OLIVER STONE'S MOVIE "JFK" = THE BRAINWASHING OF AMERICA
David Von Pein
PICTURE......
=======================================================
CTer --- Bugliosi is a shyster who always tries to make a buck by writing
a book whenever a controversial subject like the OJ Simpson case or the
2000 election comes around. Now he is just looking to make a buck on the
Kennedy assassination at the expense of desperate lone nutters like you,
who are desperately looking for some kind of alternative to Oliver Stone's
classic movie. Good luck!
DVP --- Can I ask you a serious question? Do you truly think that the
pre-planned, multi-gun, 1-patsy plot proposed in Oliver Stone's "classic"
(your word) movie was a very good assassination plan?
Or do you think that (just perhaps) Mr. Stone took some dramatic liberties
re. that type of "plot" during the course of this "classic" film?
================================
CTer --- I believe this account of what happened in the JFK assassination
{within Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK"} to be the most accurate account of
what happened to date. The criticism this movie receives from people like
you is a testament to its authenticity.
DVP --- That's all I needed to know. Thanks. So you actually believe, per
the above statement you made, that a band of conspirators (well in advance
of 11/22/63) got together to frame a lone patsy named Oswald and then
decided to use 3 gunmen and 6 shots to kill the President (all of which
cannot possibly be linked to only Oswald's Carcano rifle)....all the while
their "patsy" is roaming around on the lower floors of the TSBD, possibly
gaining for himself an ironclad alibi. Correct?
And just exactly what makes the above Stone- and Garrison-proposed theory
anything more than pure out-and-out fantasy (not to mention utter lunacy
from the PRE-11/22 perspective)?
Please....enlighten the masses with your JFK brilliance.
================================
CTer --- I'll believe Stone and Garrison long before I would believe a
lying piece of crap like you, Buddy. I know all about you and your
cowardly lone-nut friends who stalk people who come here in peace to
discuss this movie just to have dirtbags like you horn in, hurling lies
and insults at them. You lone-nutters are the dregs of society, thankfully
you only represent a very small portion of the human race.
DVP --- Lovely diatribe. Thanks. Does this mean I can forget about that
birthday card (and expensive gift) that I've been expecting from you this
year? ;)
================================
DVP --- If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on 11/22/63,
would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey Plaza? Or would
you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD using only your
patsy's gun?
And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the lunchroom at 12:30,
where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT LUNCHTIME?
Just wondering?
CTer --- It didn't matter how many gunmen there were, you know that.
Oswald was going to be charged no matter what.
DVP --- What if Oswald had called in sick on 11/22? What then? Would the
plotters have re-routed the motorcade to have it pass by Ruth Paine's home
in Irving?
================================
CTer --- Look at all the ridiculous excuses that have already been
manufactured to support the lone-gunman theory: the single bullet theory,
the jet effect theory....none of this is true; you know it as well as I
do.
DVP --- You seem to be a perfect, quintessential example of how Oliver
Stone has almost single-handedly manipulated the minds of many
evidence-ignorant people with respect to the facts surrounding the events
of Nov. 22, 1963.
A pity. It really is.
I strongly encourage you to pick this up when available (it'll be heavy,
yes...but just bend your knees before picking it up).....
www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
================================
CTer --- No one was in the lunch room at 12:30 but Oswald.
DVP --- Which one? He claimed to have been in BOTH the 1st-Floor and
2nd-Floor lunchrooms ("Domino Room" on the 1st Floor, as it was called) at
the time of the shooting.
He sure got lucky as hell, huh? Not a sole in either LUNCHroom except
Oswald...at LUNCHtime.
You don't find "Patsy Framing" luck like that very often.
================================
CTer --- If Oswald had decided to walk out on to the street to view the
motorcade, the patsy plan obviously would have fallen apart and he could
not have been charged with the crime. But he didn't, probably because he
was an anarchist and had no interest in seeing the President.
DVP --- And, of course, those plotters who were guiding him through every
movement he made on Nov. 22 somehow KNEW that he would have no interest in
sticking his head out the door at 12:30....right?
================================
CTer --- But, then again, he had no idea of what was about to happen, just
like everyone else. He played right into the plotters hands perfectly.
DVP --- Yeah, right. He framed himself it seems. And what about the Tippit
murder? Was LHO guilty of that murder? Or was he a patsy there too?
And what about the mountain of LIES that Oswald told the cops after his
arrest?
Does an innocent "patsy" (who had "no idea of what was about to happen" to
JFK on 11/22/63) really need to lie this much? Really? Think about it.
.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>A DISCUSSION WITH A DEVOTED FAN OF OLIVER STONE'S 1991 MOTION
>PICTURE......
Name of fan?
Or just another phantom in your brain?
Give us a name please.
I don't know any serious researcher who believes the movie JFK is a
documentary.
>CTer
Name please? Or is this just a ghost in your noggin again?
> --- Bugliosi is a shyster
Still no name? I assume you are talking to yourself, right?
Why is DAvid VP calling Bugliosi a shyster?
Same technique from David VP who has difficulty
dealing with the mythic CT inhabiting his brain.
>DVP --- Can I ask you a serious question? Do you truly think that the
>pre-planned, multi-gun, 1-patsy plot proposed in Oliver Stone's "classic"
>(your word) movie was a very good assassination plan?
Well, first of all, remember that the movie is fiction. Virtually all
viewers (except you apparently) understand that fact. Even Stone
himself has indicated his movie is a myth not factual.
Don't let facts stand in your way though. You have a mission to
exorcise some self-created demons in your own head.
>Or do you think that (just perhaps) Mr. Stone took some dramatic liberties
>re. that type of "plot" during the course of this "classic" film?
Why ask a question when the answer has been available for years?
Stone himself indicates his film is a myth not factual. So what?
I could list 50 war or history movies that do the same thing. Take a
story and massage it for entertainment purposes.
Where have you been?
>CTer ---
Is this CT the same ghost that is obsessing you, trapped in your head?
Not a REAL person? In effect, this beast is your own creation.
Readers of the newsgroup are entertained on a daily basis by your
battle with these creatures in your own head. Good luck.
> I believe this account of what happened in the JFK assassination
>{within Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK"} to be the most accurate account of
>what happened to date. The criticism this movie receives from people like
>you is a testament to its authenticity.
Tell this "thingie" in your head to go away. He/she/it represents only
a strange manifestation of your own creation.
>DVP --- That's all I needed to know.
Remember now, you are talking to yourself.
> Thanks. So you actually believe, per
>the above statement you made, that a band of conspirators (well in advance
>of 11/22/63) got together to frame a lone patsy named Oswald and then
>decided to use 3 gunmen and 6 shots to kill the President (all of which
>cannot possibly be linked to only Oswald's Carcano rifle)....all the while
>their "patsy" is roaming around on the lower floors of the TSBD, possibly
>gaining for himself an ironclad alibi. Correct?
Only David VP knows for sure. He's talking to himself not a REAL
person. I'm not sure he is even aware of this fact.
>And just exactly what makes the above Stone- and Garrison-proposed theory
>anything more than pure out-and-out fantasy (not to mention utter lunacy
>from the PRE-11/22 perspective)?
Go get em David. Try to tell this ghost in your head that Stone has
explained numerous times (as have other film scholars and researchers)
that his film is not a documentary. If you can get your beast to
understand this one simple truth, perhaps the beast will leave you
alone. I'm sure that would be a great relief to you.
>Please....enlighten the masses with your JFK brilliance.
You do realize you are satirizing yourself here David VP, don't you?
>CTer
Name of this CTer? DAvid VP's imaginary beast.
>--- I'll believe Stone and Garrison long before I would believe a
>lying piece of crap like you, Buddy. I know all about you and your
>cowardly lone-nut friends who stalk people who come here in peace to
>discuss this movie just to have dirtbags like you horn in, hurling lies
>and insults at them. You lone-nutters are the dregs of society, thankfully
>you only represent a very small portion of the human race.
Whew. Your other half is berating you David.
People on this newsgroup have discussed this movie in an intelligent
and friendly fashion for years.
It's too bad David VP's beast (really David VP himself) finds it
necessary to characterize other LNs as "cowardly" and as "liars" and
"dregs of society".
How pathetic.
>DVP --- Lovely diatribe.
Lol. Complimenting yourself for your own wacky and insulting
diatribe!!
> Thanks. Does this mean I can forget about that
>birthday card (and expensive gift) that I've been expecting from you this
>year? ;)
>
You'll have to ask your fellow LNs.
If I was you I'd be careful about knocking your fellow LNs in such a
manner.
It is YOU and YOU alone who is doing so.
PF
Gerry Simone (O)
JFK Act.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175741256....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
James K. Olmstead
I just noticed the file in the Mary Ferrell Oswald 201 file collection.
The Stripper........with Richard Beymer.....Beymer went to Mexico City in Dec 1963 to
talk with Duran. Google Beymer and reviews of his films are available.
The movie was released in 1963.....It's fiction....but there is a interesting Ruby related 1963
connection to this since a Communist teacher in New Orleans had a daughter that was a French Quarter
stripper, had Mexico City same timeframe connection. LHO, Beymer and stripper same age
range. I wondered if Ruby, while in New Orleans, may have checked her out for contract in Dallas.
Thought you might be interested....I know you collect these types of films.
On the thread.......only a halfbaked CT would consider JFK any type of Doc film.
jko
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message news:2ms913p6tneqr89u3...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 4 Apr 2007 23:21:42 -0400, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A DISCUSSION WITH A DEVOTED FAN OF OLIVER STONE'S 1991 MOTION
>> PICTURE......
>
> Name of fan?
>
> Or just another phantom in your brain?
>
> Give us a name please.
>
> I don't know any serious researcher who believes the movie JFK is a
> documentary.
>
>> CTer
>
> Name please? Or is this just a ghost in your noggin again?
>
>> --- Bugliosi is a shyster
>
> Still no name? I assume you are talking to yourself, right?
> Why is DAvid VP calling Bugliosi a shyster?
> Same technique from David VP who has difficulty
> dealing with the mythic CT inhabiting his brain.
>
>> DVP --- Can I ask you a serious question? Do you truly think that the
>> pre-planned, multi-gun, 1-patsy plot proposed in Oliver Stone's "classic"
>> (your word) movie was a very good assassination plan?
>
> Well, first of all, remember that the movie is fiction. Virtually all
> viewers (except you apparently) understand that fact. Even Stone
> himself has indicated his movie is a myth not factual.
>
I don't know how far your archives go back, but when the film came out I
was warning people about how the movie intermixed real documentary footage
with made up footage intentionally designed to look like documentary
footage or home movies. Cleverly done, but deceptive.
Texextra
This post differs from the movie ________________________.
David Von Pein
Some (probable) kid called "OswaldShotNobody63" from the IMDB JFK
Forum.
I didn't figure the actual "name" (or handle/"username", in this instance)
was required. I was merely trying to demonstrate how some people's brains
have seemingly been "washed" of the truth by Ollie's clever "classic"
motion picture ("OswaldShotNobody's" term, of course....certainly not
mine). ;)
>>> "I don't know any serious researcher who believes the movie JFK is a
documentary." <<<
Nor do I. But that wasn't my main point of this thread. My main point was
to show how Stone's slick piece of entertainment has duped people into
believing the content of that movie is worthy of "classic" status.
And if you visit the "Oliver Stone's JFK" Forum at IMDB, you can easily
see for yourself that I'm correct in that assessment. .....
http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/threads/
Yes, a lot of the people posting there are just teenagers who don't know
diddly about the case at all (except what they've seen up on the
screen...put there by Ollie Stone). But, actually, that's part of my whole
point -- i.e., gullible people are taking Stone's film as THE ABSOLUTE
TRUTH....and they'll never be swayed from the CT images they're watching
on the big screen.
And that is truly a shame.
>>> "Complimenting yourself for your own wacky and insulting diatribe!!"
<<<
You ACTUALLY believe that I am MAKING UP my own "CTer" dialogue here,
Peter?? Really??
Geesh.
The exchange was real, between TWO different people, and is documented at
the link below.
I suppose I'll next be accused of creating a duplicate IMDB account and
"pretending" to be "OswaldShotNobody63"....right? That's usually the next
accusation tossed about by CTers, isn't it? Has Nurse Ratched been
knocking on your door today, Pete? ;) .....
David Von Pein
Which must mean that the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG is filled with "halfbaked
CTers"....because Stone's/(Garrison's) main #1 premise in the film (i.e.,
OSWALD IS A PATSY AND NEVER SHOT ANYBODY) is, in fact, being peddled as
the TRUTH by several people on these forums (at least over at The
Nuthouse/Asylum at any rate).
And several/most of the people at JFK-Lancer have the "Patsy" mindset as
well.
Curious huh?
Well...not really.
~wink~
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1175816009.0...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Only a halfbaked CT would consider JFK any type of Doc film." <<<
>
>
> Which must mean that the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG is filled with "halfbaked
> CTers"....because Stone's/(Garrison's) main #1 premise in the film (i.e.,
> OSWALD IS A PATSY AND NEVER SHOT ANYBODY) is, in fact, being peddled as
> the TRUTH by several people on these forums (at least over at The
> Nuthouse/Asylum at any rate).
The nuthouse proves my point.
jko
David Von Pein
On that point...we agree. ;)
Peter Fokes
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Pete: Not to subtract from the thread but here is a 1963 movie to add to you collection.
>I just noticed the file in the Mary Ferrell Oswald 201 file collection.
>
>The Stripper........with Richard Beymer.....Beymer went to Mexico City in Dec 1963 to
>talk with Duran. Google Beymer and reviews of his films are available.
Will do. Thanks.
>The movie was released in 1963.....It's fiction....but there is a interesting Ruby related 1963
>connection to this since a Communist teacher in New Orleans had a daughter that was a French Quarter
>stripper, had Mexico City same timeframe connection. LHO, Beymer and stripper same age
>range. I wondered if Ruby, while in New Orleans, may have checked her out for contract in Dallas.
>
>Thought you might be interested....I know you collect these types of films.
Still do. Another notable film from 1963 was recently released on
DVD:
From Amazon.com
Alain Resnais's 1963 memory film Muriel is a fascinating study of the
relationship between the way things are remembered--a blend of fact,
dream, and falsification--and the way things really are, with cinema
itself the crucial bridge. A woman (Delphine Seyrig), haunted by the
memory of her first love, meets up with him again and finds he's a
long way from being the man she recalls. Meanwhile, her stepson
(Jean-Baptiste Thierrée) is preoccupied with a torture death he
witnessed in Algeria. In the case of the former, the present-day
truths about Seyrig's old flame are mitigated and complicated by
recollections of his old self, and what develops is a timeless
portrait of the character more alive than his current actuality. In
the latter, the young man's refusal to loosen the atrocity's grip on
his life becomes increasingly fruitless as the tragedy only exists on
film--and the world has moved on despite the injustice. A challenging
work by Resnais in which perspective rapidly changes, the film
nevertheless has a subtle, haunting quality in which the richness of
the past and the bluntness of the present obscure one another and must
be reconciled on celluloid. --Tom Keogh
>
>On the thread.......only a halfbaked CT would consider JFK any type of Doc film.
True.
>jko
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On 5 Apr 2007 15:42:18 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
><jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete: Not to subtract from the thread but here is a 1963 movie to add to you collection.
>>I just noticed the file in the Mary Ferrell Oswald 201 file collection.
>>
>>The Stripper........with Richard Beymer.....Beymer went to Mexico City in Dec 1963 to
>>talk with Duran. Google Beymer and reviews of his films are available.
>
>Will do. Thanks.
Did.
Paul Newman (not in movie) was keeping a close eye on his wife Joanne
Woodward who played the Stripper.
See pic:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1146/Mptv/1146/0070-2278.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0057537
Not on DVD yet and VHS versions start at $52 on Amazon.
I'll write Turner Classic Movies and ask them to show it on TV.
In the background right now, I'm watching an old film from 1931 called
The Gangsters with Walter Huston and Frances Starr. Turner running a
series of movies starring Walter Huston. Now on: The Wet Parade (1932)
about Prohibition starring Huston and Myrna Loy.
Took your chances drinking booze in those days .... no quality control
testing.
PF
tomnln
THOUSANDS of movies.
How many others have you complained about?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WcmdndI1BoNSm4jb...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> All movies based on Historical events are made that way Marsh.
>
Not ALL. Some try to be documentaries. Why do you think they have a
category called documentaries?
> THOUSANDS of movies.
>
> How many others have you complained about?
>
Many.
Not many were made the way JFK was made. A few others.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Only a halfbaked CT would consider JFK any type of Doc film." <<<
>
>
> Which must mean that the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG is filled with "halfbaked
> CTers"....because Stone's/(Garrison's) main #1 premise in the film (i.e.,
> OSWALD IS A PATSY AND NEVER SHOT ANYBODY) is, in fact, being peddled as
> the TRUTH by several people on these forums (at least over at The
> Nuthouse/Asylum at any rate).
>
Some people believe every word of whatever latest conspiracy book
they've read. Some people believe every word of whatever WC defender
book they've read. There are kooks on both sides of the debate.
James K. Olmstead
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message news:9kmc13p3dpu2rurh5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:28:47 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Apr 2007 15:42:18 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
>><jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Pete: Not to subtract from the thread but here is a 1963 movie to add to you collection.
>>>I just noticed the file in the Mary Ferrell Oswald 201 file collection.
>>>
>>>The Stripper........with Richard Beymer.....Beymer went to Mexico City in Dec 1963 to
>>>talk with Duran. Google Beymer and reviews of his films are available.
>>
>>Will do. Thanks.
>
> Did.
Figured you would....btw it was the offical investigation that mentioned Ruby concerning
this visit by Beymer to MC to see Duran....it's not something I've pulled out of a phone book.
>
> Paul Newman (not in movie) was keeping a close eye on his wife Joanne
> Woodward who played the Stripper.
>
> See pic:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1146/Mptv/1146/0070-2278.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0057537
Newman, used to come here several times a year to race at Nelson Ledges, about 6 miles away.
>
> Not on DVD yet and VHS versions start at $52 on Amazon.
Ouch....that's high........I'll keep my eye out for bootleg.
jko
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Name of fan? ... Give us a name please." <<<
>
> Some (probable) kid called "OswaldShotNobody63" from the IMDB JFK
> Forum.
>
So, how much did you pay your buddy to leave that fake message?
> I didn't figure the actual "name" (or handle/"username", in this instance)
> was required. I was merely trying to demonstrate how some people's brains
> have seemingly been "washed" of the truth by Ollie's clever "classic"
> motion picture ("OswaldShotNobody's" term, of course....certainly not
> mine). ;)
>
>
Some people? No, you tried to generalize based on a made up message.
>>>> "I don't know any serious researcher who believes the movie JFK is a
> documentary." <<<
>
> Nor do I. But that wasn't my main point of this thread. My main point was
> to show how Stone's slick piece of entertainment has duped people into
> believing the content of that movie is worthy of "classic" status.
>
Not my theory, but a movie which is controversial and which I might not
agree with 100% can still be a well made movie. As Jack Valenti said
about Stone's JFK.
> And if you visit the "Oliver Stone's JFK" Forum at IMDB, you can easily
> see for yourself that I'm correct in that assessment. .....
>
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/threads/
>
> Yes, a lot of the people posting there are just teenagers who don't know
> diddly about the case at all (except what they've seen up on the
> screen...put there by Ollie Stone). But, actually, that's part of my whole
> point -- i.e., gullible people are taking Stone's film as THE ABSOLUTE
> TRUTH....and they'll never be swayed from the CT images they're watching
> on the big screen.
>
And a lot of them are troll who lie in order to start arguments. And you
fall for it.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DcGdnUWdbq6X-Yvb...@comcast.com...
steverino
that made you blind(in WET PARADE) must still be encouraging to
America haters everywhere. Did you notice that the man who went blind
was Neil Hamilton.....COMMISSIONER GORDON from Batman! On Apr 6,
10:41 am, Peter Fokes<j...@toronto.hm> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:28:47 -0400, Peter Fokes<j...@toronto.hm>
> wrote:
>
> >On 5 Apr 2007 15:42:18 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
>
> >>Pete: Not to subtract from the thread but here is a 1963 movie to add to you collection.
> >>I just noticed the file in the Mary Ferrell Oswald 201 file collection.
>
> >>The Stripper........with Richard Beymer.....Beymer went to Mexico City in Dec 1963 to
> >>talk with Duran. Google Beymer and reviews of his films are available.
>
> >Will do. Thanks.
>
> Did.
>
> Paul Newman (not in movie) was keeping a close eye on his wife Joanne
> Woodward who played the Stripper.
>
> See pic:
>
> >>> On 4 Apr 2007 23:21:42 -0400, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>And the reference to the Government putting the stuff into the Booze
>that made you blind(in WET PARADE) must still be encouraging to
>America haters everywhere. Did you notice that the man who went blind
>was Neil Hamilton.....COMMISSIONER GORDON from Batman! On Apr 6,
Didn't notice that line.
.... back in prohibition times, there was an actual booze pipeline
from Canada to the U.S. Low quality no doubt. From Manitoba to a U.S.
state.
No need for a government to put anything into the booze to cause
health problems. Sounds like an Urban Legend.
PF