraq would have no oil industry to base an economy on.

You mean the European oil companies that drilled there for their profit? Do you not think that Iraq could have done that on their own? Of course they could have. USA bashing gets very old to read and hear.....

[/B][/QUOTE]

Then contact your Congressman and make your opinion heard.


everyone thinks they are superior to the US,yet everyone tries to emulate us,

That was once true. Now, it is different.

[/B][/QUOTE] If that's true,and you think this is such a horrible place to be,why don't you move?? Why stay? There must be somewhere that would fit your political view if the USA doesn't.[/B][/QUOTE]

I currently live in Canada. The only true democracy in N. America. I was going to move back to the US to practice, but I think I will stay in Canada.

I can't hardly believe that you can take a hollywood movie as absolute reality or reflection of foriegn or domestic policy

The movie simply illustrates some of the facts. I have also read a couple books on the subject.

Sorry if you think this is an attack on you,b/c it's not...it's just that I never see you offer a solution,just complaints.

Z

I always say that people should write, call and email their representatives and let their voices be heard (every week).
 
2Thick,


JFK is one of my favorite movies...it does a superb job of putting the facts together....one of my next books to read is Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner played) "On the Trail of the Assassins" ...


One of my favorite parts about the story is that Clay Shaw was later PROVEN to be a CIA asset...the CIA itself admitted so and I believe it mentions that in the movie too...that lends a huge amount of credibility to Mr. Garrison
 
Bill Bonanno said in his autobiography that the mob acted alone. Who knows? I never said the theory presented in the movie wasn't plausible, only that the movie isn't proof of anything. Proof lies elsewhere. Assume for a moment that the case is re-opened. I doubt the movie will be placed into evidence (ask any trial lawyer what would happen if someone tried it). Additionally, Stone admitted that the meeting between Costner's character and Sutherland's character never happened nor did the phones go out in DC (as the Sutherland character said). Stone made it up as a plot device. This realization alone is enough to cast doubt on the movie's capability to be seen as anything other than entertainment. Don't get me wrong, the film is compelling and quite a lot of it based on facts and/or inconsistencies. But it isn't proof of anything.

Personally, I have issues with conspiracy theories ... especially ones as large as the JFK case. It's not a matter of IF someone will talk, because someone will talk. Once that happens the conspiracy becomes hard to contain. Now, do I believe that Oswald was the shooter? No. Do I know who was? No, again. Could it be the Cubans? Yes. The Russians? Yes. The mob? Yes. CIA? Yes. All of the above? Yes.

Finally, if Stone got so close to the truth with the movie, why isn't he dead? It would have saved us from "Any Given Sunday."
 
Rockafella Skank said:
Finally, if Stone got so close to the truth with the movie, why isn't he dead? It would have saved us from "Any Given Sunday." [/B]


Killing Stone would be admitting that he was to close to the truth. Also, Hollywood is quite powerful. It would not be prudent to go around killing every director who questioned things.
 
Frackal I live in New Orleans...take alotta what you read and see in movies about the subject with a grain of salt. The real Garrison was a lot diff than Costners portrayal of him/how he was depicted in the movie. Stone and book editors made him look like a hero and and in complete control of his mental state. He greatly took liberties with a huge number of facts. Shaw was not proven to be with the CIA,nor was he proven to be the clay betrand in the movie or the book.....the supposed expert witness there,perry russo,failed every polygraph test given to him,and only passed a polygraph after he was given truth serum and hypnotized,at the same time. He also had many diff theories of how the actual assaniation went down,mostly depending on who he was talking to at the current time,ranging from texas oil millionares to the CIA to a homosexual thrill killing.
He also potryed himself as a central courtroom figure during the trial,when in reality he missed a great number of days and wasn't even there for the reading of the verdict. Not to say the movie or the book aren't worth reading or seeing..... but they're far from absolute truth.

Z
 
Frackal said:
....one of my next books to read is Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner played) "On the Trail of the Assassins" ...



Great book, if you're in to the JFK thing, you will enjoy it.
 
Regarding Clay Shaw and his CIA connections

Another source for "insider" CIA information is Victor Marchetti. After having worked for the agency, he defected and wrote a book critical of the agency. Two different accounts of internal agency discussions of the Clay Shaw case exist. The first is from the article "The Strange Death of Clay Shaw," in True, April, 1975, p. 79:


One of the difficulties in checking into Garrison's claims is that no high-level official of the CIA has been willing to talk openly about what really went on in the halls of the CIA secret complex at Langley, Virginia.
That was until Victor Marchetti, a 14-year veteran of the CIA, decided to call it quits. An expert on the Soviet military, Marchetti had been recruited to the agency by a CIA-connected college professor. He rose through the ranks to become executive assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA and finally made it to the agency's executive suite, sitting in on the CIA's most secret, highest-level staff meetings. But the more he learned, especially about the dirtier aspects of the CIA murder campaign in Vietnam, the more disenchanted he became. In late 1969 he resigned from the CIA.

When he decided to write about his experiences in The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, his book became the first in U.S. history to be censored by the government before publication. The CIA felt that Marchetti knew too much, would compromise the agency, and arranged to have key passages deleted. Although he is under strict court restrictions as to what he can reveal about his tenure with the CIA, Marchetti did agree to discuss the Kennedy assassination with TRUE magazine.

Marchetti was attending high-level staff conferences in early 1969 when Clay Shaw was being brought to trial by Jim Garrison. At these conferences, he said, it was determined to "give help" in the trial.

"I sure as hell knew they didn't mean Garrison," Marchetti said.

Whenever they talked about the trial, they spoke "in half-sentences" he said, cutting off discussion before getting to the main point. "They'd say, 'We'll talk about it later,' meaning a private chat after the meeting," Marchetti recalled.

When Marchetti tried to find out what was going on, he was informed that Clay Shaw at one time had been a contact for the CIA. His job, Marchetti was told, was to monitor businessmen going behind the Iron Curtain — "you know," Marchetti said, "to try to find out if so-and-so was going to a denied-access area." The businessmen would then be debriefed by the CIA and questioned about what they had seen and done. Often this was very useful in gaining information about activity in Communist countries.

But Marchetti and the others were told that the CIA's connection with Shaw was to be top secret. The agency did not want "even a remote connection with Shaw" to leak out, Marchetti said.

Marchetti now states that Shaw's links with the CIA could have been much more extensive, and that he and the others could have been given a "cover story" to explain the agency's interest in the Clay Shaw trial. "They often lied to us," he said. "They use the term 'need to know.'"

This part also needs to be added to take both sides of the story:

[size=-9]
"It's astonishing that conspiracists use Marchetti as a source for Shaw being a spook, since what he explicitly says is that Shaw gave information to the domestic contact service.
Marchetti speculates that this was a "cover" and that Shaw was really a spook, but Marchetti's speculation is not evidence.

The cryptic comment "Are we giving them all the help they need?" is interpeted by the Garrison crowd as meaning that the CIA was aiding the Shaw defense, but it could just as easily have been a question about whether the New Orleans CIA office had "all the help they needed" to deal with the situation — which the CIA most certainly took seriously.

One very revealing comment is the claim that Garrison might "distort" Shaw's relationship to the CIA. What sort of relationship might Garrison distort? That Shaw was a deep cover spook? Garrison would not need to distort that!"
[/size]
 
Last edited:
Also I believe in 1979 that DCI Richard Helms admitted that Clay Shaw was a contract agent for the CIA....


Let me add something...I have recently read a fascinating account of the drug war, Mexico, the US and how things work in that world so to speak...

Though I am already very cynical, I was amazed at how many times DEA agents would be setback in their work by the CIA, either by action of the CIA or inaction....the point is, it shows the agencies characteristics, and I would trust nothing that they say...

Though I do realize that Jim Garrison was rather eccentric and to be suspect, I still think he was on the right track.
 
I also believe that Donald Sutherland's character was based on Cl. L Fletcher Prouty .. he was in the CIA and corresponded with Garrison as I have read and mentions he read the newspaper release in New Zealand about Oswald with all his background info before Oswald was even charged with the crime in the United States...as I said that is who I think Mr. X was based on...not totally frivilous...
 
Colonel Prouty in a letter to Jim Garrison:

"I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life. "
 
BTW to Mr. Rockafella.... enough people have 'talked' that, as mentioned in the film, congress recommended to DOJ that there was a 'probable conspiracy' in the JFK assassination and that it be investigated.... which it has not...what more do you want?
 
Top Bottom