Oliver Stone wraps up ’50 Reasons for 50 Years’


In the last installment of this epic and enlightening series, host Len Osanic talks to the director of “America’s Untold History” about JFK’s enemies without reference to the assassination. Rather, Stone compares JFK to his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower and successor Lyndon B. Johnson and explores what an unusual president he was in resisting the pressure for militarization and war.

34 comments

  1. Jonathan says:

    I listened to this excellent program over the weekend. Thanks for bringing it here from Black Op Radio.

    Oliver Stone demonstrates to me he grasps the significance of the Kennedy presidency against the background of American officials who wanted war with Cuba or the Soviet Union at any cost.

    The whole program is chilling. For me, the most chilling part is the recounting of how the White House Situation Room, under the command of George McBundy, sent messages to AF 1 and the cabinet plane returning from Hawaii. The messages, sent early to mid-afternoon on 11-22-63, stated that Kennedy had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone; that Oswald was in custody; that there was no conspiracy.

    Shorter McBundy: That’s the official history.

    • Photon says:

      Who is McBundy? If you can’t even get something as elemental as a name correct how can anybody believe you know the subject or have a rational interpretation?

      • JeffreyH says:

        I have been reading the posts on this website since almost it’s inception. While I don’t know who you are or what your “Photon” moniker is supposed to mean, I can surmise that your occasional interjections are mostly digs and are meant to inflame and not warranted. This most likely won’t be posted or will be deleted by Jeff, just wanted to speak my mind.

  2. TLR says:

    A great ending to a great series. I do have to disagree with Stone that Hoover wasn’t so bad. Some of his FBI agents did great field work – that is true – but Hoover cherry-picked the parts he would allow the WC to see. And if you’ve read Anthony Summers and other authors on Hoover, you know what a thoroughly dishonest and corrupt person he was.

  3. Hans Trayne says:

    It’s fitting that Len Osanic close his ’50 Reasons For 50 Years’ series with Oliver Stone; both have set the bar high in their visual analysis of the history of the public execution of President Kennedy. Len’s YouTube efforts are a directional signal to sincere researchers & would-be film makers on how to work around a media blacklist that excludes them, focusing instead on forcing media propaganda down the public’s throat in regard to JFK’s death & the failure of the US government to prosecute his killers & bring global acceptable closure to his murder.

    For their tireless, unselfish, sincere & dedicated efforts in this truth & transparency crusade Osanic, Stone, YouTube & dozens of researchers, authors & historians around the world deserve our sincerest thanks & gratitude. I proud of them all.

  4. JSA says:

    I’d like to know: Is it ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN (documentable) that the WH Situation Room sent out the LHO information when they did? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; I’m just asking if this is documentable. If it is, it is pretty damning. I’ll bet someone out there will challenge this however. That’s why I’d like to know how verifiable it is.

  5. John Kirsch says:

    I pulled this off “History Matters.” It’s by Rex Bradford and seems apt here. I hope it isn’t too long:
    “A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khruschev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this thought experiment, it is Khruschev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was ordered not to track the path of a bullet. That crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing, that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained, that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs. Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone “rabid capitalist,” but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives. That secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer had been impersonated in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents. But Khruschev’s successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out. And so on. Take the single bullet theory, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khruschev had ordered be wound down.

    Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely obvious to everyone that Khruschev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons. It would be obvious that the “story” of the lone capitalist was just that, a story, propped by by phoney “evidence” that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn’t need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a high-level conspiracy that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this.

    I am not suggesting, by the way, that Russian and American societies in the 1960s or later were or are equivalent, and any analogies such as given above have their limits. Nonetheless, what is fundamentally different between this thought experiment and the reality of the Kennedy assassination is not the basic facts—it is a matter of belief systems. For a great many people, it is simply not possible that an assassination of a President would be carried out by powerful domestic political figures, even though they would be perfectly willing to believe it of the Soviets or almost any other country’s leaders. Even imagining that high U.S. officials would lie and engage in cover-up in such a matter is unthinkable to many, and certainly unspeakable in the naton’s “responsible” media. Belief systems are powerful. But they are not always right.”

    • Photon says:

      Even if Krushchev had been killed by the KGB in broad daylight we would never have heard about it.
      Your naïveté in believing that any information about a political assassination in the U.S.S.R. would be a matter of public debate or even knowledge is astounding
      Just look at the Kirov assassination, or the Caribbean equivalent of Cienfuegos.

  6. Larry Hancock says:

    The Situation Room’s messages are documented and timestamped in the transcript of the Andrews communication with AF1 which is taped, as well as Andrews communications with other sources desiring to be connected to AF1 such as the Congressional aircraft out over the Pacific. See Bill Kelley’s fine AF1 work on his blog:

    http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/off-tapes-whats-missing-from-af1-radio.html

    However, the Situation Room, very much new at the time, was often just passing along information off the AP wire or the commercial television channels. Which of course did report the capture of the suspect, naming him as Lee Oswald.

  7. John Kirsch says:

    Former NYT reporter Richard Reeves has stated more than once that JFK didn’t trust the military. But he became president at the height of the Cold War, when the men at the Pentagon and CIA were used to getting their way.
    These reactionaries must have taken Kennedy’s American University speech as a direct threat to their power. Imagine how the Soviet generals would have felt if Khrushchev had given a major speech calling for an end to hostilities with the U.S.?
    The generals and their hangers-on would have seen a direct threat to their power. No more dachas and limos and private Swiss bank accounts. An end to the gravy train.
    Similarly, the hard men at the Pentagon and CIA and elsewhere had every interest in continuing the Cold War. Yet their own commander in chief had effectively called for an end to the conflict. Never underestimate the importance and power of self interest.
    These men were old enough to remember the New Deal, when another aristocratic reformer had placed a higher priority on the needs of ordinary Americans than on the privileged.
    These men at the Pentagon and CIA and elsewhere saw themselves as the defenders of a system that had rewarded them with power and wealth. If continuing the Cold War, and making it worse, meant placing more burdens on ordinary Americans, then that was simply the way things had to be. The nation’s most reactionary elements would not abide another aristocratic reformer in the White House. They would take action.

  8. John Kirsch says:

    My hunch is that the man at the far right in the foto above, who appears to be pointing, is David Belin, a lawyer from Des Moines, Iowa, (my hometown)who served as an attorney for the WC. He was known as a die-hard defender of the commission.

    • Photon says:

      Interesting. Of course you know what Kerouac said about Des Moines .

    • TLR says:

      Yes, that is David Belin. He wrote two terrible books defending the WC, as well as his involvement in the Rockefeller Commission.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I grew up in Des Moines and every once in a while the paper would publish a story about Belin trotting out his shop-worn defense of the WC. He came across as extremely antagonistic toward any criticism at all. That kind of excessive response makes me wonder if he didn’t have some doubts himself.

  9. John Kirsch says:

    Accepting the official story requires what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called a “willing suspension of disbelief.” The idea was to get people to believe a fantastic tale by injecting a little bit of human interest or actual truth into the narrative.
    Judging from the polls, this does not appear to have worked.

  10. Photon says:

    Coleridge was more into a “willing suspension of reality”-sound familiar?

    • John Kirsch says:

      Let me ask you this, Photon. You appear to accept the WC’s findings. Would you have any thoughts you’d like to share about why most Americans do not (and never have) accepted the commission’s findings?

      • Paulf says:

        As much as I agree with you, what the majority of people think doesn’t mean a whole lot. And it allows him to change the topic from the only thing that matters, which is trying to ascertain the facts.

        The way to challenge him is to ask him to back up his assertions, which he almost never can do.

        • Photon says:

          Actually I always do -that’s a fact.

          • John Kirsch says:

            No, Photon, you don’t. As far as I know you have never said explicitly whether you worked for the CIA. All you did was say you worked for “the Company.”

          • John Kirsch says:

            I’m still waiting for a response, Photon, to the question you implicitly raised months ago. Did you work for the CIA? It’s a simple yes or no question.
            Actually I don’t expect you to respond. You like to present yourself as someone who just wants facts but in reality you attempt to cloak yourself in an aura of mystery. You hint at working for the CIA without actually saying whether you did.
            I would say that you are actually one of the least-transparent persons who regularly comments on this site. You like to challenge others but fall silent or try to confuse the issue when challenged yourself.
            Far from trying to bring some light on 11/22, I think your goal is to disrupt discussions on this site and to sow doubt and confusion.

        • John Kirsch says:

          If this is still a democracy (a big if), then that means the ultimate power resides in the people, not the individuals the people elect to do the peoples’ business. When the peoples’ legally elected leader is shot in broad daylight on the streets of a major American city, the government, which is supposed to SERVE the people, the government has a responsibility to tell the people the truth about how their president came to be slaughtered on the streets of Dallas.
          That has not happened and we should not stop asking questions and raising hell until it does.
          The people in Washington, D.C. who purport to represent us do not want to provide a sensible account of 11/22 because they see no political gain in it for themselves. I suspect they are also afraid of what a real investigation would turn up and the questions it would raise about the legitimacy of power in America in the last 50 years. I suspect that the truth would force us to alter our understanding of what has happened in and to America in the last half century.

      • Photon says:

        Probably for the same reason that a 2012 Gallup Poll reported that 46% of Americans believed in Creationism and only 15% believed in evolution. They are not educated on the subject or have preconceived notions that cloud their abilities to rationally evaluate the facts.
        The percentages of people that believe that something is true has absolutely nothing to do with whether that something actually is true.
        Most people in this country have little interest in the JFK assassination or any reasonable knowledge of the facts. The other day I was discussing this topic with a highly educated and intelligent friend who happens to be a surgeon.Despite having an opinion on the subject, he was totally unaware of the murder of J.D. Tippit. Anecdotally I have come across a lot of similar superficial knowledge of the subject; aside from a few zealots virtually all of the folks that I know who have any real knowledge on the subject have come over to the Lone Nut side. That includes many who originally favored a conspiracy. As no evidence has come out implicating anybody but Oswald they have accepted that no evidence of a conspiracy most logically means that there is no conspiracy.

        • Rick says:

          No evidence? How can it be explained how the purported 2 shots from Oswald rifle that hit the president could produce such different results? The first one in the back travelled straight as an arrow and come out pristine while the other one disintegrated on impact. The head shot was clearly from a ‘dumb-dumb’ type bullet the other was from a metal jacketed bullet.

          • Photon says:

            Rick, when two bullets travel through 2 different substances with multiple different densities at different speeds encountering different tissue shapes that affect velocity,direction and momentum it is not rational to believe that they will end up looking the same.
            Perhaps you should study ballistics a bit. First off,get your terms straight. There is no such thing as a “dumb-dumb” bullet. The term Dumdum originally came to describe special rounds manufactured at the Dumdum arsenal for use by the British Army on opponents who needed to be dropped quickly.
            Dumdums don’t explode. They EXPAND, transferring force to tissue in an expanded area. Apparently a lot of conspiracy experts are not aware of this.

          • JSA says:

            Rick,

            Photon is just warming up, don’t get him started. I might add that one of his “expert mentor/facebook friends” on the subject of the JFK assassination, John McAdams, doesn’t think that man-made carbon emissions cause enough of a greenhouse effect to warm the planet. Talk about scientifically illiterate! He likes to smear the credentials of others by association, so he’s fair game.

            As to the bullet trajectories and types of bullets fired that day, I’m recommending (along with Forensics expert Cyril Wecht) that you read Donald Thomas’ excellent book, “Hear No Evil.” As Photon likes to say, Thomas is a “butterfly scientist” but don’t let that smear you away from a great book, one that is very carefully and scientifically researched, footnoted, sourced. You can buy it on Amazon or from maryferrell.org. If Photon can get much of his source material from an ignorant global warming denier, we can get ours from a “butterfly scientist.” Hey, wherever objective facts don’t get politicized to death!

        • TLR says:

          Oh thank you so much for comparing JFK researchers to creationists! I also look forward to being compared to Holocaust deniers.

          And you “rational thinkers” can keep chanting the magical “no evidence” incantation all you like. The single bullet theory is as absurd as anything the Catholic Church required people to believe in centuries ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more