Tyler Gagnon

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven Guilty in a court of law" Oswald was never brought to trial (for Obvious reasons) Yet i was tought in school that oswald was the killer of the President. It's amazing how much people will believe what the goverment tells them, But politicians never lie. "The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"

RobertR

Just because Oswald was never brought to trial doesn't mean that people (including people who aren't simply government stooges, as you imply) have been incapable of looking at the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald killed Kennedy, and it's irrelevant that that evidence hasn't been presented in a formal trial.

Tyler Gagnon

I am sure if Oswald was brought to trial, There would be plenty of reasonable doubt, I had reasonable doubt long before i ever saw the JFK movie, There is just to many things about Kennedy's death that make me believe other wise. I don't know how many times i have said to people O.J. killed his wife, And as quick as i said it the first thing i was told was "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" Beyond a reasonable doubt.

RobertR

And I am just as sure that had Oswald been brought to trial in 1964 or 1965, he would have been convicted.

It's apparent to me that you're projecting your personal doubts accumulated over the years onto what people would have done back then, and I don't think it's valid to do so.

Tyler Gagnon

I am just saying that i do not think Oswald killed kennedy,That is my personal opinion. There i s not a single shred of evidence to make me believe otherwise.

RobertR

Don't confuse opinion with fact, and don't assume that everyone else must share your opinion.

Tyler Gagnon

I did not say everyone must share my opinion, I just said there are a lot of people who do, And i believe i am in good company.

RobertR

And there are a lot of people who believe in UFOs.

Tyler Gagnon

Yes. and there are a lot of people who believe that the war in Iraq was not over oil, But guess who's in control of selling that resource as of today.




O.K. i am going to sop here before this gets out of control, I don't want to get the boot ya know.

Jack Briggs

We had an earlier thread about Oliver Stone's JFK which morphed into a discussion of the assassination itself and the usual lone-gunman versus conspiracy-of-millions back-and-forth posting. The thread was retitled and moved to After Hours. I believe it was closed eventually because of flaring tempers.

As a film, Stone's opus has some merits. As history, it was very correctly excoriated by historians, journalists, and broadcast commentators.

I would suggest reading about the Kennedy Administration itself (Richard Reeve's scholarly and quite-lengthy President Kennedy is an excellent source), as well as established historical texts regarding the Administration's tragic end. Those many, many paperbacks positing all manner of wild speculations and scenarios tend to buckle, credibility-wise, under scrutiny (I admit to having read a few of them).

As for this thread: Whaddya guys want? If we're ready to talk about the assassination itself, somebody can start a new thread and post it in After Hours (with the usual proviso regarding no personal politics and so on).

Jim DiJoseph

"...before it gets out of control..." ???

This thread must have intrinsic magical properties to still be open. What happened to talking about the movie?

I must agree that JFK must be viewed as a drama and little else. Ebert's perspective is the right one, IMHO. Facts aside, Stone really entertains his viewers by evoking emotion and thought on many levels.

Remember...no matter where you go, there you are.

Jack Briggs

Tyler: I just read your most recent post here. Do NOT venture into the territory you clearly want to move in. My earlier post was written with you in mind but intended not to single you out. Now I can't avoid it. I trust you read the posting guidelines before signing up at HTF? JB

RobertR