JFK RFK MLK Assassination Forum

Hey guys, new to the site and to the JFK investigation. I recently watched the movie JFK, and that really sparked my interest in the murder of JFK. Of course, with it being a Hollywood movie I assumed that it had a few tall tales in it. While doing more research, I came across this site.http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlWhat do you think of the arguments that the site presents and do you think that the site is valid?

MikeNarrett wrote:Hey guys, new to the site and to the JFK investigation. I recently watched the movie JFK, and that really sparked my interest in the murder of JFK. Of course, with it being a Hollywood movie I assumed that it had a few tall tales in it. While doing more research, I came across this site.http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.htmlWhat do you think of the arguments that the site presents and do you think that the site is valid?That website appears to be a PURE DISINFORMATION site to me. There are a lot of things that he asserts that aren't true. I clicked on a few links, and the one I'm thinking of is the assertion that 544 Camp Street didn't lead to Guy Banister's office. That website doesn't appear to be telling the truth.Regarding Lee Bowers, the author of that website seems to use slanted arguments regarding what Bowers said to Mark Lane. He basically said at one point that whatever attracted Bowers attention to the picket fence "it was not a gunshot." What he's ignoring in his slanted argument is that something DID attract Bowers' attention there, and it COULD have been a gunshot. The author of the Bowers article also talks about understanding things in CONTEXT, and yet he plainly IGNORES the context within which Bowers' statement to Mark Lane were made. For example, given the fact that JFK's head was thrown violently backwards, and given the numerous other witnesses who either saw smoke or heard a shot come from the knoll, given the fact that all the doctors described a fist-sized hole in the back of JFK's head, Bowers' statement about seeing something that caught his attention there at the picket fence makes perfect sense when you take his statements in light of, or in the context of the MOUNTAIN of other evidence. So...the author of that Bowers article is the one who is taking Bowers' statement out of context. He's taking Bowers' statement OUT OF CONTEXT (without considering it in light of the MOUNTAIN of evidence) of the mountain of evidence indicating a shot from the front. Here's Bowers' statement to Mark Lanehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?

Here's another area where the author of the article on the website is using deception, in my opinion. Under number 16, titled "Clay Shaw Identified As Clay Bertand," this author seems to fail to mention very crucial information. In Jim Garrison's book, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, page 283, he tells that Clay Shaw GAVE his alias as "Clay Bertand" when Garrison had him arrested and that just as he (Garrison) was going to have the booking officer, Habighorst, testify to it, the judge, Haggerty, wouldn't allow Habighorst to testify because he didn't have his attorney with him when he gave the police his alias when he was being booked. Gee! Why would the author of the website you referenced above fail to tell about this? Simple. It's a DISINFORMATION website, in my opinion. It's a common practice among disinformation people, or people engaging in deception, to only give half-truths. It's the same as lying except that no false statements are made. Instead, statements and information are taken out of context (with no regard for when a statement was made and under what circumstances), and crucial information is never mentioned, thus painting a false picture of reality.

Here's another one.The author, in item number 26, titled "Smoke on the grassy knoll", basically says that witnesses Holland, Dodd, Simmons, and Johnson, did not see the same thing. He's referring to witness Dodd saying that he and his coworkers had all seen "about the same thing." Then the author nit-picks and tries to make a point out of...nothing. He says how one witness thought the smoke there might have come from one of the motorcycles, and blah, blah, blah. He's still referring to one witness's statement that the OTHER witnesses had "seen about the same thing." Somehow, the author of the article seems to try and use this discrepancy to invalidate what? He writes that the witnesses had not seen "about the same thing," and his point is? Nothing, but it sounds like he knows what he's talking about to the not-so-well-read reader.

MikeNarrett wrote:Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?Disinformation? Not at all. Stone just did his best to stir up interest in the JFK assassination. He presented LOTS of views as to what happened. Any deviation from what actually happened is not relevant to the actual facts of the assassination. For example, it was claimed that Garrison never made the speech that Kevin Kostner did in the movie in the court room. Okay. What's the point? Is that somehow disproving information presented in the movie about the actual facts of the assassination? Does that point take away from the mountain of evidence? NopeThe movie JFK is not a documentary, and yet people are holding it to the same standard. I think that Stone didn't go far enough with his movie. He should have presented even MORE evidence than he did. I'm talking about evidence that is FACT...such as Jack Ruby having worked for Nixon when Nixon was a congressman in 1947 or George H.W. Bush being one of the heads of a bank that was seized by the FBI in WWII for being a NAZI asset. The same people who hold movies like JFK to the same standard of a documentary seem to be the same people who WON'T quote actual documentaries.

MikeNarrett wrote:Very interesting. Would you say that the movie JFK is a reliable source of information or did Oliver Stone attempt to persuade people into thinking that there was indeed a conspiracy by using his own disinformation?I'll answer your question in a shorter version. No, I don't think Oliver Stone attempted to persuade people into thinking that there was a conspiracy using his own disinformation. The crucial facts surrounding the assassination were indeed presented by Stone. If he used "artistic license" in other areas that are not material, so what? It's not a documentary. It's just a movie.

thank you pasquale.

you just totally hit the nail on the head there christopher and that was well said. now i got a question and i have been wondering about this for a very long time did the character that kevin bacon played wille o'keefe actually exist or was he a fictional character?

Sara, Willie O'Keefe was fictional. Kevin Bacon's character was a composite of several people that knew Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.