Eric Paddon
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2001
- Messages
- 1,166
Several points that need answering before I move on from this particular thread. Perhaps it would be a good idea for further responses to be in the other thread, but to borrow a phrase of Lieutenant Columbo, "Just one more thing."
"But we've all heard the Warren Report side of things. Nothing wrong with putting some different ideas out there."
This is not a valid comparison. Where is the slickly produced $50 million budgeted movie that makes the case for Oswald's guilt, which in this instance has the added luxury of being the one that is factually correct? Where is the slickly produced $50 million budgeted movie that tells the story of Clay Shaw's trial correct and leaves in such details as Garrison's bribing of witnesses and manufacturing of evidence to frame an innoncent man? Nowhere.
"The fact that they are TELLING you should concern you."
No it shouldn't. First off, the conclusions on Oswald as sole assassin are based on 26 volumes of evidence, hundreds of pages of testimony and scores of hardcore scientific analyses of ballistics experts, medical experts etc. and all of them to a fault have upheld the WC conclusions. I think what should concern you is that not 1% of the experts in photographic analaysis, ballistcs, forensic pathology etc. have ever come down against the Warren Commission conclusions. The evidence that one needs to judge is out there and when it is the conspiracy buffs who are forced by necessity to pretend that evidence that doesn't exist or to lie or distort about it to raise their questions, *that* is what should concern you.
"It wouldn't be the first time that government info was fabricated."
Prejudice does not dictate how we review history, the facts do. Appealing to an instinctive mistrust of the US government is not a credible way of reviewing history. If you apply that line of thinking to people in general, you end up by default using the same logic that racists use when they say, "All people of this race are shifty liars and should never be trusted".
"So, it seems to me, that all he wants from the viewer is to do their own research and then make up their own mind"
If that is really true, then why does Stone have a notoriously thin skin when it comes to him being subjected to the same standards he applies to the Warren Report? (When George Lardner, the reporter who was the last man to see David Ferrie alive blasted Stone's false depiction of Ferrie's death, Stone actually accused him of being a CIA spook out to discredit him) Why did Stone refuse all requests for interviews from the producers of the documentary "False Witness" which sets the record straight regarding Garrison and the Shaw trial? Why did Stone lie at the end of the movie when he said the government had done nothing with regard to the "conspiracy" conclusion of the HSCA when in fact the Ramsay Panel was created and negated the one piece of evidence the HSCA used to make their "conspiracy" conclusion? These are not idle questions. What they indicate to me is that when Stone wraps himself up in the mantle of "searching for the truth" he only wants people to come up with one conclusion: His version only, and the facts be damned.
"The truth is, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. And I think this is what JFK is all about. Speculating."
Wrong. We do know what happened that day because there is an overwhelming amount of physical, ballistics and medical evidence that tells us how events happened that day. And there is not a single responsible investigator or credible expert who has ever undermined that basic conclusion through a careful analysis of all evidence. And we also know what the reality of the Clay Shaw trial was, and the reality of what kind of a man Jim Garrison was.
"You've made an assertion about how "[p]eople" in general react to the film, but there's nothing to back it up other than the (unspoken) assumption that most people are sheep."
I'm afraid that with this topic of the assassination, most people have been acting like sheep for the better part of 35 years since the first conspiracy book was published. Conspiracy books have dominated assassination literature by about 5 to 1 during that span and often they are slickly produced, easy to read thriller types, much like JFK is as a movie, and the result is that people swallow what those authors say as the truth without any sense of skepticism as to whether the critics are presenting a truthful picture themselves. This is a phenomena I have witnessed many times over the years, in lectures, in interviews, and in the audiences that were with me when I saw this movie. Part of is explained by the refusal to accept the idea that Kennedy could be done in by a nut, part of it is explained by the determination of some buffs to make the assassination their meal ticket for life, and part of it is explained by the fact that government conduct during that turbulent period later made it easy for them to think there was covering up with regard to this particular event. When it comes to serious study of the assassination though, there are many people who have seen this movie and darned few people who have read the full 26 volumes of the Warren Report and the full volumes of the HSCA. That is the imbalance that Stone creates with his movie and until a $50 million budgeted movie with Hollywood stars is created that tells the story right, people will continue to get their information on this event in history from this one movie only and accept it as the truth.
I will join in the request that replies to this get referred to the other thread, and consider any further comments by me on this one, to be at an end.
"But we've all heard the Warren Report side of things. Nothing wrong with putting some different ideas out there."
This is not a valid comparison. Where is the slickly produced $50 million budgeted movie that makes the case for Oswald's guilt, which in this instance has the added luxury of being the one that is factually correct? Where is the slickly produced $50 million budgeted movie that tells the story of Clay Shaw's trial correct and leaves in such details as Garrison's bribing of witnesses and manufacturing of evidence to frame an innoncent man? Nowhere.
"The fact that they are TELLING you should concern you."
No it shouldn't. First off, the conclusions on Oswald as sole assassin are based on 26 volumes of evidence, hundreds of pages of testimony and scores of hardcore scientific analyses of ballistics experts, medical experts etc. and all of them to a fault have upheld the WC conclusions. I think what should concern you is that not 1% of the experts in photographic analaysis, ballistcs, forensic pathology etc. have ever come down against the Warren Commission conclusions. The evidence that one needs to judge is out there and when it is the conspiracy buffs who are forced by necessity to pretend that evidence that doesn't exist or to lie or distort about it to raise their questions, *that* is what should concern you.
"It wouldn't be the first time that government info was fabricated."
Prejudice does not dictate how we review history, the facts do. Appealing to an instinctive mistrust of the US government is not a credible way of reviewing history. If you apply that line of thinking to people in general, you end up by default using the same logic that racists use when they say, "All people of this race are shifty liars and should never be trusted".
"So, it seems to me, that all he wants from the viewer is to do their own research and then make up their own mind"
If that is really true, then why does Stone have a notoriously thin skin when it comes to him being subjected to the same standards he applies to the Warren Report? (When George Lardner, the reporter who was the last man to see David Ferrie alive blasted Stone's false depiction of Ferrie's death, Stone actually accused him of being a CIA spook out to discredit him) Why did Stone refuse all requests for interviews from the producers of the documentary "False Witness" which sets the record straight regarding Garrison and the Shaw trial? Why did Stone lie at the end of the movie when he said the government had done nothing with regard to the "conspiracy" conclusion of the HSCA when in fact the Ramsay Panel was created and negated the one piece of evidence the HSCA used to make their "conspiracy" conclusion? These are not idle questions. What they indicate to me is that when Stone wraps himself up in the mantle of "searching for the truth" he only wants people to come up with one conclusion: His version only, and the facts be damned.
"The truth is, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. And I think this is what JFK is all about. Speculating."
Wrong. We do know what happened that day because there is an overwhelming amount of physical, ballistics and medical evidence that tells us how events happened that day. And there is not a single responsible investigator or credible expert who has ever undermined that basic conclusion through a careful analysis of all evidence. And we also know what the reality of the Clay Shaw trial was, and the reality of what kind of a man Jim Garrison was.
"You've made an assertion about how "[p]eople" in general react to the film, but there's nothing to back it up other than the (unspoken) assumption that most people are sheep."
I'm afraid that with this topic of the assassination, most people have been acting like sheep for the better part of 35 years since the first conspiracy book was published. Conspiracy books have dominated assassination literature by about 5 to 1 during that span and often they are slickly produced, easy to read thriller types, much like JFK is as a movie, and the result is that people swallow what those authors say as the truth without any sense of skepticism as to whether the critics are presenting a truthful picture themselves. This is a phenomena I have witnessed many times over the years, in lectures, in interviews, and in the audiences that were with me when I saw this movie. Part of is explained by the refusal to accept the idea that Kennedy could be done in by a nut, part of it is explained by the determination of some buffs to make the assassination their meal ticket for life, and part of it is explained by the fact that government conduct during that turbulent period later made it easy for them to think there was covering up with regard to this particular event. When it comes to serious study of the assassination though, there are many people who have seen this movie and darned few people who have read the full 26 volumes of the Warren Report and the full volumes of the HSCA. That is the imbalance that Stone creates with his movie and until a $50 million budgeted movie with Hollywood stars is created that tells the story right, people will continue to get their information on this event in history from this one movie only and accept it as the truth.
I will join in the request that replies to this get referred to the other thread, and consider any further comments by me on this one, to be at an end.
