I just saw JFK (1991) again by Oliver Stone. I hadn't seen it in many years. Wow it is a real masterpiece, one of the greatest ever. The film is also
powerful and eloquent, and stirs up your anger. It also opens your eyes to how thinks work at the highest levels of the US government. It packs a lot
of evidence and arguments into 3 hrs 20 min that is comprehensive and beyond convincing. I would say that most of it is probably true. But even if
only 10 percent of it were true, it would still be conclusive proof of a conspiracy. It is also an entertaining thriller and very gripping. Lots of
dots were connected and logical motivations were explained, giving you the big picture. The part with Mr. X was very revealing.
I strongly recommend you all see it again, even if you already saw it long ago. You can rent it, download it from a torrent, or buy the director's cut
on Amazon.com, which is now only a few dollars.
I can't believe when it came out in 1991, the mainstream media bashed it for no reason other than that it contradicted the official lone nut story.
Clearly the media is not interested in truth, they are only interested in supporting whatever the establishment wants. Truth is clearly not their job.
They have no logical basis to argue that it was all fiction, since much of it does check out. The media is controlled, so of course it is going to be
part of any government cover up. What did you expect? Any journalist, including Walter Kronkite or Dan Rather, who supports any conspiracy, no matter
how true, will lose their career. So of course they have no choice but to agree with the Warren Commission, even if deep down they don't.
Long ago in a college library, when I was bored, I read Gerald Posner's "Case Closed", a huge propaganda book that tried to defend the official story.
But it didn't disprove anything. All it did was reject all conspiracy evidence and all eyewitnesses on no basis other than that it didn't match the
official story. It cherry picked the evidence, used confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance.
What I don't get is:
- If there was no cover up, then why were many witnesses harassed, bullied and threatened, or silenced in some cases? Why was witness testimony often
altered, as in the case of the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission reports? Why would they need to do that if it's a simple open and shut case? It
doesn't make any sense! The media and the propagandists of the official version of things can never explain that. All they do is ridicule you if you
don't believe in the official version of things.
- Why were the doctors at Parkland Hospital told that their medical careers would be over if they told anyone about the large exit would they found on
Kennedy's head? Several of them, including Dr. Crenshaw, have come out and exposed that. Of course the media is going to try to discredit them. Duh.
That's their job.
- Why are documents classified and locked up, if there are no secrets?
- Why did Posner in "Case Closed" lie about interviewing people that he didn't? Many of his interviewees have come out saying that he never talked to
- Posner's most ridiculous claim in "Case Closed" is that Kennedy's head moved back and to the left in the Zapruder film, because the bullet that came
from behind was so powerful that it caused his head to move toward it, rather than away from it. That is the biggest BS ever. Everyone I talked to
who's been in the military has said that that's BS and that objects hit with bullets move AWAY from the bullet, not toward it. This claim alone makes
Posner dishonest. I'll bet you anything that if the Zapruder film had shown Kennedy's head move forward rather than backward, after the final shot to
the head, Posner would NOT have then claimed that the shot must have come from the front! He would have taken that as evidence that the shot came from
behind. Thus, whether Kennedy's head moved forward or backward after that shot, either way Posner would have declared that in favor of the shot
coming from behind!
And everyone knows it! Thus his hypocrisy is revealed. This alone proves his dishonesty.
What propagandists don't understand is that denying something or saying that something isn't true, doesn't make it so. For example, I could deny that
there is water on earth, but that doesn't make it true. There is still water on earth. In a similar fashion, denying that there were 50 witnesses who
heard the shot coming from the grassy knoll, doesn't erase that fact out of reality, like Gerald Posner thinks it does. But yet, that's the game they
play. They think that by denying something, they erase its existence. But it doesn't. So it's an insult to our intelligence. They can't change the
facts. All they can do is lie and tell you that they are right and that you should believe them. They like to tell you WHAT to think, not how to
edit on 3-7-2012 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)