Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I'm so glad Stone gave John Candy a serious role in this. It makes me sad to think of all the lost roles we'll never get to see him in. He probably could've transitioned into a pretty stellar dramatic actor (judging by his moments in this and Planes, Trains and Automobiles). He was pretty great for his short amount of screentime and I didn't even know it was him until a later viewing.
Candy was always doomed. According to Joe Eszterhaus, Candy would rip through 13 rum and cokes in an afternoon like it was nothing.
I'm so glad Stone gave John Candy a serious role in this. It makes me sad to think of all the lost roles we'll never get to see him in. He probably could've transitioned into a pretty stellar dramatic actor (judging by his moments in this and Planes, Trains and Automobiles). He was pretty great for his short amount of screentime and I didn't even know it was him until a later viewing.
It's sad, he does really great work and Stone would have liked to have used him more in the film, but sadly he passed away during the shoot and never was able to complete all his scenes
That is not true. After JFK came out there was a serious dialogue in the US media and even Academia about issues revolving around the film, how it portrayed and distorted history, and the events the film portrays. And thousands of classified documents were released as a direct result of the film. Very few films have that kind of cultural impact.
I don't deny it's cultural impact, and I'll concede that it opened a dialogue regarding its gross distortions, but none of that is a defense of the accuracy of the film itself.
Oh come on.
No, I don't think I will. JFK is a piece of pop entertainment, not a historical document. To discuss it in terms of the latter is a bit silly.
Little known fact:
Did you know that even today you are not allowed to see Lee Harvey Oswald's tax return from 1962 because of "nation security"? Now for what possible reason could a man's 1962 tax return be a threat to national security? Well if he was a gov't employee, you'd see he was collecting gov't checks for one...just a theory. There are few other reasons this makes sense.
No, I don't think I will. JFK is a piece of pop entertainment, not a historical document. To discuss it in terms of the latter is a bit silly.
I never said it was a historical document. I said it opens up a dialogue and you compared apples to oranges with that ridiculous ID4 quote.
Little known fact:
Did you know that even today you are not allowed to see Lee Harvey Oswald's tax return from 1962 because of "nation security"? Now for what possible reason could a man's 1962 tax return be a threat to national security? Well if he was a gov't employee, you'd see he was collecting gov't checks for one...just a theory. There are few other reasons this makes sense.
His entire Russian defection is so absurd that you have to wonder who in their right mind could think he was a "lone" nut
"Oh hey Mr Oswald. Defected to the Russians? No worries, you're welcome to come back and disappear into society (with your Russian bride!) only to turn up later having been accused of murdering the president!"
My opinion? Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and there was a coverup!
I think LHO was a government agent, but a minor one, and a screwed up one. I think he killed JFK as a bid for some kind of significance, just like all the school shooters/snipers/lone nuts do.
The government Intel apparatus quickly realize they have dynamite on their hands: one of their own agents going rogue?! And decide to obscure LHO's real profession, character etc while making up all kinds of bullshit stories to a) throw blame elsewhere b) make conspiracy claims looks ridiculous.
I think these issues are like rorschach tests, splitting people into two camps. Those who trust the gov't for the most part, and can't conceive of them being sociopathic maniacs, and those who don't trust the gov't much at all.
I never said it was a historical document. I said it opens up a dialogue and you compared apples to oranges with that ridiculous ID4 quote.
Fair enough. But my comments were never meant to be personally directed at you, but rather the direction the thread was taking into treating JFK like it belonged in a serious discussion about the Kennedy assassination. It doesn't.
I think these issues are like rorschach tests, splitting people into two camps. Those who trust the gov't for the most part, and can't conceive of them being sociopathic maniacs, and those who don't trust the gov't much at all.
False dilemma. It's entirely possible to believe the government is capable of evil and not think the Kennedy assassination was some massive conspiracy. To automatically reject anything the government says is just as foolish as automatically accepting anything they say. And it is particularly foolish to believe "the government" is some monolithic entity comprised entirely of amoral automatons. Believe it or not, some people actually think there was no conspiracy because they've studied the body of evidence and didn't see anything compelling enough to make them think otherwise.
Seriously - who are these people exactly?
The body of evidence speaks for itself and it throws up some pretty vexing and fascinating questions even today.
Don't take issue with the asking of the questions, take issue with the people who insist they know the answers.
Seriously - who are these people exactly?
The body of evidence speaks for itself and it throws up some pretty vexing and fascinating questions even today.
Don't take issue with the asking of the questions, take issue with the people who insist they know the answers.
I don't take issue with the asking of questions, nor do I insist I know all the answers. But on the other hand, one doesn't have to be a weak-minded government lapdog to find the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory as presented in JFK to be preposterous.
Kennedy was assassinated almost 50 years ago. In that time, not a single piece of hard evidence has surfaced indicating there was a conspiracy behind it. Hundreds of people involved - at least tangentially - and no one has come forward to confess their role, or left behind any damning posthumous documentation. Anyone who knew anything about it miraculously maintained a lifetime of perfect silence. Everyone involved ended up being amoral and disciplined enough to never reveal anything about the terrible crime they committed. Every single person. And the same government not competent enough to cover up a break-in at a hotel involving five guys, somehow managed the impossible feat of leaving absolutely no paper trail about their massive, multi-agency conspiracy to murder a president. Not a single scrap of paper.
How many vexing and fascinating questions does that raise?
I don't take issue with the asking of questions, nor do I insist I know all the answers. But on the other hand, one doesn't have to be a weak-minded government lapdog to find the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory as presented in JFK to be preposterous.
Kennedy was assassinated almost 50 years ago. In that time, not a single piece of hard evidence has surfaced indicating there was a conspiracy behind it. Hundreds of people involved - at least tangentially - and no one has come forward to confess their role, or left behind any damning posthumous documentation. Anyone who knew anything about it miraculously maintained a lifetime of perfect silence. Everyone involved ended up being amoral and disciplined enough to never reveal anything about the terrible crime they committed. Every single person. And the same government not competent enough to cover up a break-in at a hotel involving five guys, somehow managed the impossible feat of leaving absolutely no paper trail about their massive, multi-agency conspiracy to murder a president. Not a single scrap of paper.
How many vexing and fascinating questions does that raise?
Actually, there's quite a bit of documentation declassified since Oliver Stone made JFK, including FBI files containing the confession of Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, whom Bobby Kennedy deported, and details about JFK's plot to overthrow Castro, which provided the pretext for the cover-up.
I don't think anyone praising Oliver Stone's movie in this thread is declaring his theory to be the gospel, but without it, a generation of people who didn't experience the assassination would not have looked into it and these thousands of documents that I believe did lead to the answer would never have been declassified.
False dilemma. It's entirely possible to believe the government is capable of evil and not think the Kennedy assassination was some massive conspiracy. To automatically reject anything the government says is just as foolish as automatically accepting anything they say. And it is particularly foolish to believe "the government" is some monolithic entity comprised entirely of amoral automatons. Believe it or not, some people actually think there was no conspiracy because they've studied the body of evidence and didn't see anything compelling enough to make them think otherwise.
You know...if I knew a sociopathic killer with a history of pathological lying, I'd tend reject everything they said out of hand too, that's just me.
This one just happens to be the master of my house, so I need to be a little accommodating. Honestly I shouldn't paint everyone with one stroke, but I tend to find those are the stats.
What it comes down to is belief, since no one can definitely prove anything either way.
Kennedy was assassinated almost 50 years ago. In that time, not a single piece of hard evidence has surfaced indicating there was a conspiracy behind it. Hundreds of people involved - at least tangentially - and no one has come forward to confess their role, or left behind any damning posthumous documentation
You know...if I knew a sociopathic killer with a history of pathological lying, I'd tend reject everything they said out of hand too, that's just me.
This one just happens to be the master of my house, so I need to be a little accommodating. Honestly I shouldn't paint everyone with one stroke, but I tend to find those are the stats.
What it comes down to is belief, since no one can definitely prove anything either way.
OK, just who is this "Master of my House" you are referring to? The Illuminati?
OK, just who is this "Master of my House" you are referring to? The Illuminati?
Dude, he means your government.
Thanks RD, yes, those guys who tell me what I can and can't do.
Honestly I don't trust the gov't, at all. I think they're lying, cheating, murdering psychos who only care about staying in power. We've seen tons of examples to back this up. And I think the Occupy movement is fed up with their shenanigans.
Actually, there's quite a bit of documentation declassified since Oliver Stone made JFK, including FBI files containing the confession of Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, whom Bobby Kennedy deported, and details about JFK's plot to overthrow Castro, which provided the pretext for the cover-up.
None of which even remotely constitutes hard evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
Quote:
You know...if I knew a sociopathic killer with a history of pathological lying, I'd tend reject everything they said out of hand too, that's just me.
This one just happens to be the master of my house, so I need to be a little accommodating. Honestly I shouldn't paint everyone with one stroke, but I tend to find those are the stats.
What it comes down to is belief, since no one can definitely prove anything either way.
You are once again asserting that "the government" is an unchanging monolithic entity. An assertion which I find... bizarre.
Quote:
Hmm... yeah. I remember when that story broke. A supposed "death bed confession" completely uncorroborated, devoid of details, and the content of which was strangely missing from Hunt's posthumously released tell-all about his time in the CIA. Luckily, Hunt's estranged son was able to use that information for his own book, which you can purchase here.
I find it interesting you take Hunt's son at his word, but automatically assume anyone who works for the government is a sociopathic liar.
I also find it interesting that Hunt could have bungled the Watergate scandal so badly after taking part in the perfectly airtight cover-up of a significantly larger and more complex conspiracy. If you can successfully murder a president in broad daylight, how hard could it be to hide the fact that five guys broke into a hotel room? Perhaps he was the victim of severe head traume in the intervening years.
Honestly I don't trust the gov't, at all. I think they're lying, cheating, murdering psychos who only care about staying in power.
Such outlandish hyperbole does little to lend your position credence.
Thanks RD, yes, those guys who tell me what I can and can't do.
Honestly I don't trust the gov't, at all. I think they're lying, cheating, murdering psychos who only care about staying in power. We've seen tons of examples to back this up. And I think the Occupy movement is fed up with their shenanigans.
This government "by the people, for the people"? The one that changes every 2, 4 and 6 years? In a government deliberately designed to limit any one branch of government from gaining too much power? Which is why we can have this conversation.
That's my ultimate problem with JFK Conspiracy theories. It presumes that Democracy ended in 1963, except it hasn't. Oh yes LBJ and Nixon did their best to use the IRS and FBI (and their own employees) to ramrod their enemies. But, LBJ was essentially forced from office by the strength of Anti-War Protesters. And Nixon had to resign in disgrace. Nope, sorry, if your theory was correct North America would be in the same condition as North Korea.
Such outlandish hyperbole does little to lend your position credence.
It's not hyperbole. They've lied, they've cheated, they've murdered...they are psychos. Anybody who sends soldiers to die and lies about the reason is a psycho. Just because they wear suits and sit down with CNN from time to time means nothing. Hitler would've been a hit with Fox news Germany.
You are once again asserting that "the government" is an unchanging monolithic entity. An assertion which I find... bizarre.
Did you know the CIA is implanted in your state government? It's a permanent position that doesn't come and go with elections. Their mission statement says they're not to be operational in the U.S., yet they remain in state government at all times. Only the governor and chief of staff are aware of this. Nobody else knows, including you I'm going assume. So yes, the CIA which is an executive branch of gov't, is an unchanging monolithic entity. The stuff they allow you to see on CNN is only there to make you feel like you have some kind of say in the matter. You don't.
It's not hyperbole. They've lied, they've cheated, they've murdered...they are psychos. Anybody who sends soldiers to die and lies about the reason is a psycho. Just because they wear suits and sit down with CNN from time to time means nothing. Hitler would've been a hit with Fox news Germany.
Who is "they" supposed to be? Every single person that works for the government?
Did you know the CIA is implanted in your state government? It's a permanent position that doesn't come and go with elections. Their mission statement says they're not to be operational in the U.S., yet they remain in state government at all times. Only the governor and chief of staff are aware of this. Nobody else knows, including you I'm going assume. So yes, the CIA which is an executive branch of gov't, is an unchanging monolithic entity. The stuff they allow you to see on CNN is only there to make you feel like you have some kind of say in the matter. You don't.
The first page that comes up when googling your claim about the CIA all reference known conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura. Amazing that the ruthless and methodical CIA would allow themselves to be so easily exposed like that. From successfully murdering a president, to screwing the pooch on Watergate, to now just letting people blab their secrets all over the internet. The CIA sure ain't what it used to be.
But I'm still not sure what your point is regarding "the governement". Are you saying that the CIA is "the government" and everyone that works for them is a sociopathic murderer?
Who is "they" supposed to be? Every single person that works for the government?
The first page that comes up when googling your claim about the CIA all reference known conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura. Amazing that the ruthless and methodical CIA would allow themselves to be so easily exposed like that. From successfully murdering a president, to screwing the pooch on Watergate, to now just letting people blab their secrets all over the internet. The CIA sure ain't what it used to be.
But I'm still not sure what your point is regarding "the governement". Are you saying that the CIA is "the government" and everyone that works for them is a sociopathic murderer?
Now, who's using hyperbole?
The only hyperbole I'm using is your own within the context of asking you to clarify what you mean. Who is "the government"?
None of which even remotely constitutes hard evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
According to whom? Have you read the book I'm talking about that culled these details from the FBI document dump, or are you just spitballing?
You didn't read 102 Minutes when it didn't suit your version of the facts, so why would you expect someone to extend you the same courtesy?
According to whom? Have you read the book I'm talking about that culled these details from the FBI document dump, or are you just spitballing?
I don't see why I have to read an entire book to connect the dots of an argument you put forth. If you have evidence, present it.
But to the specific points you raised, how does Kennedy plotting to overthrow Castro serve as hard evidence that there was a plot to assassinate him? And to what confession by Carlo Marcello are you referring? And how does that "confession" jibe with the one supposedly made by E. Howard Hunt claiming it was the CIA acting on orders from LBJ who killed Kennedy, or the one made by Ricky Don White who claimed it was his father - a Dallas police officer - who was the trigger man?
Quote:
I don't see why I have to read an entire book to connect the dots of an argument you put forth. If you have evidence, present it.
But to the specific points you raised, how does Kennedy plotting to overthrow Castro serve as hard evidence that there was a plot to assassinate him? And to what confession by Carlo Marcello are you referring? And how does that "confession" jibe with the one supposedly made by E. Howard Hunt claiming it was the CIA acting on orders from LBJ who killed Kennedy, or the one made by Ricky Don White who claimed it was his father - a Dallas police officer - who was the trigger man?
I didn't make an argument. Two researchers spent 20 years going through the new evidence in the FBI's document dump and wrote a comprehensive book that builds a convincing, solidly sourced case for who killed JFK and how and why it was covered up. If you have interest in the case, I recommend you read it (http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com). If not, keep believing in the lone gunman. It's nothing to me. I consider it solved, though I wish there were an official inquiry into it to bring at least a modicum of justice and closure to this horrific event. Same with the conspiracies to murder RFK and MLK.
Yeah, sorry. Not particularly interested in wasting my time with another conspiracy theory. I don't find conjecture very compelling, only evidence. I take it these researchers you mention don't actually have any.
I like David Denby's take on it way back when:
"[Stone] has made, if you insist, a fiction of the assassination, a counter-myth, though I hasten to add that his version, at least as an account of the events in Dealey Plaza, is a lot more convincing in its physical details than the Warren Commission's."
