JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass (2021) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I think you guys should keep debating this because you're definitely going to convince the other person.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think Prouty's beliefs are relevant. This is a guy who among other things tried to push forward a sinister claim about the government without realizing his "proof" was an old piece of political satire. For a thorough dissecting of how unhinged this guy is, and the number of falsehoods he's been caught in, I recommend this sum-up.

L. Fletcher Prouty -- All Purpose Kennedy Assassination Expert?

As for the matter of Oswald's guilt, Stone withholds a large amount of evidence that shows why the case against Oswald has been open and shut for decades. He again plays the game of being selective in the presentation and then deceiving the viewer into not realizing the "questions" he raises were answered long ago. This is a tactic JFK conspiracy authors rely on constantly when they take advantage of the fact the public isn't going to dig deep in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes and realize that the slick produced movie or paperback left things out. Stone for instance is not going to mention such things as:

1-All forensic experts agree JFK was struck from behind not the front. Stone lied regarding the "zigs and zags" of the single bullet in his film. It is the only explanation that fits the medical facts. If Connally had been struck by a separate bullet, he would have been killed. His wounds were consistent with a tumbling bullet that had passed through something else first. And where does the bullet that struck JFK disappear to if it doesn't go on to wound Connally? Metal fragments from Connally's wrist matched the stretcher bullet which is not pristine, it is flattened at one end.

2-Stone puts forth a bizarre theory of seven shots yet only one out of more than a hundred Dealey Plaza witnesses thought there was that many with the overwhelming number saying three, just as the WC concluded.

I can list a million more items, but this gets back to one thing. Stone's "dot connecting" requires him to leave out other dots that would yield a different picture from the one he creates. That is what is known as dishonorable scholarship and insomuch as he wants to put forth an argument about how an event actually happened, he must be held to that standard. Because this is an event that happened one way only and only one side is correct and all others are wrong. You can be subjective about *why* Oswald killed Kennedy, but the physical evidence is overwhelming. Oswald had no alibi, his fingerprints were on the rifle he owned (the print match confirmed by a 1993 test), he was seen by 11 witnesses murdering Officer Tippit (Stone withheld the existence of ten of them), he resisted arrest and attempted to kill another policeman. All of that points to guilt and I suspect that if Oswald hadn't been such a devoted Marxist, Stone would have accepted the truth. For someone like Stone, he can't believe that those kinds of politics could lead to a Presidential murder.

I will read the Prouty article you posted, Jack, before I say anything else about that. My point about that was it is a common tactic when someone brings forth evidence that some people don't like that the way to get people to disregard that evidence is through character assassination. It falls in line with the old chestnut about not using a hooker as a witness...nobody will believe her because she is a hooker. So, I think the best way to assess whatever it was Prouty had to say is to compartmentalize it to whatever is relevant to the topic he was speaking about. If we was a wacko, he was a wacko but he was a wacko employed by our military and government to perform certain tasks and so in that regard he potentially could have relevant information in that arena...outside of whatever other insanity he believed or talked about.

One interesting thing that you say here aligns with the reasons Stone gives for making these pictures...he believes that people will never bother to read the Warren Report. Particularly younger generations. He said he wanted to present information "visually" to them because that was the only possible way to get that information in front of them.

I have not yet seen JFK Revisited and so, in truth, can't fairly comment on it or what is said in it. With the film JFK, I've always viewed it as a movie because it handles much of what is in it in a very "movie way" and it is highly stylized as a picture. So, I see it as nothing more than a push for people to examine the facts around the JFK murder, not as any sort of explanation of it nor as some grand argument to discount Oswald's involvement. I think the big point it really tries to posit is there was more than one shooter and Oswald did not act alone. That seems to always be the heart of the debate it generates. Most of the other stuff I think does not really even sink in with most people.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Stone believes in nutty conspiracies. He's a kook - and an unrepentant kook, as he clings to disproved notions no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists.

And it seems clear he views Garrison as a real-life hero. I've never seen indications he believes otherwise.

No, "JFK" doesn't attempt to solve the murder - JFK conspiracy buffs rarely do that, as they realize their arguments are full of massive, multiple holes.

They just like to question the "official line", even though they offer no superior explanation.

That's a constant frustration when one attempts to interact with JFK conspiracy folks. All they have is arguments against "LHO did it solo", and these arguments often rely on oft-debunked concepts.

When you challenge them to come up with an explanation that has 1/10th the evidence that "LHO did it solo" does, they change the subject.

Stone throws whatever crap he can find against the wall in "JFK" and hopes that we won't notice how much of it is nonsense.

OK, well my point here was not to go after people that believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, which personally I don't find that nutty, but to say that I like Stone as a filmmaker and I think his JFK picture is a crackerjack thriller. I don't view it as more than that because he tells the tale like a fictional film. Jim Garrison in the picture is 100% movie character and pretty much zero real person. He is a device in the film, if there is one aspect that really goes for barely an ounce of truth it is the way Garrison is portrayed. As I understand it what Stone liked about using Garrison is he was a prosecutor and the way that Stone wanted to lay out his picture was as a prosecution of the JFK murder. A who done it, courtroom trial kind of film told in Stone's overheated hyper stylized manner.

Personally I think, he achieves that in spades. Regardless of what you think of the theories presented, man does he create a fantastic thriller. This may be what bothers some people about the film, he makes such a great film it likely makes some people feel uneasy about the idea that some of the audience might believe it.

But this is the job of a filmmaker, that you get the audience to believe and buy in for the running time of the picture.

So, I mean we are supposed to be chasing down the conspiracy to kill JFK with Garrison during the film. This is in part what makes the Garrison character in the film such a movie character. The story pretty much ignores the real life Garrison and gives us this super pure all American hero type that just wants to get the job done and go home to his loving wife at the end of the day. It's classic movie cliche stuff where you never paint the hero as anything less than the ideal of the perfect man.

It's not very real, but it is the stuff of movie magic.

Now, with the picture this thread is about we are discussing a documentary and perhaps a subgenre of the documentary that might be called speculative documentary. I can't fairly make that comment yet though because I have not yet seen it.

Other than the JFK thing, what other conspiracies has Mr. Stone got behind? I mean I have never heard him call the moon landing a fake or talk about Elvis being alive and well.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think you guys should keep debating this because you're definitely going to convince the other person.

I get what you are saying but I think these types of chats can be productive. I mean, my real point to start with was I really love Stone as a filmmaker and I think some of what he says and does is misunderstood to a degree because often times he gets into subject matter that people bitterly oppose and that turns into a mess.

I don't really want and certainly don't expect to convince anybody of anything, except perhaps that I love Stone's pictures and feel he is misunderstood with regards to some of the topics he addresses.

I mean, the reason that Stone has said that he gets involved with discussing some of these things or interviewing someone like Putin is he believes we need to be able to have these conversations about the hard stuff so we can create a better more peaceful world. However, there is high emotion about these topics and they can turn into just a mud throwing deal. I have no intention of throwing any mud and I respect how Colin and Jack feel about things.

I also respect how Mr. Stone feels and I certainly respect his desire for a better more peaceful world.

 

[Jack P]

I will read the Prouty article you posted, Jack, before I say anything else about that. My point about that was it is a common tactic when someone brings forth evidence that some people don't like that the way to get people to disregard that evidence is through character assassination. It falls in line with the old chestnut about not using a hooker as a witness...nobody will believe her because she is a hooker. So, I think the best way to assess whatever it was Prouty had to say is to compartmentalize it to whatever is relevant to the topic he was speaking about. If we was a wacko, he was a wacko but he was a wacko employed by our military and government to perform certain tasks and so in that regard he potentially could have relevant information in that arena...outside of whatever other insanity he believed or talked about.

One interesting thing that you say here aligns with the reasons Stone gives for making these pictures...he believes that people will never bother to read the Warren Report. Particularly younger generations. He said he wanted to present information "visually" to them because that was the only possible way to get that information in front of them.

I have not yet seen JFK Revisited and so, in truth, can't fairly comment on it or what is said in it. With the film JFK, I've always viewed it as a movie because it handles much of what is in it in a very "movie way" and it is highly stylized as a picture. So, I see it as nothing more than a push for people to examine the facts around the JFK murder, not as any sort of explanation of it nor as some grand argument to discount Oswald's involvement. I think the big point it really tries to posit is there was more than one shooter and Oswald did not act alone. That seems to always be the heart of the debate it generates. Most of the other stuff I think does not really even sink in with most people.

I'm sorry but it is not "character assassination" to take note of Prouty's pedigree, because it shows he has an agenda behind his arguments, which further explains why *everything* he puts forth doesn't stand up to scrutiny. To put this another way, wouldn't you have your BS detector in place if a John Bircher were arguing that Khruschev ordered the assassination? Yet when the argument is the government murdered JFK, such detectors seem to go into mothballs from those who would have them in place in any other context. Of course the fact that in debunking Prouty, it isn't just his background that is taken into account, is also duly noted in the links provided and when you see how *nothing* he puts forth has any credibility and *then* you learn he's a Holocaust Denier......well I think it's pretty easy to then not be surprised as to why his arguments wouldn't have any credibility in the first place.

As for the "big point" you speak of, the problem is that Stone engages in a deliberately selective and manipulative presentation of the evidence that actually exists and has existed for decades to make it overwhelmingly clear this isn't a subject we should be arguing any longer. Forensic studies by multiple investigative bodies have been made and they uphold the lone assassin from the 6th floor window. There is no physical evidence of any second assassin nor any eyewitness evidence. Oswald has no alibi, the murder weapon is his, his prints are on it, he lied in interrogation about owning the rifle (the "backyard photos were fake" argument is one of the looniest of them all. First off, Marina has always said she took the pictures, second one of those pictures was sent by Oswald to a friend of his that he signed his name to the back of, and the signature is his so why would he sign a fake photo, and three the photos only proved he owned the rifle, which is proved already by the mail order documents with his signature so the photos were not even critical evidence to begin with, yet Stone thinks conspirators would waste time faking these when they didn't need them? And oh BTW, the ONLY so-called "expert" who has ever said they were fake is the guy O.J. Simpson's defense team dredged up in the civil trial to say the 30 photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were fake, so I rest my case). In any other context we would call this an open and shut case, but some people just don't want to accept the fact that JFK was done in a by a man of Oswald's background and beliefs. The irony is that *every* other Presidential assassin and would-be assassin has been a "lone nut" (McKinley, Garfield, FDR attempt, Reagan attempt. John Wilkes Booth had confederates but he was doing it all on his own as the mastermind) so the notion that it's "inconceivable" JFK could be murdered by the likes of an Oswald isn't even borne out by historical precedent or what followed.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

OK, well my point here was not to go after people that believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, which personally I don't find that nutty, but to say that I like Stone as a filmmaker and I think his JFK picture is a crackerjack thriller. I don't view it as more than that because he tells the tale like a fictional film. Jim Garrison in the picture is 100% movie character and pretty much zero real person. He is a device in the film, if there is one aspect that really goes for barely an ounce of truth it is the way Garrison is portrayed. As I understand it what Stone liked about using Garrison is he was a prosecutor and the way that Stone wanted to lay out his picture was as a prosecution of the JFK murder. A who done it, courtroom trial kind of film told in Stone's overheated hyper stylized manner.

Personally I think, he achieves that in spades. Regardless of what you think of the theories presented, man does he create a fantastic thriller. This may be what bothers some people about the film, he makes such a great film it likely makes some people feel uneasy about the idea that some of the audience might believe it.

But this is the job of a filmmaker, that you get the audience to believe and buy in for the running time of the picture.

So, I mean we are supposed to be chasing down the conspiracy to kill JFK with Garrison during the film. This is in part what makes the Garrison character in the film such a movie character. The story pretty much ignores the real life Garrison and gives us this super pure all American hero type that just wants to get the job done and go home to his loving wife at the end of the day. It's classic movie cliche stuff where you never paint the hero as anything less than the ideal of the perfect man.

It's not very real, but it is the stuff of movie magic.

Now, with the picture this thread is about we are discussing a documentary and perhaps a subgenre of the documentary that might be called speculative documentary. I can't fairly make that comment yet though because I have not yet seen it.

Other than the JFK thing, what other conspiracies has Mr. Stone got behind? I mean I have never heard him call the moon landing a fake or talk about Elvis being alive and well.

The problem is that while Stone tells it like a fictional thriller, the audience is intended to view it as fact.

There's nothing in there that hints it's movie fiction.

And as I noted, Stone genuinely appears to believe the fiction - including his view of Garrison as a hero.

I agree that "JFK" is a great movie. But it's horrible history, and given that Stone wants the audience to buy into his POV, that's a problem.

BTW, I don't think it's inherently "nutty" to have thought a conspiracy might've existed with the JFK assassination. It made 100% sense to investigate.

The alternate theories that the conspiracy buffs advance and their willingness to buy absurd notions/widely debunked claims like those in "JFK"? Nutty!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, just want to interject here to make clear where I stand. I am a fan of Mr. Stone as a filmmaker and believe he is one of the great American filmmakers in our history. The stories he seems to want to tell are very much about the American experience. This includes overheated conspiracy tales as we have seen that become very much a part of our culture of late and it basically was always there maybe not at the level of hysteria it seems to be at now.

So, I understand if some people want to place some blame at Stone's feet for that in that his JFK film is probably the Mount Everest of conspiracy films.

On the murder of JFK, I don't have any real leaning one way or another. If Oswald acted alone and was the lone gunman, I do not find that unbelievable, if there was a conspiracy to kill him, this also would not shock me.

I have not personally ever taken a deep dive into the JFK murder and over time have just seen and read things about it as they crossed my path. I have never had any big debates about the killing and have not got into it with any conspiracy buffs nor people that believe Oswald acted alone. In my personal experience I have not seen evidence that "proves" anything in either direction. I have only heard the various theories and seen what is in the public record.

Based on that, I can see why some people question who killed Kennedy and what exactly took place and who was involved.

Also for the record, I have heard Stone say he finds it totally plausible that Oswald could have acted alone and that certainly is not out of the question. He seems to feel there is evidence that makes him question that though. I don't think Stone is a nut but he obviously holds firm to his beliefs. Which a lot of people do.

Stone to me is a person of note as a filmmaker. I don't have a lot of interest in his political views nor do I look to him to solve the JFK murder. He is allowed to say what he wants to say though, as this is still one of our freedoms.

I have no problem talking about these things and no problem looking at information people present, whether it is Mr. Stone or Jack. I am at present trying to go through the links on the Prouty page Jack linked to. I have read the page itself and gone through some of the links.

I will have further comment about that stuff but I will say so far what I have seen is problematic and I see the potential in some of it that both Prouty and Stone could have been misled in some ways. However, not in a diabolical way more in an accidental way in that neither man seems bent on misleading people.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A few comments from Mr. Stone...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

A few comments from Mr. Stone...

In other words: Stone continued to believe the same debunked nonsense for years and years.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

In other words: Stone continued to believe the same debunked nonsense for years and years.

Ha, well that is one way to look at it, yes. In that clip at no point do I feel Stone comes off as a nut. He even acknowledges the possibility one man acting alone could be responsible. I don't think the things he says are crazy. It is not like he is claiming the moon landings were faked by Stanley Kubrick. His take is that there are a bunch of details that make him question the official story. I think it is vastly unfair to portray him as crazy for that.

He obviously still believes to this day that we don't know what happened. I have not seen all of the things he has claimed debunked, personally, and I guess with this new picture it may be time to go through the items in it and see how they were debunked and who debunked them.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I recommend this sum-up.

L. Fletcher Prouty -- All Purpose Kennedy Assassination Expert?

So, I have gone through the majority of this page and the links. I have to say, I find it mostly a mess and poorly done. It does seem to me that the idea on that page is not really about addressing what Prouty has said but more just attempting to character assassinate him. Really, because Prouty is only of note because of his comments on the Kennedy assassination and to some extent his interaction with Stone, this should be the focus. But it is not.

In one of the links they include they attempt to paint Prouty as a nut due to comments he made about a UFO, this was a very common character assassination ploy. Problem is if you click on the link the comments Prouty makes are totally innocuous and he does not say anything about seeing a UFO in them. They are about some pilots that were under him seeing something they could not identify.

When you read something like that it makes the entire page of information suspect because they are obviously just throwing whatever they can at Prouty. This generally exposes a page like that as worthless.

Going through it I found just one item a worthwhile read and it is a summary of questions answered specifically about his statements or what he reportedly said on the Kennedy assassination. This is all I would recommend reading from that page:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/PROUTY11.WPD.pdf

Reading that appears to show, in Prouty's own words, that he does not have much useful to offer on the Kennedy assassination. His thoughts and theories are his own and it appears he has nothing to back them up outside of his own speculation.

So, it appears he spoke to Stone and either his comments were taken as more valuable than they actually were or perhaps Prouty when speaking with Stone sold them as more important than they were. It is admitted in the link above that Prouty sounds authoritative and was in a position to access information the general public would not have had access to. However, he appears to have nothing to back that up including his own notes which he says he got rid of.

This does make Prouty, on the whole, not a valuable witness.

Now, here is the scene in JFK where Stone has Sutherland playing X:



A couple of things in this scene, most of what Stone has the character saying is speculative. Meaning, X asks a bunch of questions as to why certain things happened and the character speculates on why they may have happened and who could have potentially caused them to happen. Meaning there is no proof of any of what he says, it is all guesswork.

There is no meat on the bone. It is a great "movie scene" but as a scene that is about anything factual or important, it is worthless.

So, my basic assessment of Prouty and the scene is that neither presents anything of value. I also think it is a minor piece of the film that really has little to do with the major things people take away from the film.

 

[Jack P]

I'm sorry but you're missing the totality regarding Prouty that is brought out on the page. The UFO thing is not the essential point to discrediting him, it's the *totality* of everything else he has had to say that is off the rails. If I say I saw a UFO *and* I also make the ridiculous assertions about something sinister about Nixon being in Dallas the morning of the assassination (attending a Pepsi board meeting where Joan Crawford was also present!), or that a "High Cabal" planned the Korean War or if I see assertions about Presidential security and motorcades that are totally false and have no connection to reality or that the Soviets never shot down Francis Garry Powers or that Princess Diana was killed by the "Cabal"........I think it's pretty obvious a pattern starts to pick up. That's not "throwing" things at him, that is providing some important context regarding just who this star witness for Stone's movie is who wraps things up in a bow about what the "conspiracy" is all about. If he were a Bircher or a KKK member would that be "throwing" things at him to take note of that?

And then there was the matter of Prouty in 1989 talking about a secret JFK Administration study that took place at "Iron Mountain." Well unfortunately for him, his source regarding "Iron Mountain" was an old piece of political satire and not real at all. Which shows the man's credentials as a scholar for doing his homework are also highly suspect.

And to say the "X" scene is not relevant to the film I think misses the point that without it, Garrison would come off like the raving lunatic that he really was. "X" is supposed to be there so someone in "authority" can validate everything Garrison said at the time when he recklessly made his accusations against the government to justify himself when the reality is that Garrison was doing that to deflect from the fact he had a BS case against Clay Shaw that relied on perjury and trumped up evidence.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm sorry but you're missing the totality regarding Prouty that is brought out on the page. The UFO thing is not the essential point to discrediting him, it's the *totality* of everything else he has had to say that is off the rails. If I say I saw a UFO *and* I also make the ridiculous assertions about something sinister about Nixon being in Dallas the morning of the assassination (attending a Pepsi board meeting where Joan Crawford was also present!), or that a "High Cabal" planned the Korean War or if I see assertions about Presidential security and motorcades that are totally false and have no connection to reality or that the Soviets never shot down Francis Garry Powers or that Princess Diana was killed by the "Cabal"........I think it's pretty obvious a pattern starts to pick up. That's not "throwing" things at him, that is providing some important context regarding just who this star witness for Stone's movie is who wraps things up in a bow about what the "conspiracy" is all about. If he were a Bircher or a KKK member would that be "throwing" things at him to take note of that?

And then there was the matter of Prouty in 1989 talking about a secret JFK Administration study that took place at "Iron Mountain." Well unfortunately for him, his source regarding "Iron Mountain" was an old piece of political satire and not real at all. Which shows the man's credentials as a scholar for doing his homework are also highly suspect.

And to say the "X" scene is not relevant to the film I think misses the point that without it, Garrison would come off like the raving lunatic that he really was. "X" is supposed to be there so someone in "authority" can validate everything Garrison said at the time when he recklessly made his accusations against the government to justify himself when the reality is that Garrison was doing that to deflect from the fact he had a BS case against Clay Shaw that relied on perjury and trumped up evidence.

I am not missing the totality of that page. I am examining only what Prouty had to say about the JFK killing, if it has value, and how Stone used any Prouty info.

My only big question would be why Stone used Prouty info. I assume he did because:


1. It makes for a great movie scene, which by the way he admits is a total invention as Garrison never had that meeting with Prouty.

2. Prouty was part of the government and military and that checks out (even according to the page you linked to) and so has the air of being authoritative on what he is speaking about.

Stone says he discovered Prouty through Garrison and this is why he invented the scene of Garrison meeting X. In the scene he has X say things that Prouty supposedly said. I can't say all of what is said in the scene comes from Prouty as the scene is this big info dump type scene where what Stone is doing is having the X character ask questions that he wants the audience to ponder. The entire scene is a script device to help steer the audience but in the grand scheme of the film, well, it is not really important. It literally is a device to try to catch up the audience on things that Garrison is thinking about. That's it. It is not designed to mislead, it presents a Prouty like character that has a bunch of questions and no evidence. That is exactly who Prouty was.

On specific items on the page, like the Nixon thing, well the page gives Prouty''s claim about Nixon being in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot and then says Nixon was actually in Dallas the morning Kennedy was killed. So, all that is there is that some of Prouty's details were off. But I mean so what? Prouty is NOT an expert on the Kennedy assassination and not an important figure even though Stone invented that meeting in his film. It's just a script device.

Prouty gets details wrong about open windows. He claims he got a call from someone that says there was a military standdown that day in terms of protection for Kennedy. Well, that page claims somewhere between 8 to 12 men were provided by the military. In the movie scene, X says there should have been 200 men in the crowd but that there were a few military intelligence men in Dallas. It comes across as a detail thing, that Prouty has some details wrong. Not that there is some giant nutty attempt to mislead people going on.

Prouty in the page I linked to where he answers questions does not come across as a nut but more like someone upset that Kennedy was killed and is questioning how that was allowed to happen.

Also, you said something about Prouty being a holocaust denier but on that page you sent me to all it indicates is he had an interaction with a holocaust denier and says nothing about Prouty holding that belief. In fact the page makes a point of saying he was not an antisemite nor some kind of Nazi sympathizer. So, I honestly don't know what is true about that but it stands that it has no bearing whatsoever on whatever he thought about Kennedy.

The truth is stuff like the UFO thing has no business being on that page because he never made any outrageous UFO claims, and so putting that there looks like a petty and ridiculous attempt to mislead people.

Whomever assembled that page is supposedly trying to truthfully debunk things Prouty said but when the person blatantly throws mud in the water it calls into question all of what they say.

My assessment of Prouty is he is not important, has nothing of value to add, and the scene in the film that Stone invented is little more than a simple storytelling device not an important exposure of information.

I think the reason that people that don't like Stone bring up X and Prouty is because from a factual standpoint Prouty is a weak spot and an easy nitpick. It is however, not really a big deal.

 

[Jack P]

Everything in the X scene is Prouty. The fact that he had an Air Force background is supposed to make us think this is a guy who knows what he's talking about and when he does his own research is somehow a serious minded researcher when the examples cited show that this guy has no credibility as a researcher and spouts things that if he were in a conference of real historians would result in him being laughed at. It's literally the same thing as Stone's big photographic "expert" that he used for the film to trumpet the "backyard photos of Oswald were fake" argument. The fact that the "expert" had no professional training and was later the guy who made an ass of himself at the OJ Simpson civil trial is not a case of "throwing things" at that guy but showing again the nature of the dubious "experts" Stone consulted or deluded himself into thinking were "experts".

Prouty is brought up because Stone chose to gave this crackpot a forum in the movie and to do it without being subject to cross-examination or challenge. Much in the same way that Garrison was given a forum in which all the sordid details of what really happened in the Shaw trial and which had been amply documented years before Stone's movie in books like "American Grotesque" by James Kirkwood were conveniently ignored and left out.

The interesting thing is that after Shaw was acquitted, Garrison literally tried to indict Shaw again for perjury. That resulted in a lawsuit by Shaw to stop Garrison's repeated harassment and the case was still before the courts when Shaw died. Since Shaw had no heirs the case could not continue (today that wouldn't happen and the estate would have been allowed to continue) and if it had, then Garrison would in all likelihood have lost and then been prohibited from ever publicly talking about Shaw or trying to profit off the case again (meaning he would not have been allowed to write his self-serving book or see himself turned into a hero in a movie).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

When I went to that page you linked to and went through it the only thing there that mattered, and really it was all that was needed, was the link to the summary of Prouty being questioned. In that summary we get everything we need to know and is relevant about Prouty and what Stone used him for in his film. Prouty's answers indicate he was just a person upset by the Kennedy killing and speculated about how it could have happened. When asked for any evidence to back his speculation, he had none.

Some of what he says in those answers does not align with what is in Stone's X scene. In Stone's fictional scene X says it was unusual for him to be sent to Antartica. Prouty who was sent to Antartica says it was not unusual for him to be sent there because he had been working on projects there.

Most of what Stone has X say is overheated and presented in a very dramatic fashion with the Garrison character holding his little notebook and hanging on every word. It is a movie cliche. Also, X in the scene never gives Garrison ANY proof of what he is saying and the scene shows Garrison believing all of it. It is nearly comical in how it is done and in reality would make Garrison look like a nut were it true.

So, the big question I get out of this is how did Stone crosscheck what Prouty told him? Did he? Or did he just see it as "This makes for a great scene in the film!" and so he went off and wrote that scene.

The primary issue with what Prouty says is he has nothing to back it up, was not part of protecting Kennedy in Dallas, and everything he speculates about he does not appear to have direct/firsthand knowledge of.

When I examine what he says, it does not appear to me that Prouty is lying nor that he is crazy. It appears he is perhaps emotional about the event and as such is led by his emotions to his beliefs. I obviously never met Prouty so can't say if he is the type of person that would intentionally try to mislead and fabricate but what he says strikes me more as a man that was upset and let his imagination run.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have not yet seen JFK Revisited yet, have you, Jack? If so does Prouty come up in it?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Ha, well that is one way to look at it, yes. In that clip at no point do I feel Stone comes off as a nut. He even acknowledges the possibility one man acting alone could be responsible. I don't think the things he says are crazy. It is not like he is claiming the moon landings were faked by Stanley Kubrick. His take is that there are a bunch of details that make him question the official story. I think it is vastly unfair to portray him as crazy for that.

He obviously still believes to this day that we don't know what happened. I have not seen all of the things he has claimed debunked, personally, and I guess with this new picture it may be time to go through the items in it and see how they were debunked and who debunked them.

I call him nutty because he refuses to accept facts. He believes what he wants to believe - it doesn't matter that his beliefs have been proven incorrect.

It's actually more dangerous because Stone doesn't come across as a wild-eyed nut. He seems entirely rational... as he spouts fabrications and nonsense.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I call him nutty because he refuses to accept facts. He believes what he wants to believe - it doesn't matter that his beliefs have been proven incorrect.

It's actually more dangerous because Stone doesn't come across as a wild-eyed nut. He seems entirely rational... as he spouts fabrications and nonsense.

The way I will view this film will be as letting Stone lay out his case. His theories, whatever facts he has, and the information that he has collected over the years. With his JFK film with Costner, I have never viewed that as an explanation of what happened. It seems more of what Stone said he was setting out to do, which was to "dramatize" a prosecution of the assassination. This is how he ended up using the Garrison character as the lead in the picture.

You can bet money that if I was writing a JFK style picture, which lets face it is a conspiracy thriller, it is not about JFK nor Garrison, and I met a guy with Prouty's credentials that said the things he said...I would find a way to write that into the film. There is nothing wrong with that when you are making a fictional or as Stone called it dramatized version of the events. The information comes from a real person that served in our government and for our military at the time of the events. So, fair game to use it and it is not a lie to do so.

Same with using Garrison's accounts of things and what he collected for info. I see no reason why you can't or should not use that information in a film.

Now with this new documentary, it is a different story. Now you are not dramatizing the events, now you are giving an account of what actually happened. There is no room in that to fictionalize things. You can't combine things different people said to coming out of the mouth of one character. Now you have to play it straight and show the cards. This is what I have, does it amount to something?

There are really three separate things we are discussing here, beliefs, facts, and the difference between fictional films and documentaries. If you dramatize something for a movie, that's fine, no big deal. That is not a lie. If you present something that you know is not accurate in a documentary, well, that is a lie. If you do not know it is not accurate it is an error. If you present a belief, and call it a belief that is fine. Beliefs are not facts. The audience should understand that and it should not have to be explained to them. I would say you would hope they understand that.

As to what Stone believes, well, he said he believes there were elements inside the CIA that participated in the plotting and execution of the JFK assassination. This falls under the old chestnut that if you make an extraordinary claim, you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence. At least if you expect people to believe it.

It is fine for him to believe this happened. That is not an insane belief. He may have seen enough to convince him that this happened. Problem is proving it. I do not feel the man is insane or a nut. His thought process appears logical. However, if he wants to make me, for example, believe some people that worked for the CIA participated in killing JFK, well, there needs to be evidence presented that shows this took place.

I don't find it an out of the question possibility. I don't find it nutty that the Warren report could be wrong, nor that they failed to look at or include items that might have called their report into question. That is often standard procedure in government or police work. You stack up only what makes your case and try to move on. I don't find Vincent Bugliosi a particularly credible character. So, I don't find the idea that sources like these could be inaccurate or attempting to sell a specific tale.

I think this is a two way street in that some people really want to prove that JFK was murdered through a conspiracy to kill him and some people really want to prove that Oswald acted alone. The problem going both ways and what I look for is people overselling, overreaching, and not sticking to what would be relevant facts. When that starts to happen, then it stinks of slipping into dishonesty or delusion.

I would say Stone is sane and not a nut nor do I find his thoughts on the JFK murder farfetched. They have to be taken with a grain of salt though until they are proven or disproven.

If he starts going off telling stories about having lunch in the woods with Bigfoot or that he thinks Kubrick helped fake the moon landings I would then have an issue. His theories on JFK are pretty basic though, are plausible, and could have happened. A conspiracy is not a nutty thing. They happen frequently, they have happened throughout history, we just had one happen during the last presidential election. So, a conspiracy theory, at least one that is not something that would be outside the bounds of reality, should not be viewed as insane or get you labeled a nut. Doing that is a dangerous thing.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

His theories on JFK are pretty basic though, are plausible, and could have happened.

No, they couldn't. That's my point: he continues to believe all sorts of "theories" that have been debunked but he continues to stick with the fiction.

He endorsed the notion the CIA "removed" JFK! That's neither basic nor plausible...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

No, they couldn't. That's my point: he continues to believe all sorts of "theories" that have been debunked but he continues to stick with the fiction.

He endorsed the notion the CIA "removed" JFK! That's neither basic nor plausible...

Yes, what I mean when I say plausible is, this is a real world thing that COULD take place. A conspiracy to kill a person is not like saying an alien spaceship landed in my yard and little green women with big boobs stepped out and invited me to an orgy with them during which they also told me that Warren Buffet is actually a lizard disguised as a human and he runs the world.

There are conspiracies to kill people. So, is it possible that a small group of CIA people helped plan and/or execute a murder...yes, that is totally possible. In fact, I think you can go as far as to say they have done that in other countries. Did they do that in the case of JFK? Well, maybe, but there is a rather heavy burden on you to prove it if that is your claim.

So, I would argue it is plausible but has Stone proved that? I would say he has not but I also have not watched this documentary so I don't know what is said in it.

Look, I have not spent any significant time in my life chasing down mysteries surrounding JFK's murder. I have come across public info, theories, and general information over time. So, yes, I understand you guys are saying his claims have been totally debunked, perhaps they have, but I have not seen his claims being totally debunked.

As I understand it, the really big point that gets debated is the whole "magic bullet" theory. That a single bullet made several wounds in two men. This one seems to have a bunch of "experts" on both sides that constantly debate this. This is outside of Stone, who obviously believes the side that says the bullet could not have done that.

The second aspect that seems hotly contested is the number of bullets fired in order to complete the task of killing Kennedy. I have seen a lot of back and forth on this but I do not recall anything definitive ever settling this argument.

The third thing related to bullets is the bullet shown in photos that is said to be the "magic bullet" and as I recall wasn't the claim on this that the bullet has vanished? So, it no longer and has not existed as evidence for some time? I may be mistaken but I think this was one of the claims I have heard along with some other evidence going missing or being destroyed. If any of that is true, it is odd considering it is evidence in one of the most famous murders that has ever taken place.

Essentially, what I am saying is I have not looked into these things and so can't say they are debunked. I mean if you guys want to point me to some things to read on these items I will happily look at them.