Another JFK Propaganda Movie

[SetFree]

I just watched the movie Parkland, which was the Dallas hospital where they took President Kennedy's body after he was shot. The movie was like many propaganda movies that attempt to cement in one's mind that Oswald acted alone where there is actual evidence that he was setup as a patsy, even like he said.

I saw the movie JFK with Kevin Costner first, written and directed by Oliver Stone. The evidence of a grand conspiracy was presented throughout the movie, even that none of Oswald's fingerprints were found on the rifle used at the book suppository building to shoot the President. Well, that's just a movie I thought. And I thought of Oliver Stone as a bit of a radical anyway.

Then I was over at my Dad's house one day, and he had gotten DirectTV, and I thumbed through the hundreds of channels available. I wound up on a broadcast of an old black and white documentary with the New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison sitting at his desk, and giving the evidence that he had discovered in his re-opening of the JFK case in 1967. The evidence Garrison found in 1967 exactly modeled the new evidence proposed in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. It was then that I discovered Oliver Stone wasn't lying that there had been a major conspiracy, and cover up of the assassination of JFK.

Since then, Oliver Stone has made a follow up documentary to JFK called JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass, giving even more evidence of a conspiracy.

I even remember back in 1992, once the movie JFK had come out and was raising a stir, PBS put on a fictional trial of Oswald that might have happened if Oswald had lived. The theme was, did Oswald act alone? Of course the PBS broadcast was propaganda as the fake mockup trial proved Oswald acted alone.


See the following link about Garrrison:

The True Story Of Jim Garrison And The Chilling Kennedy Assassination Theories In The 1991 Film 'JFK'

Jim Garrison made headlines when he charged Clay Shaw with conspiring to kill JFK.

allthatsinteresting.com

 

[Lamb]

I think the more propaganda spreads, that the more that people believe.

 

[Frankj]

I think the more propaganda spreads, that the more that people believe.

It's that 'Big Lie' thing that says a big lie is more believable than a small lie and the more often it is repeated the more believable it becomes.

My take on this is the the Big lie is the most believable because the small lie is easily investigated and shown as such and the big on is almost impossible to investigate with definitive results because of its inclusiveness allowing almost every thing to be defined as supporting it (i.e. The Jews control everything and are responsible for all the problems the world faces).

 

[SetFree]

I think the more propaganda spreads, that the more that people believe.

Yep! Hitler actually had that theory also.

 

[SetFree]

It's that 'Big Lie' thing that says a big lie is more believable than a small lie and the more often it is repeated the more believable it becomes.

My take on this is the the Big lie is the most believable because the small lie is easily investigated and shown as such and the big on is almost impossible to investigate with definitive results because of its inclusiveness allowing almost every thing to be defined as supporting it (i.e. The Jews control everything and are responsible for all the problems the world faces).

There's that Jew hater hunter mentality again. Must everything you say be about mistreatment of Jews?

 

[Frankj]

There's that Jew hater hunter mentality again. Must everything you say be about mistreatment of Jews?

I thought I was on your ignore list.

But you do seem to be slowly revealing yourself as a Jew hater by your sensitivity to it.

The Jew reference was done because it is the most famous and recognized use of the Big Lie examples, one embraced (but not originated by) the German Nazi movement.

But maybe you don't see it as a lie?

I would point out that Jesus taught that the tree is recognized by its fruit (the results of a belief or action indicate that nature of the belief or action).

Should we ignore this teaching or practice it in all that we examine? (No, I don't expect a direct answer, but at least give it some thought)