• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

JFK - The Movie


anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,628
I caught a bit of this last night, I forget which channel.

I hadn't seen it in years and didn't pay too much heed to it when I did.

But watching the court scene again where Costner's charachter sums up the evidence, it makes a powerful case for a conspiracy behind Kennedy's death.

Probably the most crucial evidence is the president's head going 'back and to the left' with the fatal rifle shot, clearly from the impact and force of a bullet coming from on front and to the right of the presidential limo.

There is also no way Oswald could have been in the 6th floor of the book depository.

The guy was clearly framed for the assasination.

I'm not sure what forum this belongs, so mods move if you feel the need.

Probably the greatest conspiracy of the 20th century and no-one ever brought to justice.

Watch the film the next time it's on TV, well worth it.
 

Nem

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
253

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,628
The film is fiction, not based on historical facts. I thought 'The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy' documentary showed the events in excellent detail. See here: Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy - ABC News
The film is based 99% on facts.

Point me out the fictional parts to it?

Garrison who brought the case in the 1960's was a respected lawyer, prosecutor and in time judge. He was not some crackpot or someone with a political agenda.

The film is based on that real case he presented. It's not fiction. Like I say it's 99% fact.
 

chadmikeymicheals

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
235
there is no doubt there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, thats what the warren comission ( who's job it was to cover it up) came out and said after there investigation. the audio evidence was water tight and proved there was at least 4 shots fired, from at least 2 seperate guns. anyone who doesnt believe there was a conspiracy has there head up there ass.


ps. that cbs doc is a pile of sh1t.
 

FitzNeverQuits

New member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
1
The film is based 99% on facts.

Point me out the fictional parts to it?

Garrison who brought the case in the 1960's was a respected lawyer, prosecutor and in time judge. He was not some crackpot or someone with a political agenda.

The film is based on that real case he presented. It's not fiction. Like I say it's 99% fact.
well here is 100 lies then you gullible fool....

Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK assassination investigation: Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination: oliver, stone, oliver stone, jfk, oliver stone's jfk, stone's, stone's jfk, movie, jfk movie, jfk cia, film

check these out and stop being a dimwit
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
Watched it for the first time in years last night and couldn't believe how flat-out boring it was. I remember it being chaotic, but vibrant and interesting. Last night it was silly and tedious.

Point me out the fictional parts to it?
Bucket loads of it is fictional or just made up or dreamed up. For example, take all that technical stuff about the assassination in the court room scene you mentioned - the magic bullet, Oswald not being able to get the shots off in time and the angle the bullet came from before hitting Kennedy...each of these is bunk. The bullet that hit Kennedy and Connolly travelled in a perfectly straight line from the BD building as one would have expected (the key thing the movie misses is that Connolly was not sitting directly in front of Kennedy so the bullet did not need to magically swerve to hit both of them). As for the shots, getting 3 shots off in that time is easy, and it's an urban myth that it's not possible (the movie also omits the fact that poor Lee H. Oswald was a useless loser at most things - except for firing a rifle, at which he was a military-standard sharp shooter. It was the only thing he was good at). Finally, modern forensics have shown that the angle the fatal bullet came from had to be behind Kennedy, not in front of him (from the grassy knoll as the movie suggests. There is also no evidence for a 4th shot).

The other disturbing thing about the movie is that by all accounts Clay Shaw was a perfectly normal businessman and Jim Garrison likely the nutcase of the piece. The jury found Shaw not guilty in an hour. The case was bollox basically.

But in fairness to Oliver Stone, he calls the movie a "counter-myth" to the "official myth" of the Warren Report. That would suggest not even he sees it as fact and that it's a movie about conspiracy theories as much as anything.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
The film is fiction, not based on historical facts. I thought 'The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy' documentary showed the events in excellent detail. See here: Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy - ABC News
Save yourselves the bother. This is my subject matter.

Beyond Conspiracy is a total work of fiction. Heard of the word prevarication? Well that is the epitome of it.

See http://www.politics.ie/chat/37617-oswald-co-worker-no-longer-silent-about-jfk-assassination-role.html and search my posts.

JFK (Directors Cut)the movie is beyond doubt my favourite movie of all time. There are inaccuracies fair enough, but I love the camera work, the script and subject matter.
I was thinking as I was watching it last night on BBC2 that if you morphed John Hankey's JFKII (Dark Legacy) and Oliver Stone's JFK, you would have seen a 37 year old CIA Agent named George Herbert Walker Bush as the supervisor of the assassination. Now it will be a great day when a politician has the guts to call that terrorist out.

Here's one of my favourite scenes of all time.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IejGovxdy8"]YouTube - Ferrie's Paranoia[/ame]
 

chadmikeymicheals

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
235
this doc is very graphic, and it goes on to make some wild claims, but in these fist 2 parts it rips the CBS doc apart, and also shows the audio expert say that there is no doubt that there was a shot from the grassy knoll,

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26CaVAy6vxU"]YouTube - JFKII THE BUSH CONNECTION Part 1[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaO3dSQq3tI"]YouTube - JFKII THE BUSH CONNECTION Part 2[/ame]
 

SKELLY

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
3,120
wasnt the crux of his argument, the magic bullet, not solved, something about connolly sitting lower then kennedy and not dirctly in front of him but to the left.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
Watched it for the first time in years last night and couldn't believe how flat-out boring it was. I remember it being chaotic, but vibrant and interesting. Last night it was silly and tedious.



Bucket loads of it is fictional or just made up or dreamed up. For example, take all that technical stuff about the assassination in the court room scene you mentioned - the magic bullet, Oswald not being able to get the shots off in time and the angle the bullet came from before hitting Kennedy...each of these is bunk. The bullet that hit Kennedy and Connolly travelled in a perfectly straight line from the BD building as one would have expected (the key thing the movie misses is that Connolly was not sitting directly in front of Kennedy so the bullet did not need to magically swerve to hit both of them). As for the shots, getting 3 shots off in that time is easy, and it's an urban myth that it's not possible (the movie also omits the fact that poor Lee H. Oswald was a useless loser at most things - except for firing a rifle, at which he was a military-standard sharp shooter. It was the only thing he was good at). Finally, modern forensics have shown that the angle the fatal bullet came from had to be behind Kennedy, not in front of him (from the grassy knoll as the movie suggests. There is also no evidence for a 4th shot).

The other disturbing thing about the movie is that by all accounts Clay Shaw was a perfectly normal businessman and Jim Garrison likely the nutcase of the piece. The jury found Shaw not guilty in an hour. The case was bollox basically.

But in fairness to Oliver Stone, he calls the movie a "counter-myth" to the "official myth" of the Warren Report. That would suggest not even he sees it as fact and that it's a movie about conspiracy theories as much as anything.
Jesus man you are crazy.

11 doctors at Parkland Hospital described a hole in JFK's right temple as the entry wound and a "gaping hole" in the back of Kennedy's head.
But the guy who did the Autopsy in Bethesda, had never done an autopsy involving bullet wounds in his life, never traced the entry and exit wounds, LOST KENNEDY'S brain, and BURNED his notes.

But breaking it down, where in God's name did all the bullet fragments come from in Gov Connallys leg and wrist?

This is the bullet with no blemish, no deformity, NO blood.



God help you Haldeman.

How in Gods name can you get a bullet enter the Third Thorassic vertebrae (between the shoulder blades) at a downward angle of 17 deg and exit the throat. You can't do it. It will exit the Sternum.

You haven't a notion what you're talking about. You've just regurgitated the latest Gary Mack disinfo documentaries.



Here are the photos of the XRay done on Gov Connally's wrist and fragments taken out.
Haldeman wants you to believe that the above said bullet deposited fragments for the X ray, were physically taken out, but yet did not change in any way the original bullets shape or integrity.

What is wrong with people that they cannot reason that in their thick heads and call conspiracy?
 
Last edited:

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
I caught a bit of this last night, I forget which channel.

I hadn't seen it in years and didn't pay too much heed to it when I did.

But watching the court scene again where Costner's charachter sums up the evidence, it makes a powerful case for a conspiracy behind Kennedy's death.

Probably the most crucial evidence is the president's head going 'back and to the left' with the fatal rifle shot, clearly from the impact and force of a bullet coming from on front and to the right of the presidential limo.

There is also no way Oswald could have been in the 6th floor of the book depository.

The guy was clearly framed for the assasination.

I'm not sure what forum this belongs, so mods move if you feel the need.

Probably the greatest conspiracy of the 20th century and no-one ever brought to justice.

Watch the film the next time it's on TV, well worth it.
Actually, with the greatest respect it is a pile of dog doo doo. That courtroom performance, for example, was entirely fictional - the real case collapsed and Garrison ended up a laughing stock when so many of his conclusions proved demonstrably false.

The film is littered with misrepresentations, false claims, and wild exaggerations. It makes the notorious Parnell film that starred Clark Gable as a beardless American-speaking Parnell look like a documentary in comparison. Films are never good at being true to life, but JFK takes the biscuit for the number of falsehoods, inaccuracies and absurdities in it. I remember at the time in one British paper a historian with serious knowledge of the JFK assassination said he gave up counting the errors when it exceeded 100 serious factual errors, not small technical ones but biggies. It makes the 'Michael Collins' film, which is notorious for the liberties it took, look accurate. And that is bad!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nem

sheamuseen

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
32
there is no doubt there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, thats what the warren comission ( who's job it was to cover it up) came out and said after there investigation. the audio evidence was water tight and proved there was at least 4 shots fired, from at least 2 seperate guns. anyone who doesnt believe there was a conspiracy has there head up there ass.


ps. that cbs doc is a pile of sh1t.
The warren commission did not report that there was a conspiracy. Its findings were that a lone assassin - oswald - did it all on his own and that ruby was motivated by patriotism to avenge the killing of his president.

But of course it was a conspiracy and a classic set up to boot complete with patsy and the subsequent clean-out of anybody who was involved and who might talk. The hit was paid for by Texas oil men and was carried out by renegade elements of the CIA using mafia and Cuban hitmen. The Dallas hit was the third attempt to get Kennedy that summer.
The magic bullet theory was invented to cover the fact that Oswalds gun couldnt have technically discharged all the bullets that were needed to cover the accoustics in the time frame of the shooting. Nixon can be heard on one of the Watergate tapes laughing at the Warren report, marvelling at how the people bought it.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
wasnt the crux of his argument, the magic bullet, not solved, something about connolly sitting lower then kennedy and not dirctly in front of him but to the left.
Connally (he spelt his name with an 'a' btw) wasn't sitting in front of Kennedy. He was sitting in the jump seat in about 2 ft in from the side. The space directly in front of Kennedy was empty to enter the back seat through. It would look a bit naff having to have a president clamber over a row of seats in the centre of the car to get into the back of the car. In effect back seats were long enough to accommodate 3 people. There was room for 2 people in the centre with the 'third place' empty for entering the car.

You can see in the picture that Kennedy is over further in the car and higher. The back seat was a 'display seat', in other words placed so that viewers can see those sitting there seen over the head of those in front. Most heads of state have them. The Irish president and British queen both do.



You can see in the picture below that Kennedy is sitting close enough to the right to have his elbow on the side of the car, and in a seat raised to show the person in it. Connally is lower and in a bit, too far to be able to rest his elbow on the side of the car. He is down lower than both Kennedy behind him and the guy in the front seat in front of him.



The assassination photographs also show the difference in heights of their seats. Connally has turned into a position that wouldn't have been possible if he was sitting directly in front of Kennedy, as the side of the car would have blocked that move. He is grabbing his wrist having been hit. Kennedy is moving into the space that was available to move/fall - his left - while Connally is moving to where he had space - his right, having been turning to his right to see what had been happening behind him. He was turning that way because the seat did not run up as far as the side of the car so there was space to move around in the gap between the edge of his seat and the step where the President had entered the back seat. It would be more difficult to turn to his left as his wife was there.

 
Last edited:

SKELLY

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
3,120
thats a good post, kudos.

so does connally's position debunk the magic bullet?
i understand aswell that oswald was in fact a good shot afterall...
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,365
thats a good post, kudos.

so does connally's position debunk the magic bullet?
i understand aswell that oswald was in fact a good shot afterall...

See my post #10.

Tommy's post is academic.

Gov Connally, clearly lied. He said when interviewed I heard a shot , I looked around and could see the President was hit?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0"]YouTube - John Connally's first interview after 11/22/63[/ame]

See what a liar looks like. John Connally couldn't have seen Kennedy being hit becuase he was hit by the same bullet. Liar Liar. And for his reward, Democrat Connally was brought into the White House cabinet under Republican Nixon.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
See my post #10.

Tommy's post is academic.

Gov Connally, clearly lied. He said when interviewed I heard a shot , I looked around and could see the President was hit?


YouTube - John Connally's first interview after 11/22/63

See what a liar looks like. John Connally couldn't have seen Kennedy being hit becuase he was hit by the same bullet. Liar Liar. And for his reward, Democrat Connally was brought into the White House cabinet under Republican Nixon.
Nonsense.

People who are shot often don't initially realise. It may take half a minute, or a minute or longer for them to realise, go into shock and feel the pain, with adrenolin initially masking the pain as the body tries desparately to stop whatever is happening. Soldiers who have been wounded often comment on the delay between being hit and feeling the effects of being hit. The idea that someone always know they have been shot is a Hollywood myth. So it is quite possible that he heard a shot, turned, saw Kennedy being hit, and only felt the spasm and pain afterwards as the adrenolin ceased to hide the pain and the pain was felt.

It is something widely known and talked about. Both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II were stabbed and didn't realise it, only discovering when they began to feel an unexplained pain and when an aide looked under their cassock found they were bleeding. Both kept the attacks secret and they were only revealed after their deaths. So yes it is perfectly possible for Connally not to initially realise he had been hit.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,043
I think there was a mythbusters episode on the JFK assasination.

'Back and to the left' was proved to have meant nothing because the human body reacts in strange ways to bullet impacts. I can't remember the exact details but it was shown that due to a pressure release at the exit wound a head will often actually be pushed in the direction the bullet entered, not away as one would expect. Hence, back and to the left is not only possible, but a likely reaction to a headshot from behind.

For what its worth I think the conclusion of marksmen trying to replicate Oswald's feat was that it was possible if one was familiar with the rifle, an excellent shot and had a bit of luck on the day. Oswald probably had all three of these.
 

Nem

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
253
Threads like these always remind me of this one:

Q: How many Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: 15--One to screw it in, five to say he acted alone, one to say that someone hidden in the ceiling helped, one to film it, one to do an intense examination of the film and conclude that a) it was tampered with and b) it proves that the first screwer did not act alone, one to insist that the bulb was altered after it was unscrewed, three tramps to walk across the room an hour later, one to insist LBJ really screwed the bulb in, and one to accuse all the others of being disinformation specialists.

;)
 

chadmikeymicheals

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
235
I think there was a mythbusters episode on the JFK assasination.

'Back and to the left' was proved to have meant nothing because the human body reacts in strange ways to bullet impacts. I can't remember the exact details but it was shown that due to a pressure release at the exit wound a head will often actually be pushed in the direction the bullet entered, not away as one would expect. Hence, back and to the left is not only possible, but a likely reaction to a headshot from behind.

For what its worth I think the conclusion of marksmen trying to replicate Oswald's feat was that it was possible if one was familiar with the rifle, an excellent shot and had a bit of luck on the day. Oswald probably had all three of these.
how does that explaine the exit wound on the back of his head? witnessed by up to 10 doctors? and why would the acoustic expert say that with 95% certainty or higher, that at least one shot came from the grassy knoll in front of the president?
 

chadmikeymicheals

Active member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
235
Threads like these always remind me of this one:

Q: How many Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: 15--One to screw it in, five to say he acted alone, one to say that someone hidden in the ceiling helped, one to film it, one to do an intense examination of the film and conclude that a) it was tampered with and b) it proves that the first screwer did not act alone, one to insist that the bulb was altered after it was unscrewed, three tramps to walk across the room an hour later, one to insist LBJ really screwed the bulb in, and one to accuse all the others of being disinformation specialists.

;)
whats your own feelings on the matter?
 
Top