Topic: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Hello all,

Was just wondering if any of you have seen the highly contraversial movie, JFK?  What are some of your thoughts and opinions?  Personally, I really enjoyed the movie (I've seen it countless times) and applaud Oliver Stone for making the movie.  Isn't it time the truth come out?

                                                                             - Cryptbreath

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

I saw this movie in high school along with the Zapruder tapes. There are a lot of inaccuracies that Oliver Stone wrote into the movie to make his story seem more plausible, so it's really HIS truth and not THE truth. Oswald actually fired 3 shots in 8 seconds and not 6 seconds like the movie says. There is footage of a 75 year old arms expert making 3 shots in under 8 seconds with the very rifle that Oswald used and he wasn't even a trained Marine Corp. marksman like Oswald was. Plus, there is no mention of the fact that Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) was indicted by a single accusation that was proven to have been false, but Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) pursued the charges anyway. Garrison is actually reviled throughout Louisiana because Shaw was a well known and highly respected figure in that state and nobody believed he had anything to do with it. Plus the whole "magic bullet" theory was shown to be false when forensic experts actually lined Gov. Connally up with Kennedy properly in the car. The "magic bullet" only came about because the initial investigators overlooked the Gov. was in a jump seat, which lets you move the seat up / down and left / right. When the Gov. is lined up properly as shown in the Zapruder tape, the 2nd shot (where Kennedy grabs his own throat) lines up perfectly with the entry wound in the Gov's shoulder. The bullet passed through Kennedy and hit Connally. About all Oliver Stone did was perpetuate theories that have all been shown to be incorrect.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Thanks for your response, Hackblowfist666, I truly appreciate it.  While I've been a fan of Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, ever since its release in 1991, I will agree that some of the information provided in the film was and still is inaccurate.  However, since researching the history behind JFK's assassination for many years now, I'll tell you right now that I'll never believe Oswald even fired a single shot.  Oswald was seen on the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke at 12:25 p.m. - just five minutes before the shooting began - and was seen there immediately after the shooting ended.  Also, have you ever seen footage of the second rifle found on the sixth floor?  I say second, however, it was actually the first rifel found: A high powered 7.65 Mauser which was reported and identified.   In the first hours after the assassination, police documents clearly read 7.65 Mauser only to be suddenly changed to that of the 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano before the next day.  Also, the so called "Oswald weapon" which was linked to him had a different serial number than the one he supposedly ordered through the mail.  I've also seen a documant with George Bush's name on it reporting to Hoover about delivering 5 Mannlicher Carcanos to Dallas during that dark weekend in November.  Furthermore, of course the forensic experts are going to say that Oswald shot the president and Gov. Connally.  Problem is, they weren't lined up like you mentioned even though Connally was on a jump seat.  Watch the Zapruder film in slow motion and you'll see that Gov. Connally is sitting in his seat face forward before disappearing behind the Stemmon's freeway sign and after reappearing at Z-frame 224.  Not once did Gov. Connally turn until he was shot seconds later.  Also, you mentioned the shot to Kennedy's throat.  Are you aware of the fact that the throat wound was much higher than the wound in kennedy's back?  If the shot came from behind, then explain to me how it traveled upward and exited out his throat.  No, Kennedy received that throat wound from the front.  The back wound was from a different shooter, perhaps from a mafia hitman named Jim Braden who was arrested in the Dal Tex building just moments after the assassination and later released.  Ironically, just 5 years later, Braden would appear in L.A. when Bobby was gunned down.  Strange luck?  I don't think so.

Listen, I'm not trying to come off as sounding as though I know all there is about the assassination of JFK - heck, none of us ever will.  But what I do know is that there was, and still is, a major conspiracy behind Kennedy's death.  I just asked people's opinions about the movie JFK.  I had no intention of going into a friendly debate.  You said your peace and I've said mine.  No hard feelings.  Cheers!

                                                                                      - Cryptbreath

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-04 17:39:45)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Probably the most interesting evidence for the conspiracy is Oswalds tie with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. Especially Ferrie. There was a lot of evidence and testimony ignored and buried by the Warren Commission in it's rush to settle the issue. And people like Satnto Trafficante and others admitted their involvement at their deaths. Whether Oswald was a shooter or the only shooter can be argued forever. He was a shooter imo, at least. The Oswald that the Warren Commission portrayed was nothing like the  the real man. A shadowy figure with shadowy connections.
I thought JFK was a good movie, antway. It's a shame people let Stone's movie distortions keep them from fseeking the real story. Fortunately when the conressional commitee on assassinations investigated in the seventies enough info was available for them to conclude that it was a conspiracy, the details still aren't clear.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Well said and I agreed with most of what you said, Fredgarvin.  I really appreciate you guys commenting on this thread as it is a passionate subject of mine.

One of the things that have always bothered me about the sixth floor sniper's nest is, why didn't that particular shooter take shots at Kennedy as the motorcade was coming down Houston Street?  IMO, as stated in the movie and elsewhere, is because the shooters needed to get Kennedy in a triangulated crossfire: The Texas School Book Depository building, the Dal Tex building, and the grassy knoll.  I've even heard reports that a shot may have even come from the South knoll on the other side of the Plaza but I'm skeptical about that.  Anyway, as mentioned above in my first post, the throat wound was higher than the back wound.  The back wound was just about 6 inches below the rear of Kennedy's collar.  There's even the possibility that Gov. Connally's right wrist and left thigh wounds came from the sixth floor's West window.  The downward angle matches perfectly.  And let's face it, there's noway I'll ever believe that one bullet caused 7 wounds total in two men.  Two in Kennedy; five in Connally.  And let's not forget all the zig-zagging that one shot would have had to of made.  That's really asking a lot from one bullet which didn't even come from a high powered rifle with a broken scope.  I'll also add, when Dallas police perfomed the paraffin test on Oswald, they found none at all on his face or cheeks and just a slight trace on his hands.  The small amount on his hands could have easily come from the boxes and newspapers they used in the TSBD building to pack the books in.  I strongly doubt Oswald fired a weapon, including the Tippet killing.  I do agree, however, that Oswald played a part in the assassination as well as playing the part of the patsy.  Oswald was linked to Ferrie, Shaw, and Ruby, as well as working directly for the F.B.I. and C.I.A.  Interesting note: Jack Ruby worked directly for Richard Nixon back in 1947 while Nixon was a lawyer defending mafia members.

                                                                                     - Cryptbreath

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-04 22:51:40)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

I loved the movie and do think that Oswald was framed.  Truth is, we'll never know 100% either way so all Oliver Stone did was put his interpretation which is just as accurate as anyone elses.  IMO

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

While I feel like I obtained a lot of useful information from Stone's JFK, I also feel that it succeeded in doing something very important in the fact that it raised public awareness.  I don't mean to say that the JFK Assassination had been forgotten by no means, but how many people were thinking about the assassination before the film was released in 1991?  I know that the History channel, as well as other channels, would run film on TV each year of the anniversary, but other than that, there was no other huge reminder aside from visiting Dealey Plaza, The sixth Floor Museum, or the Kennedy Library.  I, for one, am glad Stone made the film and was pleased that he was willing to offer so many possible theories behing the murder.  Each time I've watched the Director's Cut, I've learned something new or have looked at a particular scene in a different way.  My wife has often asked me why I'm so fascinated with the assassination of JFK and I've told her, as well as others, it's much like an iceberg - the deeper you go, the bigger it gets!

                                                                                               - Cryptbreath

PS - If any of you want to watch a compelling DVD documentary on the JFK assassination, I would urge you to watch anything and everything by Mr. Robert Groden.  Much of what I've learned is due to this man.  My favorite title by him is called JFK: The Case For Conspiracy.  Powerful stuff!  I've also had the pleasure in meeting Groden up on the grassy knoll 3 out of my 7 visits to Dealey Plaza.  He knows his stuff.

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-04 22:40:42)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Conspiracy theories are the only type of theory that actively uses evidence that refutes and disproves the conspiracy as proof that it exists. It just becomes part of "The Cover-Up" They are paradoxes of logic and I don't buy into them.

But everyone has the right to believe what they want and I don't look down on people for that.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Not sure about that one, but I remember driving all the way to Memphis and waiting for nearly 5 hours to get an extra role in "Pinkville". I made it through all phases of the procedure just to stand in front of a camera and explain what I know about Vietnam and sing my favorite song. (that was the requirement.) Yes, I would have been in Thailand

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/11/19/o … s-delayed/

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

As you mentioned, several of the kennedy killer suspects were also active in  Nixon's watergate scandal. Look it up bitches.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Yes, you're quite right.  Everyone has the right to believe what they want.  But how can you discount the evidence in this case?

yeah, I'm sorry to hear about Pinkville being put on hold.  Sounds like you were close to going.  It would have been cool to meet Stone and cast members.  I'd keep my fingers crossed.  I'm sure it'll get made in good time.

Yes, Watergate had its cast of unusual characters, all under Nixon's command.  Did you know that both George Bush SR and Richard Nixon were both in Dallas the day JFK was killed?  Strange luck?  I don't think so.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Thank you Cryptbreath for recognizing Pinkville, and sorry for hijacking your thread. I was really looking forward to going, and you're correct. It may very well happen in time.

The main subject of this thread is very important.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

No, you didn't hijack the thread, Ace.  I enjoyed hearing about your close encounter with Stone's film.  That is far too cool to not share with anyone.  Like I said, it'll get done if I know Oliver Stone.  When you consider how long it's taken him to make some of his other films, he'll win out and get this made.  And I hope you're right in the middle of it all.  When it happens, take plenty of pictures.  Way cool.

I appreciate the fact that some of you would discuss JFK with me.  I've gone to other message boards in the past and people act as though the whole assassination is like a plague or something.  Most people just don't want to discuss it for whatever reason and I think that's why the cover-up has worked so well for 46 years and counting.  Of course, that's not all I like to chat about.  My love for horror movies / books has been a lifelong passion of mine so I guess that's why I'm here. 

By the way, if I could send you some fresh water, I would in a flash.  It breaks my heart to know that people are hurting right now in Nashville, TN.  My favorite aunt lives up in Friendsville.  God bless.

                                                                                     - Cryptbreath

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-05 02:54:00)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Cryptbreath wrote:

Yes, you're quite right.  Everyone has the right to believe what they want.  But how can you discount the evidence in this case?

What evidence? For every piece of information that gets labeled as evidence, there is someone that can make a coherent argument against it. You mentioned the parafin wax test earlier, but finding gunshot residue with parafin wax has been labeled as unreliable since the mid 50s. Forensic experts that tested the validity of the procedure found that someone who fired a lot more than 3 shots from a gun can defeat the test by washing their hands with soap and water. That has been published in forensic manuals that came out years before Kennedy was even President. You also mentioned a second rifle, a 7.65mm Mauser. I've shot a lot of guns and read a great deal about them, especially WW2 era stuff. The Mauser action (the bolt, magazine, receiver, etc...) were templates for the Mannlicher Carcanos and pretty much every other bolt action rifle produced in America and Europe. Plus, the two guns had pretty much the same dimensions and incredibly similar stocks. Unless someone knew what to look for, it would be easy to confuse a Mauser for a Mannlicher. I say clerical error. Someone mistook one gun for another, corrected the error when the reports were filed and by the next day the facts were straightened out. That happens with police investigations all the time, I used to work in my local District Attorney's office, this kind of thing happens a LOT. I have no stake in believing the "cover-up" and I don't trust the government to sit the right way on a toilet seat. With a open mind, I've read a ton that supports a conspiracy and a ton that refutes a conspiracy and everything that indicates Oswald acted alone makes a lot more sense than some elaborate house of cards.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Nicely put, Hackblowfishfist666.  I understand completely what you're saying and I respect that.  I just have different beliefs from the extensive research I've done.  One question does come to mind, however.  If the paraffin test was so unreliable then why would they even bother to give it to Oswald?  Also, why would Dallas police carry the Mannlicher Carcano they discovered out the front entrance of the TSBD building but lowered the Mauser down the fire escape on the side of the building?  I've got film footage of what I'm claiming.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  Furthermore, Captain Fritz of the Dallas police is the man who identified the first rifle as being a Mauser.  Under normal circumstances, i understand that even police officers make errors and mistakes.  But Captain Fritz also owned his own gun shop and had been around guns for most his life.  Let's also not forget that the new President, LBJ, called Captain Fritz directly and gave him specific instructions pertaining to the assassination.  Within hours the F.B.I. confiscated (stole) all the evidense from the Dallas Police and many reports were changed stating that the rifle found was the Carcano.  Also, Dr. Malcom Perry of Parkland Hospital reported that Kennedy's throat wound was definitely an entrance wound.  There was well over a dozen other Doctors and nurses who confirmed this report.  Then later on, Dr. Perry suddenly claimed he had made a mistake even though the other medical staff didn't change their minds.  I could also tell you about how Jackie Kennedy's statement was edited and altered after the Warren Commission got a hold of it, making her statement sound as though all the shots came from behind.  I mean, why would all of this monkey business occurr if there wasn't a cover-up?  What were they trying to hide? 

                                                                                                 - Cryptbreath

PS - Again, I respect your opinion.  I'm just sharing my thoughts and beliefs.

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-05 12:17:14)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Howard E.Hunt confessed to being in on the killing on his deathbed. His son recorded it. Former executive secretary to the assistant director of the CIA , Victor Marchetti, testified that Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gary Patrick Hemming were known by the agency as being involved in the assassination. Marita Lorenz testified that she heard the men discussing it. Her testimony was not mentioned in the Warren Report whitewash. When you start adding up the players and their associations it becomes hard to overlook. To dismiss Oswald as a 'lone nut' is pretty lame when you realize his ties to those people. It would seem odd for him to claim he is  a patsy if he had no knowledge of a  conspiracy.  You would expect him to deny his guilt as the killer. I think it's clear he shot the deputy and probably was the patsy.

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Yeah, I followed that story about E. Howard Hunt and found it to be very interesting stuff.  IMO, Nixon was one of the most corrupt Presidents we've ever had in office.  Of course there was the Watergate scandal but I think Nixon was somehow tied to the JFK assassination as well.  It's well documented that he once told one of his men (Halderman, I believe) that opening the whole Bay of Pigs was like opening a scab that hasn't healed yet and how it would be bad for America.  Nixon was actually referring to the JFK assassination.  And as mentioned above, Nixon was in Dallason Nov. 22, 1963.  Nixon hated Kennedy with a passion and never really got over the fact that he lost to Kennedy in the televised debates for the presidency.


                                                                                    - Cryptbreath


PS - Interesting note:  An hour after the assassination, LBJ ordered Secret Service to take buckets of soapy water and wash out the inside of the limo while it was still parked inside the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital.  Do you realize how serious this was?  The new president had ordered agents to destroy a crime scene!  And, of course, they did it.

Last edited by Cryptbreath (2010-05-05 20:37:19)

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Oliver Stone's a fantastic filmmaker but like his documentarian counterpart Michael Moore, he tends to give you only his own very biased opinion and has a real flair for reinterpreting facts and twisting them for his own ends.

As for JFK in specific, it's a very, very good film.  So what if it's 90% fiction?

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

good flick.

then I'll watch Men In Black.  and later, Deep Throat.

yeah, I got nothin' to offer

Re: Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

90% fiction?  No, I don't agree with that at all.  Just do some research and you'll see what I'm talking about.  Don't forget, Oliver Stone wrote the screenplay after Jim Marr's book, CROSSFIRE.  I'd say the movie is about 90% truth.

                                                                                        - Cryptbreath