Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
384 replies to this topic

#1 of 385 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted November 06 2003 - 06:24 PM

Since the review thread on the latest release of "JFK" got out of hand again (in part because I jumped as my custom whenever I see editorial spin in a review of this film praising it), I am taking up Jack's suggestion that a new thread be started here in After Hours related to the assassination debate itself.

At this point, I am told that ABC will have a documentary on 11/20 that will again reinforce the lone-gunman conclusion and that is something I look forward to seeing. The mainstream media I think, for whatever flaws they sometimes have, has always managed to rise to the occasion when it comes to dealing with this story.

#2 of 385 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted November 06 2003 - 06:46 PM

This I have to see. I wondor if they are finally going to explain how he got from the book depository to the theater as quickly as he did.

Glenn

#3 of 385 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted November 06 2003 - 06:51 PM

What's been the flaw in that from your perspective? The timing factor I think was worked out with no difficulty long ago.

#4 of 385 OFFLINE   EdwardKarlinski

EdwardKarlinski

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 168 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2002

Posted November 06 2003 - 11:38 PM

To me, Case Closed by Gerald Posner destroys all conspiracy theories. I can't believe that anyone takes Oliver Stone's insane film seriously.

#5 of 385 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,517 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted November 07 2003 - 03:21 AM

Quote:
I can't believe that anyone takes Oliver Stone's insane film seriously.


I understand what you're saying, Edward, but unfortunately, there are many people who take a number of things seriously that make no sense. They are emotionally attached to them, and they won't allow mere reason and objective fact to interfere with that attachment.

In the case of the JFK assasination, the assumption is that it was a crime of such stupendous magnitude, that it MUST have been the result of an equally stupendous group of criminals, and they won't allow ANYTHING to interfere with that assumption.

#6 of 385 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted November 07 2003 - 03:22 AM

Unfortunately click on every review of "JFK" in a DVD forum and you'll find that taking Stone seriously seems to go hand-in-glove with assessing any DVD release, which to me is why the film still has to be debated quite vigorously all these years later, because it is from an historical standpoint a fundamentally dishonest and despicable movie.

#7 of 385 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted November 07 2003 - 03:55 AM

I've forgotten the exact times now, but he was at the theater in like 11 minutes after the shooting and a news crew that tried it later took about three times as long to get there, even under good traffic conditions.

Also, Jackie is clearly seen reaching onto the trunk of their limo trying to recover the back of JFK's head (which probably means that he was shot from the front), and there was a problem getting as many rounds off from the type of rifle that he used in the alloted time also.

I haven't seen the movie JFK, but I don't really feel that this was a huge, well planned conspiracy either.

The best explanation that I did hear was that Oswald was captured by the commies and a double was released back to us. When you get down laughing remember that the Cold War was in full swing back then. The 'real' Oswald got away and went back to Dallas to live also.

Glenn

#8 of 385 OFFLINE   Chris Moe

Chris Moe

    Screenwriter



  • 1,087 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 12 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 04:05 AM

Quote:
To me, Case Closed by Gerald Posner destroys all conspiracy theories. I can't believe that anyone takes Oliver Stone's insane film seriously.


Have you ever seen how destroyed this book has gotten by other people? I don't know enough about it, I just did a quick search cause I hadn't heard about this book. But there are a lot of people out there who don't take this book seriously. In the very limited time that I have spent looking into this book and its author, it looks to me like they may be right.

#9 of 385 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted November 07 2003 - 05:23 AM

To Chris: Posner's book has not been destroyed by people with serious credentials in historical scholarship and in fact is still regarded as the best single volume work on the assassination. Posner has also added to his credentials with acclaimed works on other subjects, which is something that can't be said of JFK conspiracy authors who are usually singularly obsessed with one topic.

To Glenn: I'm afraid you've been getting wrong information. Oswald left the Book Depository just a few minutes after the shooting at 12:35. He was seen killing Officer Tippit at 1:12, thirty five to forty minutes later and was arrested in the Texas Theater (after being followed in by shoe salesman Johnny Brewer)at about 1:45, or in other words more than an hour after the shooting.

On the matter of Jackie on the trunk. There is no piece of the head visible on the trunk and that speculation is trumped by the Z-film which shows Kennedy's brain tissue splattering forward not backward, and also the x-rays which show a small entry wound in the back of the head and a large exit wound toward the front, which means a shot from behind (plus the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head driven slightly forward by the impact of the bullet before it moves backward).

As for Oswald being a double, that I'm afraid isn't what the KGB files say. They had him under surveillance the whole time and thought he was worthless from their standpoint (the KGB files on their lack of interest in Oswald were confirmed by defector Yuri Nosenko who handled Oswald's case)

#10 of 385 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted November 07 2003 - 07:41 AM

Too pressed for time to join in this one seriously at the moment, but I've read some of the more rabid conspiracy "writers" (Livingstone being the most extreme), and I'm half waiting for UFOs to be implicated somehow.

But, for now, I must say I find Posner's tome quite compelling.

There's hard physical evidence, and then there's the desire to see what one wants to see ("badge man," anyone? That little bit of conspiracy nonsense is about as valid as the "shapes" one sees in cumulus-puff clouds on a hot summer afternoon).

Why is it so hard to accept that a single, disturbed individual could assassinate someone at relatively close range?

While the Warren Commission Report leaves a plethora of unanswered questions, it doesn't mean that interlocking, interconnected, and disparate elements as far-ranging as the Mob and the CIA must therefore be the "explanation."

#11 of 385 OFFLINE   Ashley Seymour

Ashley Seymour

    Supporting Actor



  • 945 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted November 07 2003 - 08:13 AM

I'll start by saying I don't have any problem accepting Oswald as the lone assassin.

I may have put forth a theory in this forum in the past that I have never seen discussed.

In remember reading in the 70's that a new device was being used to analyze stress in a persons voice to act as a lie detector. One early use was to take some film footage of Owsald while under police custody and analyze his response to a reporters question "Did you kill the President." Sorry, I can't remember the exact question and his response, but the stress analyzer seemed to indicate that he was truthful in his denial that he had killed the President.

This use of the stress analyzer led me to consider another theory. Oswald had a gripe against Governor Connolly for some perceived slight. He had already fired his rifle at an army general (Walker), so it was not unlikely he would have been willing to take out his hatred agasint the governor, who - it was announced - would be passing by the school book depository where Oswald worked.

Connolly was sitting in front of Kennedy in the car and if he was Oswalds target then it could be possible that he took aim at Connolly. He may have failed to account for the movement of the car and found all of his shots droping short. The result that two of the rounds found the President and one even passed through to hit his target - Connolly.

This is not a theory I would spend a career trying to develop, and I don't have enough figures to account for the effect of a slow moving car and the effect on an average sniper (Oswald) but compared to many of the other crackpot theories, it makes as much sense as any.

The fly in the ointment is, how would the public receive the fact that their President was not the target of the assassin. Instead he was killed by a poor shot who couldn't lead his target but with a miss shot took out an unintended victim instead.
Go Orange, Go Blue,
Fight Fight Fight BSU!

It's not whether you win or loose that counts, but whether you win.

#12 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 09:10 AM

Quote:
Posner's book ... is still regarded as the best single volume work on the assassination.
I certainly regard it in those terms.
That is, until Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi comes out with his tome,
"Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy", which has been in the making for decades now, as I understand it.

For those that might not realize it, Mr. Bugliosi, former Los Angeles County Prosecutor (who had a Felony Trial record of 105-1) successfully prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald in 1986 during a "mock" trial of Oswald in England [being opposed by flambuoyant defense lawyer Gerry Spence]. After hearing 21 hours of testimony of actual witnesses (including a riveting account by Mrs. Ruth Paine)--before a real judge--the jury declared Oswald Guilty of murdering the President.

Obviously, this "mock" version of an Oswald trial doesn't mean a great deal in a CTer's (Conspiracy Theorist) eyes, but it shows (I think) that the evidence, when presented properly--as Bugliosi always seems to do--points all one way. And that's toward LHO acting by himself on 11/22/63.

#13 of 385 OFFLINE   Vincent Matis

Vincent Matis

    Second Unit



  • 491 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 1999

Posted November 07 2003 - 09:19 AM

Quote:
Why is it so hard to accept that a single, disturbed individual could assassinate someone at relatively close range?

I think it is too disturbing for people to even think the most powerfull man in the man can be killed by a "simple" citizen... I think it is a form of denial...

Vincent

#14 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 09:24 AM

Some more of my thoughts on the matter........

There's not been one "serious" challenge to refute the Warren Commission findings. There have been speculations, rumors, and conjecture (not to mention a looney-toon named Jim Garrison) out the anal cavity....but NOTHING has undermined the integrity of that Report.

NONE of the "multiple-shooter" theories, or the ridiculous connect-the-dots-and-create-a-killer "Badge Man" in the shadows bunk, or the "sewer assassins" can possibly be looked upon as MORE credible than the findings of the Warren panel, when reflected upon via common sense and logic.

EVERY piece of evidence points to one conclusion: A crazed former defector to Russia named Lee went to work one morning, with rifle in tow, climbed to a sixth-floor corner perch, and shot & killed the Chief Executive.

The amount of people who would have been involved in "setting up" Oswald as a "patsy", plus carrying out the actual killing, plus somehow "getting to" and corrupting nearly every officer within the Dallas Police Department, FBI, and other authorities (to aid in the massive cover-up) must be a staggering number indeed. And all, of course, would have to remain silent for the rest of their lives. How silly does this sound?? Ultra-silly, IMO.

And what overall motive do MOST of these conspirators have in wanting the President killed in the first place? Take the case of Mrs. Ruth Paine (friend of Marina Oswald's who lived with Marina for a time in 1962-1963) ..........

While discussing these events on another forum recently, the subject of Mrs. Paine came up. Many, MANY people in the "CT" (Conspiracy Theory) community truly believe that Mrs. Paine is guilty of helping to set Lee Oswald up as the "patsy" on 11/22.

But WHY?? What possible motive could this ordinary housewife from Irving, Texas, have had to be willing to RISK HER VERY OWN LIFE (if caught aiding in the assassination of an American President) in order to pin the murder of JFK on Oswald, who, BTW, she (admittedly) barely knew!! (She knew Lee; but was much more acquainted with Marina, sparingly bumping into Lee.)

Mrs. Paine, BTW, to those who might not recognize the name, was instrumental in getting Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the Texas School Book Depository Building in mid-October of 1963, one month before the President's visit to Dallas. Which, of course, brings another point up....HOW could Mrs. Paine have possibly known that the President would drive right by the Depository on 11/22?? Answer: she couldn't. No one knew there would even BE any sort of parade/motorcade through the city until early November! Once again, it seems "common sense" is not all that common when it comes to some of the ludricrous claims endlessly being spouted by the network of conspiracy promoters.

The type of craziness re. Mrs. Paine above reminds me of the similar off-the-wall absurdity regarding the OJ Simpson murder case in 1995. Tell me someone, PLEASE, WHY, oh WHY there would be FOUR L.A.P.D. Police detectives, who never even KNEW each other before June 1994, who would suddenly, out of a deep blue sky, say to themselves --- "You know, guys, we don't know each other at all...we just met this second....but how's about we all go over to OJ's house and try to get that Son-of-a-bitch convicted of these two murders? How 'bout it? You with me? Sure...we could all die in the gas chamber if caught...but, what the hay! It's worth it to see if we can get the mo-fo to take the rap. Even though, of course, we've always held Mr. Simpson in high regard....But, well, let's get him!"

Same exact logic applies in the "Ruth Paine was an accomplice" silliness.

(I better not get started on the Simpson case....High blood pressure already. .... But the similarities, to me, between many aspects of the OJ case and the JFK assassination are startling in clarity.......Conspiracies all over the place, even though there's not one scrap of physical evidence to back them up, along with ALL the evidence pointing toward one single killer.)

#15 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 09:27 AM

Quote:
...and then there's the desire to see what one wants to see ("badge man," anyone? That little bit of conspiracy nonsense is about as valid as the "shapes" one sees in cumulus-puff clouds on a hot summer afternoon).
You got that right, Jack. I believe you've smacked the nail right on its head there. Posted Image

Plus: Take the supposed "other face" seen in a photograph taken of the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. Or the famed Moorman photo, which to many shows multiple "mysterious figures" behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll.

Now...you're honestly gonna tell me, when we BLOW UP these already extremely poor, grainy photographs 100 times their original size (or more!), that we're actually going to be able to make out anything CLOSE to resembling a human shape? If anything, these images are going to be MANY times worse when blown up to such immense proportions.

Now, you can color in assassins all day long if you wish. It still doesn't make them any more "real", IMO.

Try it yourself.....with any grainy, out-of-focus picture. You could probably draw in pictures of the blurry background resembling Abraham Lincoln, The Wright Brothers, and Homer Simpson if you were so inclined.

And yet....thousands of man-hours and many dollars have been spent by researchers messing with that Mary Moorman photo, which, if you've seen it, is in horrible shape quality-wise (esp. the BACKGROUND, where these "assassins" supposedly lurk). Hilarious.

#16 of 385 OFFLINE   Dennis Nicholls

Dennis Nicholls

    Lead Actor



  • 7,822 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1998
  • Real Name:Dennis
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted November 07 2003 - 09:56 AM

The most compelling evidence that there was no conspiracy is the simple fact that 40 years have past and no conspirator has come forth. Guys like that can't keep their darned mouths shut for a few weeks, much less 40 years.
Feline videophiles Condoleezza and Dukie.


#17 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 10:12 AM

Quote:
The most compelling evidence that there was no conspiracy is the simple fact that 40 years have pas[sed] and no conspirator has come forth.
Unless you want to count the idiotic ramblings of a Mr. James Files. I, of course, don't believe a syllable of his "I killed JFK" babbling.

#18 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 10:29 AM

Quote:
...ABC will have a documentary on 11/20 that will again reinforce the lone-gunman conclusion...
To those that might care, HERE'S some info on that Nov. 20th ABC Special, entitled "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy".

#19 of 385 OFFLINE   D. Scott MacDonald

D. Scott MacDonald

    Supporting Actor



  • 545 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 10 1999

Posted November 07 2003 - 10:57 AM

I lived in Dallas, and I must admit that when you stick your head out of the sixth floor window towards the point where JFK was shot, I had to ask myself why anybody would take this particular shot rather than have shot a minute earlier when they were coming straight toward me for a block. And then when you walk to grass knoll, and see what an easy shot that would have been, there is something deep inside that makes you want to lend credence to the conspiracy theories.

But in the end, there are just too many reasons why the conspiracy theories don't make any sense. Maybe Lee's gun jammed when the President was driving towards him, or he returned late from taking a bathroom break. It is crazy to see all of the conspiracy guys all over Dealy Plaza selling their theories to anybody who would listen.
Scott

#20 of 385 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted November 07 2003 - 11:57 AM

Quote:
I had to ask myself why anybody would take this particular shot rather than have shot a minute earlier when they were coming straight toward me for a block.
I heard a theory recently on this (that makes sense to me). ..... A straight-ahead shot with the car on Houston St. would seem to have been a much "easier" shot. But an advantage in waiting would be to conceal himself even further into the corner of his "perch", and therefore out of sight completely to anyone who might trace the shots immediately back up to the 6th floor window. The rifle would still be visible (and was to multiple witnesses), but the killer (namely Oswald) would be hidden deep in the corner.

It might also be possible that Oswald was considering the many Secret Service Agents in the follow-up car, who would have been able to simply tilt their heads back and see Oswald with gun in the window if he'd have fired shot #1 with the cars on Houston, opening himself up to much-easier return gunfire from the agents.

As it was, waiting for an Elm Street shot, the SS Agents now had their backs to the assassin, making return fire much more difficult.


Back to After Hours Lounge



Forum Nav Content I Follow