Stone's "JFK"
I just finished watching this movie, after only seeing once before in the theater, back when it came out in late 1991.
It's classic, iconic material, based on the obsession of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison to bring the JFK assassination conspirators to justice.
What's most noteworthy is how so many themes, and lines in JFK echo with the themes of 9/11 conspiracies-- the overlap is quite stunning. An example is the growing obsession of Garrison, having seen the truth, while others don't see it. He has trouble even trying to convince even his wife of the importance of this, and once he goes public with the trial, is of course mocked by the media.
This film is highly recommended. Even if Stone doesn't quite get to the Ultimate Truth of what happened to Kennedy* (basically going heavy after the grassy knoll theory), it's really worth a watch. It's long (206 minutes for the director's cut), but quite captivating.
*Interestingly, the bits of the Zapruder film that were shown must have been carefully cropped or even altered, as there is no hint of the driver turning around at the time of the fatal shot.
It's classic, iconic material, based on the obsession of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison to bring the JFK assassination conspirators to justice.
What's most noteworthy is how so many themes, and lines in JFK echo with the themes of 9/11 conspiracies-- the overlap is quite stunning. An example is the growing obsession of Garrison, having seen the truth, while others don't see it. He has trouble even trying to convince even his wife of the importance of this, and once he goes public with the trial, is of course mocked by the media.
This film is highly recommended. Even if Stone doesn't quite get to the Ultimate Truth of what happened to Kennedy* (basically going heavy after the grassy knoll theory), it's really worth a watch. It's long (206 minutes for the director's cut), but quite captivating.
*Interestingly, the bits of the Zapruder film that were shown must have been carefully cropped or even altered, as there is no hint of the driver turning around at the time of the fatal shot.
posted by spooked at 10:01 PM
14 Comments:
I really liked it too even though critics at the time panned it.
Should probably check it out again someday.
What Spooked and ap call the "ultimate truth" is an assertion that isn't supported by the available evidence. It's unfortunate that they continue to promote the long-discredited theory that the driver of the limo shot JFK in broad daylight in front of 100s of people.
Alert, informed readers recognize that the "limo driver killed JFK"
theory is akin to some of the bizarre 9/11 theories like hologram planes, space-based weapons etc.
Despite the fact that the above theories were debunked years ago, certain people continue to promote them and others merely cite them as part of their efforts to frustrate those who are sincerely seeking the truth. For examples of such people, go to the DU 9/11 forum and click on posts by such well-known anti-truthers as
lared, bolo boffin, william segar,
greyl, sid dithers, hack89, AZ cat, and sweet pea.
Anyone interested in what serious, objective researchers believe happened to President Kennedy should
visit such web sites as "The Education Forum" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=197, "JFK Lancer", JFK Deep Politics Quarterly @ http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/, Deep Politics Forum @ http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/index.php, www.maryferrell.org, and http://history-matters.com/index.htm etc.
To see for yourself the evidence and eyewitness testimony of several eyewitnesses that that driver, Secret Service Agent WIlliam Greer fired the fatal head shot, see here:
http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!7D!0A!3D7855A05297/Larry762/fontcolor3300FF/page4.html
and here:
http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educate-yourself.org/cn/drivergreershotjfk.html
Further, "nickname" is not to be trusted on JFK, as laid out here. "Nickname" is none other than the poster formerly known as Early Wynn, whose relationship to the JFK ass'n is spelled out in the article.
Spooked/ap - you are trying to make the issue about me, but the real issue is whether or not YOUR theory that the limo driver is who killed JFK and I believe that anyone who
is interested in the truth will find that the world's most respected JFK assassination researchers ALL agree that the notion that the limo driver shot JFK is absurd and could not possibly have happened.
Perhaps that's why neither of you
has the cajones to defend your theory on any of the prominent JFK assassination research forums.
I challenge you to do so and if you can summon the courage to, let me assure you that the response you get will be substantive and not a "shoot the messenger" attempt such as what you've posted here.
Spooked/ap:
Since I know that neither of you is willing to engage in an exchange with serious JFK assassination researchers at one of the forums I provided a link to, I'll gladly
personally debate one or both of you simultaneously right here in the cocoon of your very own blog.
In all of your posts about this issue, you've yet to give a reasoned argument in support of your theory.
As you well know, I've given you many reasons why your theory can't possibly be correct. To date, neither of you have refuted them.
Likewise, I've asked you many questions about your assertion. To date, you haven't answered any of them.
BTW - would you agree that Big Foot exists if I post a link to alleged eyewitness accounts of such a sighting? How about if I post a link to an article in which the author claims that Big Foot is real?
dude, you're such a card!
dude, you're such a coward! May Lord Shiva bless you, real good.
A few points:
1) we've been over this many times before to no avail
2) I trust AP's judgment on this, not yours
3) AP is not disposed to debate and I am not the best one to debate, having neither the time or expertise
Yes, we've been over this many times and you and yours have failed to move your assertion even one inch beyond the realm of uninformed opinion on your part.
You and ap rely on the bizarre claims of the deeply disturbed Bill Cooper whose life ended in a shoot-out with the law enforcement authorities who had come to arrest him at his living quarters way out in the Arizona desert.
You weren't asked to DIStrust ap's JUDGMENT. I asked you to DEBATE his and your CLAIM that the limo driver killed President Kennedy
on Elm street in front of 100s of spectators and law enforcement people from the city, county, federal government, and U.S. military.
Both of you are like little children who, when confronted with inevitable loss, take your bat and ball and run home to mommy.
Because you are unwilling to subject your claim to scrutiny by knowledgeable people, it is fair to
conclude that you lack confidence in it - and for good reason, too.
Not one single serious researcher
agrees with you. None.
Actually, one of the best arguments I think for the driver doing it is the trajectory for the head shot. It doesn't fit the grassy knoll, because that was on JFKs right side, and the shot went more straight through his head-- the perfect trajectory for a shot from the front of the limo. And the backwards motion of JFKs head doesn't fit a shot from behind or the grassy knoll either.
Another argument for the limo driver doing it-- one that I just realized myself-- is the simple fact of the timing of the limo driver turning around at the EXACT MOMENT OF THE HEAD SHOT. The coincidence is too much. There is also the fact that the Z film shows something odd protruding over the SS agents head on the passenger side, something that is consistent with a pistol. Further, it is clear that the Z film has been altered, and undoubtedly it has been altered to make it less obvious the driver did it.
I think you and ap would be well advised to avoid
subjecting your theory ("An assumption based on limited information or knowledge") to scrutiny on JFK assassination research forums.
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and stick with ap's judgment.
As for me, I'll stand by the FACTS
that have been uncovered by JFK assassination EXPERTS and academics.
The best of them are trained to reason using logic, to question evidence and to consider and evaluate several possible interpretations of events.
Both of you seem hostile to those
activities for some reason(s).
Post a Comment
<< Home