any other oliver stone pics

I wasn't trying to be educated when I saw it though.

Course I liked pearl harbor as well so there is that...

the movie as historical fiction. Which I usually didn't like at that point in my life. But I loved Kevin Coshner. And it was very entertaining.

The Warren Commission got it right. Bugliosi's book is required reading.

I can't watch the Stone movie anymore without laughing. Maybe it's supposed to be a comedy.

I visited the Dealy Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum there. I walked Dealy Plaza and it is SMALL. In the museum you can stand right next to the window Oswald fired from. Since I know guns and shooting, the immediate thought that popped into my head was "Shit, this was an easy shot. Oswald didn't need the scope, he used the iron sights because of the scope mount. And 6 seconds was plenty of time since he already had a round chambered.."

They didn't have all our newer forensic tools back in 1963, and the House investigation in the mid 70's made a real screwup, with that recording of "four" shots.

Science says the shots came from the school book depository.

Hysterics still cling desperately to their wild conspiracy stories.

With funding provided by the Koch Bros?

Talk about fantasyland.

Ryan Lochte must have been unavailable to lend his historical perspective.

Getting off 3 shots in 6 seconds has not been replicated. The Warren Commission tried and failed and others, such as CBS, have tried and failed. In addition Oswald, who had the lowest shooting rank in the military as a "marksman", was using a cheap piece of crap Mannlicher rifle.

The marksmen used by the Warren Commision ALL got three shots off in under 6 seconds WITH ACCURACY USING OSWALD'S RIFLE.

One of them did it in 4.6 seconds. And modern analysis shows the shots were spread over 8 seconds, not 6. With the first round already chambered, Oswald had 8 seconds to get off two more shots, which he did.

In addition, Oswald achieved the level of SHARPSHOOTER in the Marines when he was first tested. That's one level under EXPERT, the highest rating. He was later tested again right before he left the Marines and scored as a Marksman. His shooting scores are all part of the record and easily searched. The USMC testified under oath to the Warren Commission that Oswald was an "exceptional shot."

Stop peddling such idiotic bullshit. It demeans DU and anybody who knows the actual evidence.

Of course I will supply links -- something you won't do.

For the benefit of the Warren Commission, expert riflemen from the US Army and the FBI attempted to duplicate the assassin’s task, using the rifle that had been discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Even after fixing some of the gun’s mechanical problems, and despite firing at stationary targets from an easier vantage point, they failed to achieve the combination of accuracy and speed demanded of the lone gunman: two hits out of three, within about six seconds (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.446 and pp.403–10).

In the 1950s Marines had the following shooting qualififcations:

Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
Marksman: 190 to 209.

In May 1959, Oswald scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman'

Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f

The Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, was a “cheap old weapon” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.29).

It was examined by the FBI’s firearms specialist, who stated that:

Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405)

Ronald Simmons of the US Army also examined the rifle, and found problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism:
There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon. … The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.(ibid., pp.449–51

Why didn't you mention that?

Do you deny that fact?

By 1959 he was barely above the minimum.

I have presented the facts. You have just presented allegations based on no facts. I presented testimony from the Warren Commission which you seem to worship. Why are you running away from the report?

on the WC findings many times over, including the reports on the shooters who did the tests for the WC.

The fact remains that you omitted the fact that Oswald achieved the rank of sharpshooter while in the USMC. One assumes you did that because it doesn't fit your imagining that he was a poor shot. You either knowingly omitted the fact or you did so through ignorance.

Typical. We need you to make those shots and show everyone who could not do it how it was done.

and evidence.

But here ya go - testimony given to the Warren Commission: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

You are ignoring the testimony given to the Warren Commission which you worship.

Last edited Mon Aug 22, 2016, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Obviously, you didn't bother reading the whole text at the link (it is long and it is informative).

Maybe you're not interested in the testimony from Robert Frazier, who ran the tests.

BTW - the Warren Commission never said the shots had to be fired in 6 seconds. With modern research using the Zapruder film as evidence, the actual time for all three shots was 8.4 seconds. CTists harp on the 6 seconds because they think it means something. It doesn't, especially when firarms expert Robert Frazier testified that one of the marksman got the three shots off in 4.6 seconds.

Were all pretty spot-on...

Edward Snowden Verified account ?@Snowden

[font color=darkred]For two minutes and thirty nine seconds, everybody at NSA just stopped working.[/font]

Like when George H. W. Bush at CIA helped terrorist Luis Posada Carriles escape justice.

There are other examples, from Vietnam to Libya, worth remembering that Oliver Stone keeps in the public eye.

He lies in his movies "based on true stories," and he made anti-Semitic remarks.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/oliver-stone-jewish-control-of-the-media-is-preventing-free-holocaust-debate-1.304108

as he wishes. Hell, Ezra Pound was anti-Semitic, pro-fascist leading up to and throughout WWII where he openly supported Mussolini and Hitler (he was living in Italy) and did pro-Axis broadcasts until Italy fell and he was arrested for treason. He was still a good poet.

You can read about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Pound#Turn_to_fascism.2C_World_War_II

For that matter, one of my favorite poets, T.S. Eliot reflected some ugly anti-Semitism in a few of his poems. He's still one of the greatest poets of all time, imho.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/jun/07/poetry.thomasstearnseliot

Honestly, I don't believe you're thinking this through. OK, you have a strong antipathy toward Stone. Fine. But art (and movie making is an art) isn't reporting- unless it's a documentary. Stone doesn't make documentaries. He tells stories.

If I'd never read or watched or viewed work by artists who were bigoted or just unpleasant people, I would have missed a great deal indeed.

You might be mistaking his opinion about Jewish power in Hollywood, etc. for your beliefs about his politics.

BTW: He apologized for expressing his opinions that critics used out of context.

OMFT: Do you think Noam Chomsky is an anti-Semite, too?

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-what-american-media-wont-tell-you-about-israel

It's one of those "politician's apologies," he basically says "If anyone was offended, I apologize..."

And even if his Father was Jewish, he did make that "Jews control the media" slur.
Nobody forced him to say that, and he was not "taken out of context."

We have to stop accepting excuses from those on "our side" when they royally screw up.

As for Chomsky, that's his opinions, not Stone's.

He went after Clay Shaw because Shaw was a closeted gay. Shaw would have won his libel suit against Garrison, if he hadn't died of cancer before the case could go to trial.

I have trouble with anybody who idolizes, pays big money, and even offers a bit part (Garrison plays Earl Warren in the film) to an out and out homophobe bigot.

Stone, when confronted with Garrison's statements about "murderous faggots" (Garrison's actual words,) dismissed the statement as "a government smear."

How did Snowden fly to an enemy nation, without any FBI agents noticing his plans or asking questions? The FBI asked Director Petraeus of the CIA plenty of questions. Director Comey of the FBI broke protocol by releasing information, in an ongoing investigation of Secretary of State Hillery Clinton, to the press.

minor thing about NO FREAKIN' RIOTS IN SYRACUSE!

DW Griffith was a talented director.
Was his "Birth Of A Nation" accurate?

Was Leni Riefensthal's "Triumph Of The Will" accurate?

Was Michael Cimino's account of the Johnson County war, "Heaven's Gate" accurate?

"Artistic License" is not a license to lie.

And damned straight being an artist is license to "lie"- or to put it more accurately, interpret what you see any way you wish.

Not so big on the 1st Amendment, are you? (Not to mention art)

Just don't expect me to be silent.

It's one thing to "interpret" events.

It's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, when a book (like Bill O'Reilly's "Killing_____&quot or movie flat out lies.

either, but I explained all that in another post in this thread.

OPs concern over Oliver Stone's ability to make great movies.

The last few ones have been unwatchable.

So he spends his time making 'documentaries' that are anything but. He's a fake.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

Because it was largely a lie.

Oliver Stone doesn't get any special dispensation that we didn't give Michael Bay.

The Guardian had this piece a few years ago...

you can expect at least one more once they get around to turning Greenwald's book into a movie...

Of course I'm old enough to remember when Snowden kept on swearing that "this story wasn't about him"

He's made some really great movies, I think.

For instance, JFK movie works as a movie about paranoia and how conspiracy nonsense snowballs.

his later stuff has been so so. His Bush movie is probably his best later period movie, but hit and miss, Bush turns out not to be interesting enough to have a movie based on his life. I imagine Snowden will likely suffer from the same problem. Not enough time has passed and not enough voices are out there so you're likely getting the Snowden view point of most things which isn't...dare I say perhaps the most rounded. His Nixon movie on the other hand was filmed long after the event described.