Oswald and Oliver Stone's "JFK"

The movie paints a pretty clear picture of a conspiracy, and that Oswald was an intel agent and patsy.

Of course there are detractors. I'm sure there are people here who think the movie is total bull. Here, I would like to focus on Oswald and I would like to know specific things that the movie got wrong about Oswald. I don't want to get into physical evidence of the shots. I want to discuss Oswald as a creature of the intel agencies.

Even the official story of Oswald is darn strange:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_harvey_oswald

this is guy is very suspicious, to say the least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt

but the movie pulls out a lot more than what is in wikipedia.

Back to Stone's "JFK"-- according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_movie
Vincent Bugliosi was a big critic of the movie.

In this article, http://hnn.us/articles/41490.html
Bugliosi says he has 53 reasons why Oswald is the assassin, then he lists 5 reasons-- presumably he thinks these are good reasons:

"Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That’s pretty heavy by itself. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department. That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed. Thirty minutes later at a Texas theatre he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt."

Seriously? Only one semi-direct piece of evidence-- the rifle? And even that could have been easily framed. The other pieces of evidence are very circumstantial, and can be explained in other ways.

Was Oswald involved in the assassination in some way? Almost certainly. But did he act alone? That is the key question. There seems to be plenty of involvement of Oswald with intel-connected shady characters. What I would like to know if the movie has any facts wrong about Oswald's connection to David Ferrie, his bizarre movements from Russia and back, the strange response of the US govt, the timing of the U2 shootdown, and so forth.

"semi-direct" piece of evidence, Spooked?

someone else could have used the rifle.

rifle?

what is your point?

If we are to believe that someone other than Oswald fired the rifle, please tell us how the shooter came to have his rifle. Did Oswald loan it to someone?

If the bullet was planted then why did the metallilc composition of the fragments in Connally's wrist matched PERFECTLY the metallic composition of the bullet they recovered?
And also IF the bullet was planted it must mean that someone else shot Kennedy with a different rifle.
That being said, what happened to those bullets and why did ALL bullet fragments match Oswald's rifle and no other?
Also one can only frame an innocent person, yet Oswald's rifle with Oswald's prints on it is the only weapon to ever come forth in this case.

then that would answer all your questions. About bullet fragments-- a lot of it really depends when and who did these tests, and how clear the results were.

If they framed Oswald, OBVIOUSLY they would put his prints on the rifle.

The assassin was the driver Greer, and clearly there was a major cover-up in this regard.

Jesus, Spooked.

don't play dumb

HOLY GUACAMOLE!!!!
You believe that shit?!?!?!
Really?????
Wow.
Just wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jis_ZFspfY

for one, to hide what Greer did

even the CTers here don't buy your bullshit.
you make me sad.

JFK.

This is truly sad.

He can't possibly believe this, can he?
By the way Spooked, I find it funny you whine about "high quality footage of 9/11 being withheld". but any footage you ever got would just go into the "they manipulated it" pile, so what's the point?

The bigger mystery is why he cannot figure out why no one takes him seriously.

obviously, they would be terrified to tell the truth.

Good overview of the evidence for Greer, and witnesses who saw the driver shoot here:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Larry762/fontcolor3300FF/page4.html

Not a single direct witness along the route said anything like it. They didn't because it's a ridiculously absurd notion, but we've come to expect no less.

Did you even bother to look at the link?

http://community-2.webtv.net/Larry762/fontcolor3300FF/page4.html
-------
These are the witnesses whose statement to Mr. Newcomb and sometimes the Warren commission included the words "in the car."

1. Mary Moorman - school teacher standing next to Jean Hill. She said she saw Greer shooting back but thought he was shooting back at the assassin. SOURCE: Warren Commission and taped interview by Fred Newcomb.

2. Jean Hill - Jean Hill saw what happened too, but when she tried to bring up the subject of a gun being fired in the car, Senator Arlen Spector (a 33rd degree Mason) would change the subject or say "it's time for a cup of coffee."

3. Austin P. Miller - Texas Louisiana Freight Bureau, who stood on the railway overpass overlooking Elm Street was asked by Arlen Spector where the shots came from: His reply was "from right there in the car." Senator Spector just went on to the next question, never asking Miller any specifics. From: Warren Report, New York Times edition, p. 82.

4. Clinton J. Hill. Jacqueline Kennedy's bodyguard reports in Vol. II, pp 138-139 of the Warren Commission Volumes: "I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, and ran to the presidential limousine. Just as I reached it, there was another sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object...it seemed to have some type of echo."

5. Hugh Betzner - Had picture published in Life magazine and was standing right next to the drivers side of the motorcade: He saw a gun in the hand of one of the secret service agents and heard a sound "like firecrackers going off in the car."Link to Betzner’s official statement: http://www.jfk-online.com/betzner.html Source: taped interview with Fred Newcomb.

6. Senator Ralph Yarborough - 3rd car back "Smelled gunpowder in the car." (statement made to press but not to Warren Commission) He was challenged by Newcomb on the phone and he then said "I must have smelled it coming down from the book depository"

Miller's testimony is available online here. It does contain the words "from right there in the car," but the characterization here is indefensible. Will you correct it, or do you just not care? (Or maybe you disagree with that version of Miller's testimony?)

As for Jean Hill, her testimony available at the same source bears no resemblance to the paraphrase you've posted. I see where at one point Specter stops for a cup of coffee, but -- trying to be tactful here -- it doesn't appear to be because Hill was trying to "bring up the subject of a gun being fired in the car."

Have you ever read Hill's testimony? Do you have any idea what you're talking about here -- or, rather, not so much talking about, but copying and pasting? If so, you might be better off trying to make your own case. Just a thought.

*ETA: The redundancy of the original subject was just bugging me toooooooo much.

Mr. Belin.
Then what did you hear or see?
Mr. MILLER. After the first one, just a few seconds later, there was two more shots fired or, or sounded like a sound at the time. I didn't know for sure. And it was after that I ,saw some man in the car fall forward, and a woman next to
him grab him and hollered, and just what, I don't know exactly what she said.
Mr. Belin.
Then what did you see?
Mr. MILLER. About that time I turned and looked toward the there is a little plaza sitting on the hill. I looked over there to see if anything was there, who threw the firecracker or whatever it was, or see if anything was up there, and there wasn't nobody standing there, so I stepped back and looked on the tracks to see if anybody run across the railroad tracks, and there was nobody running across the railroad tracks. So I turned right straight back just in time to see the convertible take off fast.
Mr. Belin.
You mean the convertible in which the President was riding?
Mr. Miller.
I wouldn't want to say it was the President. It was a convertible but I saw a man fall over. I don't know whose convertible it was.
Mr. Belin.
Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER. Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him over toward that incline.
Mr. Belin.
Is there anything else that you can think of that you saw.
Mr. MILLER. About the time I looked over to the side there, there was a police officer. No; a motorcycle running his motor under against the curb, and jumped off and come up to the hill toward the top and right behind him was some more officers and plainclothesmen, too.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anyone that might be, that gave any suspicious movements of any kind over there?
Mr. Miller.
No, sir; I didn't.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol6/page225.php

As far as Jean Hill, she clearly indicated she thought the Secret Service was shooting (back at whoever fired the first shots from the grassy knoll), and this is likely why she was interviewed so extensively and why she had a visit from the Secret Service.

Here's the claim:

As you just pointed out, that is untrue. Rather, David Belin (not Specter) asked where it sounded like the shots came from, and Belin replied that it sounded as if they came from right in the car. There is no indication whatsoever that Miller thinks the shots actually came from the car. No wonder Belin "just went on to the next question."

And here's the claim about Jean Hill:

Since you want to claim that this is about Hill thinking the Secret Service is shooting back, we can look at that passage:

That's a long way from Hill having offered eyewitness testimony that a gun was fired in the car, no matter how lofty a Mason Arlen Specter happens to be.

(edit to correct typos)

Look, I wouldn't have written the descriptions of the testimony that way myself, but the bottom line is they made statements supportive of shots being fired from the car or by the secret service.

anyone else with reading comprehension skills sees it a different way.
just another case of "this doesn't look right to me" with you.

I gave you a fair chance to walk back that one. Crikey.


"Cherry-picking" doesn't begin to do justice to this assertion. "Woo-mining," perhaps?

I think he probably said what he meant and meant what he said. I see no indication to the contrary.

Yet you quoted an article that flatly and falsely represented him as saying something else, and you wrote that you really weren't sure what the problem was with that. Kewl.

it just gave the non-official interpretation of his testimony

Wow, I bet you can get a lot of mileage out of that. :eyes:

Sorry, spooked, but I think the facts speak for themselves, and they say, Meh.

not sure what your position is. Thanks.

I'm not deeply invested in the "Lone Nutter" hypothesis.

However, the propensity of many conspiracists to distort facts that aren't directly disputed (for instance, twisting the words in Warren Commission testimony, rather than arguing that the official record is somehow wrong) does make me wonder: if there is a credible case to be made against the so-called official story, why does it get drowned out by so many incredible cases?

If I were a conspiracist, I would probably infer that many purported conspiracists actually are part of the conspiracy. That doesn't actually make much sense to me. But I must confess that when people like you defend the indefensible, it tends to predispose me against conspiracist accounts, although I'm not sure that reaction is reasonable. (It may well be, at least as a heuristic.)

And we are expected to believe it ended up looking like this,



All the other bullshit is windowdressing. You see, all the OCT believers out there get asked over, and over again, to bring ONE BULLET, just ONE in the history of mankind that did what CE 399 supposedly did. We are still waiting.
And until someone does, my opinion that we got fed a steaming pile of SHIT called the Warren Report, and that there was a conspiricy, will not change.

Watch "Unsolved History: JFK : Beyond the Magic Bullet". Two separate experiments replicated the circumstances and produced bullets that looked nearly identical to CE 399.

P.S. I don't watch Nazi Propaganda.

why not watch it? Unless the argument is they should look identical.

Identical.

Take a good look Matt.



CE 572 looks Nearly Identical to CE 399.

The circumstances are a little different, don't you agree.

CE 853 broke a rib. CE 856 Broke a wrist radius bone. Kinda of a stretch to say either one is similar to CE 399 though. Although through your eyes, who knows.

Beyond that, study the fallacies of composition and division.

Unless you lied to me. I asked you some time ago what your name was, YOU said Matt.

thing. Why would you even ask personal info or disclose it if you knew it?

Implying that I lied is pretty low.

Back to the list you go. It's tough to have a battle of wit's when your opponent has no ammunition.

LOL!

If the bullet was planted then why did the metallilc composition of the fragments in Connally's wrist matched PERFECTLY the metallic composition of the bullet they recovered?
And also IF the bullet was planted it must mean that someone else shot Kennedy with a different rifle.
That being said, what happened to those bullets and why did ALL bullet fragments match Oswald's rifle and no other?
Also one can only frame an innocent person, yet Oswald's rifle with Oswald's prints on it is the only weapon to ever come forth in this case.

The evidence for that seems weaker than the evidence that planes flew into the Twin Towers.

there is some evidence(including a photo)that JFK is alive...

http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/topic/Do-you-think-that-John-F-Kennedy-is-still-alive-today-/253415

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vmgemstonejfkalivepics.htm

Spooked has some compelling evidence...a movie with over 100 factual errors in it.

certainly, he was removed as president, which is probably the most important aspect of the matter

I'm not sure how you find your account of the Twin Towers' destruction parsimonious, but at least I can concede that the planes per se aren't as important as Kennedy was.

It wasn't a documentary as a lot of "debunkers" try to make it out to be. I like the movie, but I don't look at it as some sort of research material.

As for Oswald, I don't think he was just some lone nut that wanted to make a name for himself. I agree about Mohrenschildt, he is a suspicious character.

As for Bugliosi, I'm still trying to get through his book. It's pretty bad, but I'll finish it one day. Here is just an example of his extraordinary research "Markham has an unobstructed view and sees the man go over to the squad car, lean over, and place his arms on the ledge of the open front window on the passenger side.." This is regarding the Tippit murder. Watching the newsreel from the scene while the DPD is dusting for prints, the window is closed. Not a big deal, but an inconsistency none the less.

"JFK" was a "documentary".

The bigger problem is conspiracists who've watched it and regard it as a documentary.

that a picture of the status of the window later in time is not evidence of how the window was situated during the time Markham observed Oswald approach Tippit, right?

bet on that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

dude. Tippit approaches Oswald and, either rolls down the passenger side window and speaks to Oswald through an already rolled down window. As Oswald walks around the car and, knowing he is going to exit the car, Tippit rolls up the window.

I'm pretty sure it's SOP that an officer never exits their patrol car without first securing it.

There's no use in going on with this. I must have broken this rule:

"People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum."

dude.

And you know it.

disagrees.

It's easier for them just to delete the posts you alert on. And I'm sure you will alert on this one too and it will get deleted, but at least I know you read it.

"ask the administrators" forum.

Give it a try.

I already have my answer

If you're going to hang out here, learn something about how the moderators operate. A couple of times I've had real questions about what they were doing, and I've sent respectful private messages that got helpful replies. The idea that they delete some posts just because someone "whine(s) so much" is without merit -- and taking gratuitous, unsupported potshots at the mods makes you look like the whiner. "And I'm sure you will alert on this one too and it will get deleted"... riiiiiight.

The rest of the reply was only testimony from the Warren Commission.

The mods' efforts to enforce the rule against name-calling are bound to be somewhat inconsistent, especially because they don't go looking for violations themselves. I once was a moderator (with a more proactive role), and it was very hard. But if replacing "dude" with "mouth" wasn't name-calling, I don't know how else to describe it. Who needs it?

FWIW, SDuderstadt is very good at throwing a hard punch within the rules, generally by characterizing arguments rather than people. I've alerted on his posts when I thought they crossed the line, as I know mine have at times. But if you haven't repeatedly been accused of being paid to lie, then you don't know how it feels to be him. There are many reasons why it's hard to maintain civility in this forum, and one might wonder whether it is even desirable. I usually try to pull in that direction.

(edited for clarity)

I know they have a tough job to do and they always seem fair to me.

I also don't think the poster is paid to do anything on here or any other forum. If he were getting paid then someone would be getting ripped off. Personally, I don't like being called "dude" continuously, but sometimes life is like that and you have to put up with little things you don't like. Choosing your battles is the key, to continuously battle is exhausting.

I'm on the barter system.

Here's an idea. Rather than make this all about me (which, in itself, is a violation of DU rules), why not debate the issue?

I won't be debating anything with you.

debate requires facts.

"debate".

I hope this pledge isn't forgotten in the future.

Not that I want to bust up your perfectly good flame war or anything. :) I was just saying that you can be pretty testy, and with good reason. And, probably everyone here at some point or another feels put upon. All that said, yes, at the end of the day the forum is still about reality.

Johnnie. You and I are fine.

I just take exception to all the "outrage" around here sometimes.

That was a good glimmer of reality from you. Thanks.

As for Oswald/JFK.... if Oswald did it, why didn't he get in a car and drive away?
Why did he stay put in Dallas?
A mastermind like he is said to be, would have made plans to flee, right?

That's why he had a lift to the depository.
Who has called him a mastermind besides yourself?

There was someone else who was the mastermind behind killing JFK?
We agree. You're getting preeeety smart. Preeeety smart. Guess hanging here is getting to you, eh?

Oh, silly me. IOKIYBF.

Who was the mastermind behind the shooting of JFK?
Z says it wasn't Oswald?

And I see you ducked giving any answer at all to a kindergarten size question.

Bwhahahaha! Yes, it is ok because I am BeFree. Don't forget it.

Of course you know that and are just playing games as usual.
Why?
Cuz you have nothing else.
one day you may learn, but I doubt it.

What have you ever said that you didn't later have to eat?

How does it taste? YSS.

We don't think it takes a "mastermind" to fire a gun. YMMV.

What part of this you think is funny, I really couldn't say.

You're joking, right?

I asked a simple, sub-elementary question and all you have done is babble back.

Nor does it come as a surprise.

Which suggests that a citizen or someone from the DPD rolled up the window before the scene was processed. The video I have is a member from the DPD actively dusting the top of the door for prints and the window is rolled up. Pretty shitty police work there if you ask me.

You a cop?

but there was a lot of actual important evidence in it.

Spooked? How is one supposed to distinguish between the "actual important evidence" and the 100 laughable lies contained in the movie?

here we go

See post #30.

But I would never use a movie as "evidence". I think Stone got some things wrong and it has been 20 years since he made the movie. I also think that in the 47 years since the assassination things have come to light that weren't known back then.

He started mischievously calling Obama a Socialist on Fox News, and lo and behold, as he looked into it, it was TRUE TRUE TRUE!

Like that, you mean?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

or here...

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

take your pick

as to the original point of my post, there are not substantive errors in terms of Oswald's history.

There do seem to be a fair number of "errors" in the movie, but that is bound to happen in any type of historical film. Stone portrayed the major characters fairly accurately overall.

The point remains that Oswald was one fishy dude, and had a bizarre history consistent with intelligence control.

That was, after all, the point of the post.

I'm sure others will too.

you amaze me, though, how blatant you are

At what? Rejecting goofy conspiracy theory bullshit in favor of concrete evidence?

Guilty as charged, dude.

The PTB must love you.

I'm not sure if he was in on it, knew nothing about or was set up. I do think it is strange that the MC rifle in the "backyard photo" shows a MC with a sling mount on the bottom and the one in the National archive is one with a side mount. Why did he do it if he did? Did he think he would get away with it? Did he want to be caught and be famous? It just doesn't make sense to me.

unless you have a mental problem, so congrats!
It's hard for sane people to understand crazy behavior.
Here's one guy's recent theories, but I'm sure there are others...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/AytonOswaldMotives.html

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

"The fact that Oswald's motives don't make sense to you is prima facie evidence that you are not crazy, as Oswald was."

It works better if you combine it with the first part of the sentence.