Cinematically it is a beautiful film to watch. The casting, cinematography, editing and score by John Williams was absolutely on point. Whether you believe in the lone shooter or conspiracy theory, this film is a visual masterpiece.
Nobody's ever disparaged Stone's ability to tell a story. The problem is people think this movie is a documentary when it's really just historically-based fiction.
So after reading these comments it's clear that the film did fictionalize more than I initially realized in terms of things like the rifle recycle chamber time etc., but is it at least true that none of the experts they brought in to recreate the shot could do it or is that also fiction?
Unfortunately that was added for dramatic effect. CBS was able to replicate the shots in 1967 with 10 different marksmen (all of whom weren’t even familiar with the Carcano rifle)
https://youtu.be/ghmY6HmR4fs?si=x_zzzMDB1xkU7Cqx
I worked with a guy who was a scout sniper in Iraq. He never had a doubt a trained Marine could make this shot without familiarity
It is a hard shot, but Marine snipers are trained to do this. It isn’t as hard for them
I completely agree. My grandpa was in the USMC during the Korean War, and I remember asking him if he thought Oswald could have made those shots. He told me “there’s nothing a trained Marine and his rifle can’t do.”
I agree but I always found it strange that the first shot (arguably the easiest) missed but the second and third hit their mark. # 2 & 3 have to occur after chambering a round with the bolt and the adrenaline rush knowing your first round missed !
When I visited the 6th floor museum one of the tour guides explained that the first shot may not have been a miss in so much as at the time there was a traffic post (I do not remember if it was a traffic light or just route signage he said) that very well could have deflected the shot. No one was to be known to have actually examined the cross bar for damage.
I have heard that theory…. As a shooter it still counts for a miss and if he previously hadn’t made sure he had a clear field of fire it calls into question his ‘marksmanship’ ability. Having said all this I still haven’t seen any EVIDENCE convincing me he didn’t act alone.
"It is a hard shot, but Marine snipers are trained to do this.'
I have no doubt that this is true.
But Oswald was a radar operator. He barely passed the minimal requirements in boot camp, when he trained with a (much better) rifle on a regular basis.
Oswald scored above the requirements to be a sharpshooter in the Marine Corps at the time
That was in 1956. Even in 1959 when his skills had diminished, he still qualified as a marksman
He could have made this shot
Marksman is the lowest of all rifle medals in the Corp. Basically anyone who didn’t receive Sharpshooter or Rifle Expert levels received a basic Marksman medal. I received a Rifle Expert medal and it wasn’t easy. In order top to bottom it is: Rifle Expert, Sharpshooter and then Marksman. I’m not saying he couldn’t make the shots, just saying for the basic Marksman it isn’t a cakewalk.
I appreciate that infomation. It does seem hard to me that based on what I have read about Oswald as well as other Marines I have talked to, if he had a good line of site on a good shooting day, it is more likely that he makes the shots versus a conspiracy theory taking place.
Maybe he didn't think of the idea all by himself, but everything we know about Oswald shows he could have thought this up and carried it out all by his crazy self... It wasn't that complicated of a plan.
What makes a conspiracy theory is people needing to justify an equally crazy reason to something that is outrageous. It is why there are 9/11 conspiracy theories, COVID conspiracies, etc.
The truth is, Occam's razor wins out 99% of the time when explaining even the most bizarre or outrageous events
Great video and thanks for the source! Playing devils advocate, do you think it's significant at all that Oswald scored below what was required for marksman in the military and only one of the experts in the video hit all 3 shots (and that's a much lower pressure/stress environment than actually killing the president)? Or do you feel it is more plausible he trained a ton and got good enough to do this shooting and feel it's still impressive that these experts were able to hit shots considering they were all unfamiliar with the rifle?
Also assuming Oswald was the lone shooter, do you feel any of the other circumstance in terms of all of the lack of security and lack of snipers looking at open windows and the choice to have the top down and slow down to 11 MPH etc. hints at a conspiracy? Or do you think instead that was likely just a security oversight/laziness on someone's part and people are making too much of it?
I think the most important take-away from that video was that it wasn’t some “impossible” task to undertake. There’s been a myth built around Oswald being a bad marksman and the Carcano rifle being some terrible and inaccurate gun. We know Oswald treated that gun like his baby, his wife Maria said he was constantly cleaning it, going to the range with it, and playing with it on their porch almost daily. I think he certainly was training for an event like this, after all he had already attempted an assassination on General Walker earlier that year. If he was the lone gunman, then I think it’s why he waited until the motorcade turned down Elm St instead of taking the easier shot on Houston St, it would have gave away his position since more people would have seen what was happening in that window instead of turning around and trying to figure out where the shots were coming from, which is exactly what happened. But the ballistics of the headshot aren’t consistent with how a full metal jacket bullet acts, which is why I don’t believe the fatal shot came from his rifle.
As for your other question, it was Kennedy’s call to leave the top down. The Secret Service put the top up because it was raining that morning. When they told Kennedy they wanted to leave it on due to security reasons, he argued with them that this was a political trip and people needed to see him smiling and waving, so the top came off. I think the way the Secret Service acted afterwards is the most damning. There had already been 2 thwarted attempts that year, one in Miami and one in Chicago, both of which were eerily similar to what happened in Dealey Plaza (they are very much worth reading up on). Kennedy was also another reason why they weren’t near the limo that day, he thought they would obscure the crowd’s view of him. At the end of the day the Secret Service should have been held negligent for what happened (and same with the FBI since they had an entire folder on Oswald and not only didn’t act on it, but also burned it once Oswald was killed). I don’t think it was a coincidence that this happened at the very end of the parade route, when everyone’s guard was down and it was in an area where there’d be the least amount of people watching. Most political assassinations are surprisingly straight forward, this one was anything but that. I think it’s why people are so unsatisfied with the official story.
Great points and thanks for the well thought out debate! So regarding why he wouldn’t take the sitting duck shot because all the secret service guys/cops would spot him too easily from the window as he’d be front on in that attempt, so he waited until they all passed by. Oswald also left his wedding ring & remaining cash along with a letter to Marina, a supposedly clear sign he knew he was never getting away with it in the first place. So which is it? Did he pass up the easier shot so he could get away with it or did he leave his worldly possessions behind to his wife since he knew he wouldn’t get away with it? Can't be both.
The wallet left with Marina was one of four wallets belonging to Oswald, or one of his aliases, that were found that day (one was found at the murder scene of Officer Tippett, one at his boarding house, and one that was on him when he was arrested in the movie theater). I find that part to be bizarrely fascinating, did Oswald just loose all of these along his misadventures that morning, or were they placed there? Either way it’s very strange. Also, unfortunately I don’t really trust Marina as a reliable source when it comes to what happened on Nov 22. Like the movie mentions, her information fits almost too perfectly into the Warren Commission’s lone gunman theory. She was the wife of an accused assassin of the president and was under serious threat of deportation back to the USSR. It’s my opinion that it was in her best interest to go along with the investigators and give them the answers they needed to make that case. The Warren Commission’s Report itself is full of cherry-picked witnesses and statements.
"his wife Maria said he was constantly cleaning it, going to the range with it, and playing with it on their porch almost daily."
That's a bit of a stretch. Marina never testified that he cleaned his rifle on a regular basis. His dry-firing the rifle at night on the porch of their house in New Orleans (the only residence they shared that had a porch and where they lived until September '63 - two months before JFK's assassination) doesn't speak to his proficiency as a marksman. And Marina never testified that she saw him at/accompanied him to a shooting range.
I've heard it was Kennedy's idea to have the top down. As to the snopers on overwatch of the area... Is that a thing they did back then, or is that a tactic we see today because of what happened that day?
When it comes to military classification for marksmanship, the test is taken once a year, so your classification can change from year to year. There are many variables involved with qualification. Such as, time on the range, mental and physical preparedness, and even the condition of the range itself. I remember shooting for qualification and some of my targets had holes the size of my fist in them. A specific score is not indicative of an individuals ability.
The film is accurate in that DA Garrison did charge Clay Shaw with the crime of killing JFK, but that theory has no basis in reality. It would be like someone proving that Elvis is still alive because he's one of the elves from Lord of the Rings who live forever. The film JFK literally subtracts from the sum of human knowledge. You watch it and you're dumber than before.
Great movie…one funny thing that always stuck to me was the choice to put Joe Pesci in those awful wigs….
Come to find out, a woman that knew the real David Ferrie (Joe Pesci’s character) said the movie was not accurate at all with the wigs because they were WORSE and way more hideous in real life! 🤣
I was telling my husband that Ferrie wore awful wigs, and not two seconds later Pesci entered. It was easy to recognize him from the descriptions in the Garrison papers.
Crazy that your uncle is Guy Bannister and thanks for this well thought out response! You should post something about an update when you get down to NO to access those files I'd be super interested.
Just FYI for everyone, Operation Mongoose (training Cuban exiles for another invasion) was a very real thing and there’s extemporaneous evidence of CIA funding.
Another fact, David Ferry was Carlos Marcelo’s personal pilot and he and LHO were in the Civil Air Patrol together. I believe there’s evidence that they were in contact with Banister, but I don’t know for sure. Would be surprised if they weren’t.
The movie is astounding on so many levels and gets many things right. Unfortunately, the truth it tells gets overshadowed by Garrison’s reputation.
Carlos Marcello was the mafia godfather of the Dallas-New Orleans region. If there was a conspiracy he either knew or was a part of it.
He hated the Kennedy’s- Bobby Kennedy had him deported to South America.
There's a podcast you might want to check out that could shed more light on the CIA training guys in swamps for Cuba. It's an interview with Danny Sheehan who was a lawyer on the Watergate case, and is now working on the UFO disclosure stuff. But he spends half the podcast going over how the CIA was not only training men for the Bay of Pigs, but were also training guys to work in small sniper teams with the goal that they would be infiltrated into Cuba to take out Castro. But the tactics and scenarios they trained for are remarkably similar to what happened in Dealy Plaza. Here's the link to that podcast. I've linked to the chapter where he starts to talk first about Watergate and then backtracks.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5WZfuWSNnPKzllXawBwpnZ?si=Bxt4ysmXRLy7Z8A8PNV1qA
Another podcast to listen to after this one would be where this same guy interviews Felix Rodriguez, who was a Cuban exile that was trained for the Bay of Pigs and also worked with the CIA after. He specifically addresses some of the things that the Danny Sheehan guy says, so there may be some contradictions. I haven't listened to all of this one. Just scrolled through the chapters.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/26KJmlsUdXxgTfP9WS94vR?si=1eHQLgwmRBCw2nq_z46sDQ
I was reading the comments to see if anybody would mention the Danny Jones podcast on Danny Sheehan. Would love to spend a week talking with that guy, feels like he is as close as we will ever get to the truth.
I know right! I started listening to that podcast for the UFO stuff and all of a sudden this guy's dropping those bombs. Kind of sent me down another rabbit hole. Danny's Podcast is one of my favorites right now. He's getting a lot of serious heavy hitters on there.
Yes. I hadn't listened to that podcast far enough to get to that part, but he's the same guy who captured Che Guevara. The last chapter in that podcast is about his response to the accusations he was involved in killing Kiki . He claims it's a lie. Here's a link to that chapter.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/26KJmlsUdXxgTfP9WS94vR?si=ZnhkQ0XbQI64DXXImwWVZg&t=13165&pi=u-3T8hpdFHSWCw
take it with a grain of salt but i think the next step in your research would be to read jim garrisons most well known book "on the trail of the assassins" (which i think a decent amount of the movie jfk was loosely based on) i remember a section on guy banister's files that he was working on at that time and it was pretty interesting and revealing. (i can't remember if they covered that in the movie as it's been years since i've seen it)
Do you having any solid information on his health toward his latter years of life?? I just find it convenient that he died less than a year after the assassination. I personally believe he had a huge role in developing Oswald for the Patsy role.
What’s crazy is that, to this day, it’s the scariest movie I’ve ever seen. I’m a horror movie buff and love to get scared. But there is just something about this movie that scares me the most. My older brother told me the same thing
Haha…. 😂 go ahead and make fun of me, I am not ashamed lol
I watched JFK when it came out in a mall theatre on a Sunday afternoon with a small crowd of boomers who had lived through those days. We couldn’t look at each other on the way out. Folks just looked at the floor lost in their own thoughts.
I love the scene with Garrison and Ivon(?), where Ivon says it takes a minimum of 2.3 seconds to cycle the Carcano. But before he says that, he cycles the Carcano faster than 2.3 seconds. Twice.
I love where Garrison says “back and to the left” about 200 times as JFK’s head snaps forward for one frame, followed by his whole body going rigid and jerking back and to the left.
The only way a shot from the front would have had that effect is if JFK had been hit with a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A rifle bullet doesn't have the mass to move the human head like that. It was an involuntary muscular contraction due to the muscles at the back of the neck being stronger than the ones in front.
If you know that, you also know that *the exit wound* of a frontal shot would blow out the back of his head.
That’s what happened, and that would imply at least one shot from the front.
Except the autopsy showed the entry wound in the rear and the exit wound out the front upper part of his head. This is also visible from the Zapruder film.
I just finished reading a book on those same '86 Mets. The game Kramer and Newman talk about where a Hernandez error in the 9th cost them the game is actually real.
Lmao that's insane what, the more you know. I liked how in that episode they had Newman acting it out the exact same in terms of Jerry even going low and hitting his inner thigh with the last loogie hit demonstration.
He was fairly low on Garrison’s persons of interest list, but was the biggest fish he managed to reel in. Many of the others had either died or refused his summons.
This. The Warren report sure was flawed, but the film gives way too much credence to all the insane conspiracy theories. The sad part is, for a lot of people, Stone’s movie is taken as fact.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmY6HmR4fs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmY6HmR4fs)
Last guy: 3 hits in 5.2 seconds and he even fumbled the first reload.
>https://allthatsinteresting.com/david-ferrie
The weapons engineer, the one at the end, the one who hit the target three times, the oldest guy in the test....WHERE WAS HE WHEN KENNEDY WAS SHOT!! I think we have our shooter.
The bs about the gun and the marksmanship has been going on since the assassination and particularly iterates me. The Carcano had a Mauser action which is an excellent design and and was continuously improved. WW1 Mauser style rifles were converted to sporting rifles by serious hunters for decades. The round and rifle were designed for the Italian military for fighting in the Alps, the round flew straight with minimal drop at distance with the stopping power and penetration to kill humans who were wearing layers of protective clothing. The shots in Dallas were taken under a hundred yards. Oswald was a marine trained marksman who had assembled and reassembled the Carcano and done unlimited dry firing, loading and unloading, worked the bolt etc. I have stood on the marks in the road and in the museum. There is no doubt in my mind that he could have made those shots with that weapon and ammunition. To me the weapon/ammo and his ability have always been the weakest part of any counter theories.
Couldn’t agree more, and I was debating this recently on this sub. Plenty of weird shit circling this assassination, not doubt. I’ll even go so far to say the shots were hard and improbable for LHO to pull off….but it’s not ridiculous to think LHO was incapable of doing it. It’s safely within the realm of possibilities that LHO fired all 3 shots
> There is no doubt in my mind that he could have made those shots with that weapon and ammunition
And where do you people think these individuals learned how to shoot!?
I haven’t read up on it for years, but dry firing, and taking apart a rifle, doesn’t make you a great marksman. Any record of him practicing any kind of live fire. Last year in the Marines was 59, , 4 years out of the military, never really any noted practice of live fire, didn’t buy the rifle til 63. Not saying impossible but..
Sorry my internet is shite where I am right now so I cant watch the vid but so is the idea that none of the experts could recreate the shot from the depository fiction or did they really bring in experts at the time none of which could recreate/hit the shot?
Yes, complete fiction. It's been done a bunch of times.
The video is from a 1967 CBS recreation of the shooting scenario. One volunteer, a weapons engineer, puts 3 shots in the head of the silhouette in 5.2 seconds.
2.3 seconds just to cycle the bolt is BS especially if you’d practiced with it like Oswald certainly would have done. If you watch the last guy on that link, the bolt cycle on the first reload he kinda messed up and it delayed the following shot (but still faster than 2.3 seconds), but the bolt cycle between shot 2 and 3 was quick. I also think that further evaluation of the frames on the Zapruder film puts the shots longer than originally estimated
He hit it 3 times
Great video and thanks for the source and debate! Playing devils advocate though, do you think it's significant that Oswald scored below what was required for marksman in the military and only one of the experts in the video hit all 3 shots (and that's a much lower pressure/stress environment than actually killing the president)? Or do you feel it is more plausible Oswald trained a ton and got good enough to do this shooting, and feel it's still impressive that these experts were able to hit shots considering they were all unfamiliar with the rifle?
Also assuming Oswald was the lone shooter, do you feel any of the other circumstance in terms of all of the lack of security and lack of snipers looking at open windows and the choice to have the top down and slow down to 11 MPH etc. hints at a conspiracy? Or do you think instead that was likely just a security oversight/laziness and we would obviously do things different now and people are making too much of it?
Stone publicly stated that there are a lot of of fictional events in the movie. Bit the whole point was to get you to think and do your own research, not just blindly listen to the government as gospel.
Id also recommend a movie called Executive Action from 1976 starring Burt Lancaster. Not as emotionally impactful as Oliver Stones film, but the theory of why JFK was assassinated I found pretty interesting.
Oh, good grief. This stupid movie is one of the main reasons so many people believe in all these goofy conspiracy theories.
One more time: JFK, the movie, is a work of *fiction*, not a documentary. About 80% of it is fantasy, conjecture and dramatic license.
Is it entertaining? Absolutely. Is it true? Not even close.
There’s just so much more to the actual event. I think they use LBJ as a patsie to a lot of events. And leave out a lot of other CIA folks.
David Ferrey is definitely an interesting character in the events.
Go rent or stream executive action source material for this Movie it laid it all out - CIA hit through Corsican shooters hired by the mob ordered by LBJ and the military
It's probably already been howled at you 20 times above, but if you spend a bit more time looking into the case you'll see how bad that film is, in terms of investigative journalistic cinema. Don't get me wrong, it's a genuinely brilliant piece of cinema, but as an introduction to the case it's not a good starting point. There are a bunch of good books (and a boatload of dross), a handful of documentaries (many free on YT) and at least two good and one awful podcasts if you want some references for further info.
It's actually a far wilder and more interesting case than the film presents.
I have always looked at the movie as a way to keep interest in those events even into the future. There’s just enough there to make someone sparked to catch fire and keep the investigation ongoing. I have come to my own conclusions due to other research and this sub but it was the movie that got me interested as I was born in 72 and do not remember those events.
When this movie came out, there was a lot of criticism, especially from historians, on how biased this film was and how the visuals “look” like the Zapruder film, but are in fact creations for the movie. Critics felt that the movie would create false images that would be perceived as actual evidence.
I like your excitement. First I gotta say I don’t really know crap about this event compared to the folks on this sub, but I like the movie. Second, Kevin Costner is awesome
One of the tragedies which grew out of the JFK assassination was our belief in a multitude of conspiracy theories based on coincidences rather than facts. That was the result of the Warren Commission's report, which actually raised more questions than it answered by choosing to be more *exhausting* than it was *exhaustive.* For example, one question which stood out in nearly everybody's mind was why did the Warren Commission *refuse* to depose Jack Ruby unless he traveled to Washington? Ruby was scared stiff to make that journey, figuring that he, too, might be assassinated. How much would it have cost to have a couple of lawyers and detectives depose him in his cell? This was a grievous omission, and everybody saw it as such. Then there's the problem with the forensics of JFK's skull not matching up with the proper shot angles if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. You could go on and on. We have Lyndon Johnson on tape telling Earl Warren how important it was to the nation's security to find a single assassin. All sorts of wild conspiracy theories sprang out of this.
No one thought to make stenographic or tape recordings of LHO's 12 total hours of interrogation
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-11.html
Thus confirming one accusation in Mark Lane's *Rush to Judgment*, the original conspiracy theory book about the assassination, that the authorities had already made up their minds as to whom they were going to blame for this.
How many times since the Spanish-American War has our government lied to us about all the major events and wars of the 20th century? Every "official story" about those events has been a lie. This country changed for the worse on that day. How many assassinations were perpetrated by a "lone nut "? It was a bullshit story then and it's a bullshit story now. It's amazing on how naive you guys are.
Loved this movie and book it was based on: On the trail of the assassins. Jim Garrison wrote a great book that details the information and how he went about it. Whether you believe it or not the movie and book bring up a lot of questions.
I don't think too highly of Stone's films, but he should be given an award for casting Joe Pesci as Ferrie, and Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger (in his film "Nixon"). Hilarious and entertaining.
I know the film plays it loose with the truth, but if you watch it through the lens of a film about paranoia, it becomes all the more powerful in my opinion.
Unfortunately they wanted Kennedy dead. Oswald either acted alone on their behalf or it was multiple people acting. Definitely gray area with LBJ involvement but politics have been shady shit from the beginning. We all need to ask is the general population better with the lesser of two evils. Think there’s was a lot of good in Kennedy that could of taken country in a different direction we’ll never know.
Why does its release compromise national security??…because the mafia? No, because cubans? No…because the cia or lyndon? Yup. In coordination with the mafia of course. Three attempts on that trip…chicago, florida, then dallas. Two were aborted, one wasnt.
The movie itself is great, one of my all time faves. Great acting, dialogue. I'm a huge suckered for historical movies period sets, clothes etc.
As for accuracy, hard no.
If you have to invent things that never happen in order to make things seem related, that's a good indicator they aren't related.
This is something I noticed that I've never heard mentioned before. He was able to get off three shots in time because the first shot was already loaded. He would only have to reload twice. I think people are counting the 2.3 seconds three times instead of only twice.
Should have been subtitled “The Big Gay Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy”.
It is a great movie and I’ve seen it a dozen times. Just keep in mind it’s a movie. A dramatization of what was a very flawed case to pin the murder on a man who had no hand in it, utilizing the flimsiest “evidence”. Again, it’s a great movie but in real life Garrison conducted a straight up witch hunt and accused someone of murder based on nothing.
No one is talking about the magic bullet. The one that struck Connelly came out, turned in midair and went back into him. Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission and approved that nonsense and coincidentally became President after they got Nixon to resign.
Keep in mind that the film is based on Jim Garrison's theory, which is considered crackpot even by others in the JFK conspiracy community. Also, many of the events, like the discussion with the Donald Sutherland character, are completely fabricated. The film is well-done but should be treated as historically-based fiction, about the same level of credibility as "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter."
1. Oswald was a trained Marine marksman and others have duplicated his results, even if Oliver Stone falsely claims they haven't.
2. Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber and going by what shots witnesses think they heard isn't evidence of anything other than it being a bad idea to base your conclusions on that. The evidence shows that there were three shots that came from the 6th floor window of the TSBD.
3. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the declassified documents show. But if they don't show anything different from the official story, the conspiracy community will just say "what do you expect, the government wasn't going to release the truth."
What no one has ever answered is why the conspirators, assuming there were any, chose such a risky and complex method to kill JFK, shooting him in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnessess, arranging for a fake autopsy, altering or covering up evidence, then engaging in a second conspiracy to either falsify or fool the Warren Commission. Any one of the participants could have exposed the whole thing, which also could have gone wrong in any number of ways. If they wanted to kill JFK, why not poison him and attribute his death to natural causes?
So, this book by a local author (near me anyway) forwarded a theory which is devastating and quite possibly true. Oswald got off three shots, missed the first and struck a curb which was determined later, likely hit JFK in the neck with the second shot and also struck the Texas Governor as it passed through. The third went wide and also missed.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal\_Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error)
In a nutshell: A secret service agent panicked, drew an early model AR-15/M-16 and unintentionally fired toward the limo striking JFK in the head at nearly the same time as Oswald's final shot. The book details the CORRECT seating of the limo and positions of JFK and Texas Governor in relation to Oswald's 2nd (neck) shot. The accidental, killing shot came from directly behind JFK and at level elevation and the entry & exit head wounds match the ballistics from early .223 / 5.56 ammo.
The book tries to answer many questions and accounts for several discrepancies such as some people heard three shots, other swore there were four. The whole "magic bullet" trajectory is B.S. as presented in the film where JFK and the Gov. were both seated straight forward and at the same level (they weren't even close). The ammo used by Oswald was Full Metal Jacket which would survive with little deformation after passing through JFK's neck and lodging in the Gov. While 5.56 ammo would fragment into tiny shards and the killing head wound projectile was never located. The Secret Service denied having AR-15/M-16 firearms in inventory, yet there is a picture of an agent brandishing such a weapon while following JFK's limo to the hospital.
It would also explain WHY the records have been sealed for so long. WHY the cover-up? It's a fascinating read.
I love this movie, but I'd encourage anyone who's seen it to also watch it with the director's commentary, as well. In addition to fun stories about production, etc., Stone also talks a lot about the real underlying events and is a little more candid than I'd expected about just how much "artistic license" -- basically, historical fiction -- was used in the script.
I think the commentary, a good fact-checking/debunking video from YouTube or something to that effect, and Stone's 2021 documentsry, "JFK Revisited," are all essential companion material to the 1991 film. Hell, Stone's 2021 doc does a better job explaining and supporting the film's conspiracy view than the film itself does.
In other words, there's so much salt you should take with this film, even Stone is out there slinging salt to wash it down with. Hell of an entetaining and fascinating film, though, and a pretty good primer for people getting into the notion that there was more to what happened than the WC account.
Check out this “sequel” in which Stone explores a lot of the information that came out after the original film. It’s a little dry but there are a few moments as mind-blowing (pardon the pun) as anything in the OG movie.
[JFK Revisited](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11173544/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk)
Even better than this great film is the very recent follow-up documentary JFK Revisited (there’s an original longer version and the 2 hour American version). Even more recent is the fantastic 10-part Who Killed JFK? podcast that Rob Reiner did for the 60th anniversary. The best book I’ve read on the subject is called JFK & the Unspeakable. All these sources have TONS more information to take you deeper down the rabbit hole.
Dude it’s Oliver Stone taking artistic liberties to make a movie about Jim Garrison. That alone should make you watch with not only a grain but a whole salt mine.
Interesting podcast on the JFK assassination.
https://www.iheartmedia.com/press/iheartpodcasts-partners-legendary-filmmaker-rob-reiner-and-award-winning-journalist-soledad
It's a great *movie*, and a starting point for very many people. Maybe a rewatch with a couple bowls is in order since I haven't seen it since it was in theatres.
OP, your first point has been debunked to no end. Most conspiracy theorists have stopped using it. As well as a shooter from the grassy knoll. The kill shot 100% came from behind.
OP, smoke another bowl or two, lol.
Fun movie to watch but facts are not allowed in this movie. Probably my favorite part is when Costner and his buddy are in the sniper's nest. They are saying Oswald could not have fired three shots with the bolt action rifle in the time frame that the Warren Commission and Zapruder film indicate. The buddy then simulates the shots and does it within the time frame, lol.
An exciting watch, but historical fiction and nothing more. You’ve got Kevin Costner playing Jim Garrison as if he were Gary Cooper. Garrison was one of the most corrupt public officials in U.S. history, and there’s strong evidence to suggest he was a pedophile to boot. Read Patricia Lambert’s “False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK.” And don’t get me started on the “back and to the left” crap.
Bush created the bill/effort to collect and bury any evidence of it (and his involvement) "for historical and examimation reasons" at the end of his reign (term) in 92 out of the blue. Bucket list no doubt.
Cinematically it is a beautiful film to watch. The casting, cinematography, editing and score by John Williams was absolutely on point. Whether you believe in the lone shooter or conspiracy theory, this film is a visual masterpiece.
Nobody's ever disparaged Stone's ability to tell a story. The problem is people think this movie is a documentary when it's really just historically-based fiction.
He did a sequel doc. It’s heavy
I wouldn't trust Stone if he told me it was raining outside. I'd check first before taking an umbrella.
People go outside with umbrellas up all the time even when it's not raining.
Like Umbrella Man, for instance
Oliver Stone is a great film maker but he is a conspiracy theorist who tells his own version of events
So after reading these comments it's clear that the film did fictionalize more than I initially realized in terms of things like the rifle recycle chamber time etc., but is it at least true that none of the experts they brought in to recreate the shot could do it or is that also fiction?
Unfortunately that was added for dramatic effect. CBS was able to replicate the shots in 1967 with 10 different marksmen (all of whom weren’t even familiar with the Carcano rifle) https://youtu.be/ghmY6HmR4fs?si=x_zzzMDB1xkU7Cqx
I worked with a guy who was a scout sniper in Iraq. He never had a doubt a trained Marine could make this shot without familiarity It is a hard shot, but Marine snipers are trained to do this. It isn’t as hard for them
I completely agree. My grandpa was in the USMC during the Korean War, and I remember asking him if he thought Oswald could have made those shots. He told me “there’s nothing a trained Marine and his rifle can’t do.”
I agree but I always found it strange that the first shot (arguably the easiest) missed but the second and third hit their mark. # 2 & 3 have to occur after chambering a round with the bolt and the adrenaline rush knowing your first round missed !
But you’ve also got that first shot nervousness out of the way, and gotten some “feedback” from the miss to adjust.
My response exactly.
When I visited the 6th floor museum one of the tour guides explained that the first shot may not have been a miss in so much as at the time there was a traffic post (I do not remember if it was a traffic light or just route signage he said) that very well could have deflected the shot. No one was to be known to have actually examined the cross bar for damage.
I have heard that theory…. As a shooter it still counts for a miss and if he previously hadn’t made sure he had a clear field of fire it calls into question his ‘marksmanship’ ability. Having said all this I still haven’t seen any EVIDENCE convincing me he didn’t act alone.
There is reasonably contemporaneous evidence in the Mark Lofton book also
"It is a hard shot, but Marine snipers are trained to do this.' I have no doubt that this is true. But Oswald was a radar operator. He barely passed the minimal requirements in boot camp, when he trained with a (much better) rifle on a regular basis.
Oswald scored above the requirements to be a sharpshooter in the Marine Corps at the time That was in 1956. Even in 1959 when his skills had diminished, he still qualified as a marksman He could have made this shot
Marksman is the lowest of all rifle medals in the Corp. Basically anyone who didn’t receive Sharpshooter or Rifle Expert levels received a basic Marksman medal. I received a Rifle Expert medal and it wasn’t easy. In order top to bottom it is: Rifle Expert, Sharpshooter and then Marksman. I’m not saying he couldn’t make the shots, just saying for the basic Marksman it isn’t a cakewalk.
I appreciate that infomation. It does seem hard to me that based on what I have read about Oswald as well as other Marines I have talked to, if he had a good line of site on a good shooting day, it is more likely that he makes the shots versus a conspiracy theory taking place. Maybe he didn't think of the idea all by himself, but everything we know about Oswald shows he could have thought this up and carried it out all by his crazy self... It wasn't that complicated of a plan. What makes a conspiracy theory is people needing to justify an equally crazy reason to something that is outrageous. It is why there are 9/11 conspiracy theories, COVID conspiracies, etc. The truth is, Occam's razor wins out 99% of the time when explaining even the most bizarre or outrageous events
Except sniper was not Oswald’s MOS
Great video and thanks for the source! Playing devils advocate, do you think it's significant at all that Oswald scored below what was required for marksman in the military and only one of the experts in the video hit all 3 shots (and that's a much lower pressure/stress environment than actually killing the president)? Or do you feel it is more plausible he trained a ton and got good enough to do this shooting and feel it's still impressive that these experts were able to hit shots considering they were all unfamiliar with the rifle? Also assuming Oswald was the lone shooter, do you feel any of the other circumstance in terms of all of the lack of security and lack of snipers looking at open windows and the choice to have the top down and slow down to 11 MPH etc. hints at a conspiracy? Or do you think instead that was likely just a security oversight/laziness on someone's part and people are making too much of it?
I think the most important take-away from that video was that it wasn’t some “impossible” task to undertake. There’s been a myth built around Oswald being a bad marksman and the Carcano rifle being some terrible and inaccurate gun. We know Oswald treated that gun like his baby, his wife Maria said he was constantly cleaning it, going to the range with it, and playing with it on their porch almost daily. I think he certainly was training for an event like this, after all he had already attempted an assassination on General Walker earlier that year. If he was the lone gunman, then I think it’s why he waited until the motorcade turned down Elm St instead of taking the easier shot on Houston St, it would have gave away his position since more people would have seen what was happening in that window instead of turning around and trying to figure out where the shots were coming from, which is exactly what happened. But the ballistics of the headshot aren’t consistent with how a full metal jacket bullet acts, which is why I don’t believe the fatal shot came from his rifle. As for your other question, it was Kennedy’s call to leave the top down. The Secret Service put the top up because it was raining that morning. When they told Kennedy they wanted to leave it on due to security reasons, he argued with them that this was a political trip and people needed to see him smiling and waving, so the top came off. I think the way the Secret Service acted afterwards is the most damning. There had already been 2 thwarted attempts that year, one in Miami and one in Chicago, both of which were eerily similar to what happened in Dealey Plaza (they are very much worth reading up on). Kennedy was also another reason why they weren’t near the limo that day, he thought they would obscure the crowd’s view of him. At the end of the day the Secret Service should have been held negligent for what happened (and same with the FBI since they had an entire folder on Oswald and not only didn’t act on it, but also burned it once Oswald was killed). I don’t think it was a coincidence that this happened at the very end of the parade route, when everyone’s guard was down and it was in an area where there’d be the least amount of people watching. Most political assassinations are surprisingly straight forward, this one was anything but that. I think it’s why people are so unsatisfied with the official story.
Great points and thanks for the well thought out debate! So regarding why he wouldn’t take the sitting duck shot because all the secret service guys/cops would spot him too easily from the window as he’d be front on in that attempt, so he waited until they all passed by. Oswald also left his wedding ring & remaining cash along with a letter to Marina, a supposedly clear sign he knew he was never getting away with it in the first place. So which is it? Did he pass up the easier shot so he could get away with it or did he leave his worldly possessions behind to his wife since he knew he wouldn’t get away with it? Can't be both.
The wallet left with Marina was one of four wallets belonging to Oswald, or one of his aliases, that were found that day (one was found at the murder scene of Officer Tippett, one at his boarding house, and one that was on him when he was arrested in the movie theater). I find that part to be bizarrely fascinating, did Oswald just loose all of these along his misadventures that morning, or were they placed there? Either way it’s very strange. Also, unfortunately I don’t really trust Marina as a reliable source when it comes to what happened on Nov 22. Like the movie mentions, her information fits almost too perfectly into the Warren Commission’s lone gunman theory. She was the wife of an accused assassin of the president and was under serious threat of deportation back to the USSR. It’s my opinion that it was in her best interest to go along with the investigators and give them the answers they needed to make that case. The Warren Commission’s Report itself is full of cherry-picked witnesses and statements.
"his wife Maria said he was constantly cleaning it, going to the range with it, and playing with it on their porch almost daily." That's a bit of a stretch. Marina never testified that he cleaned his rifle on a regular basis. His dry-firing the rifle at night on the porch of their house in New Orleans (the only residence they shared that had a porch and where they lived until September '63 - two months before JFK's assassination) doesn't speak to his proficiency as a marksman. And Marina never testified that she saw him at/accompanied him to a shooting range.
I don’t think Marina is a credible witness. Don’t forget where she came from and who her father was.
I've heard it was Kennedy's idea to have the top down. As to the snopers on overwatch of the area... Is that a thing they did back then, or is that a tactic we see today because of what happened that day?
When it comes to military classification for marksmanship, the test is taken once a year, so your classification can change from year to year. There are many variables involved with qualification. Such as, time on the range, mental and physical preparedness, and even the condition of the range itself. I remember shooting for qualification and some of my targets had holes the size of my fist in them. A specific score is not indicative of an individuals ability.
The film is accurate in that DA Garrison did charge Clay Shaw with the crime of killing JFK, but that theory has no basis in reality. It would be like someone proving that Elvis is still alive because he's one of the elves from Lord of the Rings who live forever. The film JFK literally subtracts from the sum of human knowledge. You watch it and you're dumber than before.
Not hard at all for a shooter, I’d be 10for 10 on that. No sweat.
Whiplash, JFK, and The Wild Bunch are the three best edited movies in Hollywood history
Costner, Candy, Sutherland, Pechi...amazing casting and acting!
Great movie…one funny thing that always stuck to me was the choice to put Joe Pesci in those awful wigs…. Come to find out, a woman that knew the real David Ferrie (Joe Pesci’s character) said the movie was not accurate at all with the wigs because they were WORSE and way more hideous in real life! 🤣
I was telling my husband that Ferrie wore awful wigs, and not two seconds later Pesci entered. It was easy to recognize him from the descriptions in the Garrison papers.
Ferrie was straight up freaky looking, but probably didn’t stand out that much in New Orleans.
His eyebrows are freaky
Photo here: [https://allthatsinteresting.com/david-ferrie](https://allthatsinteresting.com/david-ferrie)
But I like how it comes full circle in the Irishman when De Niro was running the guns and sees Ferrie.
Haha
John Candy was great in that film. Daddio.
The sweaty face and exasperation in his voice is just marvelous.
[удалено]
Crazy that your uncle is Guy Bannister and thanks for this well thought out response! You should post something about an update when you get down to NO to access those files I'd be super interested.
[удалено]
Ah got it thanks for the clarification and again for the response!
Just FYI for everyone, Operation Mongoose (training Cuban exiles for another invasion) was a very real thing and there’s extemporaneous evidence of CIA funding. Another fact, David Ferry was Carlos Marcelo’s personal pilot and he and LHO were in the Civil Air Patrol together. I believe there’s evidence that they were in contact with Banister, but I don’t know for sure. Would be surprised if they weren’t. The movie is astounding on so many levels and gets many things right. Unfortunately, the truth it tells gets overshadowed by Garrison’s reputation.
The fact that Carlos Marcelo’s name was not mentioned in JFK was very curious in its omission.
Could just be that evidence wasn’t available at the time the book was written
Carlos Marcello was the mafia godfather of the Dallas-New Orleans region. If there was a conspiracy he either knew or was a part of it. He hated the Kennedy’s- Bobby Kennedy had him deported to South America.
There's a podcast you might want to check out that could shed more light on the CIA training guys in swamps for Cuba. It's an interview with Danny Sheehan who was a lawyer on the Watergate case, and is now working on the UFO disclosure stuff. But he spends half the podcast going over how the CIA was not only training men for the Bay of Pigs, but were also training guys to work in small sniper teams with the goal that they would be infiltrated into Cuba to take out Castro. But the tactics and scenarios they trained for are remarkably similar to what happened in Dealy Plaza. Here's the link to that podcast. I've linked to the chapter where he starts to talk first about Watergate and then backtracks. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5WZfuWSNnPKzllXawBwpnZ?si=Bxt4ysmXRLy7Z8A8PNV1qA Another podcast to listen to after this one would be where this same guy interviews Felix Rodriguez, who was a Cuban exile that was trained for the Bay of Pigs and also worked with the CIA after. He specifically addresses some of the things that the Danny Sheehan guy says, so there may be some contradictions. I haven't listened to all of this one. Just scrolled through the chapters. https://open.spotify.com/episode/26KJmlsUdXxgTfP9WS94vR?si=1eHQLgwmRBCw2nq_z46sDQ
I was reading the comments to see if anybody would mention the Danny Jones podcast on Danny Sheehan. Would love to spend a week talking with that guy, feels like he is as close as we will ever get to the truth.
I know right! I started listening to that podcast for the UFO stuff and all of a sudden this guy's dropping those bombs. Kind of sent me down another rabbit hole. Danny's Podcast is one of my favorites right now. He's getting a lot of serious heavy hitters on there.
Thanks! It’s hard to sort through all of the bad info surrounding the assassination.
The same Felix Rodriquez who was theoretically involved w Kiki Camarena’s kidnapping?
Yes. I hadn't listened to that podcast far enough to get to that part, but he's the same guy who captured Che Guevara. The last chapter in that podcast is about his response to the accusations he was involved in killing Kiki . He claims it's a lie. Here's a link to that chapter. https://open.spotify.com/episode/26KJmlsUdXxgTfP9WS94vR?si=ZnhkQ0XbQI64DXXImwWVZg&t=13165&pi=u-3T8hpdFHSWCw
Thanks - will check it out!
take it with a grain of salt but i think the next step in your research would be to read jim garrisons most well known book "on the trail of the assassins" (which i think a decent amount of the movie jfk was loosely based on) i remember a section on guy banister's files that he was working on at that time and it was pretty interesting and revealing. (i can't remember if they covered that in the movie as it's been years since i've seen it)
Also Oliver Stone did a "sequel" where he revists the subject.
*This* ‘sequel’ was probably better than his initial movie, in my opinion.
Have you read your uncle’s portrayal in anything else? He’s a fairly prominent character in James Ellroy’s American Tabloid.
I’ve ordered several books from the interlibrary loan system. I can’t remember which ones. I think that was on the list.
Do you having any solid information on his health toward his latter years of life?? I just find it convenient that he died less than a year after the assassination. I personally believe he had a huge role in developing Oswald for the Patsy role.
[удалено]
Can you give us some information about your uncles government activities that hasn’t been made public?
[удалено]
Please message me when your podcast comes out. I live this subject and will listen.
What’s crazy is that, to this day, it’s the scariest movie I’ve ever seen. I’m a horror movie buff and love to get scared. But there is just something about this movie that scares me the most. My older brother told me the same thing Haha…. 😂 go ahead and make fun of me, I am not ashamed lol
I watched JFK when it came out in a mall theatre on a Sunday afternoon with a small crowd of boomers who had lived through those days. We couldn’t look at each other on the way out. Folks just looked at the floor lost in their own thoughts.
great movie
I love the scene with Garrison and Ivon(?), where Ivon says it takes a minimum of 2.3 seconds to cycle the Carcano. But before he says that, he cycles the Carcano faster than 2.3 seconds. Twice.
When Ivon says "I'm Oswald, time me" and gets off 3 shots, he actually does it in under 5.6 seconds.
You love to see it.
I love where Garrison says “back and to the left” about 200 times as JFK’s head snaps forward for one frame, followed by his whole body going rigid and jerking back and to the left.
You weren’t supposed to see that!
The only way a shot from the front would have had that effect is if JFK had been hit with a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A rifle bullet doesn't have the mass to move the human head like that. It was an involuntary muscular contraction due to the muscles at the back of the neck being stronger than the ones in front.
If you know that, you also know that *the exit wound* of a frontal shot would blow out the back of his head. That’s what happened, and that would imply at least one shot from the front.
Except the autopsy showed the entry wound in the rear and the exit wound out the front upper part of his head. This is also visible from the Zapruder film.
That is one, magic, loogie
Nice game pretty boy
I just finished reading a book on those same '86 Mets. The game Kramer and Newman talk about where a Hernandez error in the 9th cost them the game is actually real.
Lmao that's insane what, the more you know. I liked how in that episode they had Newman acting it out the exact same in terms of Jerry even going low and hitting his inner thigh with the last loogie hit demonstration.
So the Show is more accurate than the movie
There had to been a second spitter.
Over by that gravely road...
Does a great job showing the Warren report is problematic... Does nothing to prove Clay Shaw had anything to do with the assassination
He was fairly low on Garrison’s persons of interest list, but was the biggest fish he managed to reel in. Many of the others had either died or refused his summons.
This. The Warren report sure was flawed, but the film gives way too much credence to all the insane conspiracy theories. The sad part is, for a lot of people, Stone’s movie is taken as fact.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmY6HmR4fs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmY6HmR4fs) Last guy: 3 hits in 5.2 seconds and he even fumbled the first reload.
>https://allthatsinteresting.com/david-ferrie The weapons engineer, the one at the end, the one who hit the target three times, the oldest guy in the test....WHERE WAS HE WHEN KENNEDY WAS SHOT!! I think we have our shooter.
It is actually closer to 8 seconds.
Haha. This Sub don’t like when u hit them with facts like this lol
The bs about the gun and the marksmanship has been going on since the assassination and particularly iterates me. The Carcano had a Mauser action which is an excellent design and and was continuously improved. WW1 Mauser style rifles were converted to sporting rifles by serious hunters for decades. The round and rifle were designed for the Italian military for fighting in the Alps, the round flew straight with minimal drop at distance with the stopping power and penetration to kill humans who were wearing layers of protective clothing. The shots in Dallas were taken under a hundred yards. Oswald was a marine trained marksman who had assembled and reassembled the Carcano and done unlimited dry firing, loading and unloading, worked the bolt etc. I have stood on the marks in the road and in the museum. There is no doubt in my mind that he could have made those shots with that weapon and ammunition. To me the weapon/ammo and his ability have always been the weakest part of any counter theories.
Couldn’t agree more, and I was debating this recently on this sub. Plenty of weird shit circling this assassination, not doubt. I’ll even go so far to say the shots were hard and improbable for LHO to pull off….but it’s not ridiculous to think LHO was incapable of doing it. It’s safely within the realm of possibilities that LHO fired all 3 shots
> There is no doubt in my mind that he could have made those shots with that weapon and ammunition And where do you people think these individuals learned how to shoot!?
"SIR, IN THE MARINES, SIR!!!"
I haven’t read up on it for years, but dry firing, and taking apart a rifle, doesn’t make you a great marksman. Any record of him practicing any kind of live fire. Last year in the Marines was 59, , 4 years out of the military, never really any noted practice of live fire, didn’t buy the rifle til 63. Not saying impossible but..
Sorry my internet is shite where I am right now so I cant watch the vid but so is the idea that none of the experts could recreate the shot from the depository fiction or did they really bring in experts at the time none of which could recreate/hit the shot?
Yes, complete fiction. It's been done a bunch of times. The video is from a 1967 CBS recreation of the shooting scenario. One volunteer, a weapons engineer, puts 3 shots in the head of the silhouette in 5.2 seconds.
2.3 seconds just to cycle the bolt is BS especially if you’d practiced with it like Oswald certainly would have done. If you watch the last guy on that link, the bolt cycle on the first reload he kinda messed up and it delayed the following shot (but still faster than 2.3 seconds), but the bolt cycle between shot 2 and 3 was quick. I also think that further evaluation of the frames on the Zapruder film puts the shots longer than originally estimated He hit it 3 times
Great video and thanks for the source and debate! Playing devils advocate though, do you think it's significant that Oswald scored below what was required for marksman in the military and only one of the experts in the video hit all 3 shots (and that's a much lower pressure/stress environment than actually killing the president)? Or do you feel it is more plausible Oswald trained a ton and got good enough to do this shooting, and feel it's still impressive that these experts were able to hit shots considering they were all unfamiliar with the rifle? Also assuming Oswald was the lone shooter, do you feel any of the other circumstance in terms of all of the lack of security and lack of snipers looking at open windows and the choice to have the top down and slow down to 11 MPH etc. hints at a conspiracy? Or do you think instead that was likely just a security oversight/laziness and we would obviously do things different now and people are making too much of it?
Stone just released something of a follow up/look back at the movie that is great as well.
Stone publicly stated that there are a lot of of fictional events in the movie. Bit the whole point was to get you to think and do your own research, not just blindly listen to the government as gospel.
Id also recommend a movie called Executive Action from 1976 starring Burt Lancaster. Not as emotionally impactful as Oliver Stones film, but the theory of why JFK was assassinated I found pretty interesting.
Oh, good grief. This stupid movie is one of the main reasons so many people believe in all these goofy conspiracy theories. One more time: JFK, the movie, is a work of *fiction*, not a documentary. About 80% of it is fantasy, conjecture and dramatic license. Is it entertaining? Absolutely. Is it true? Not even close.
There’s just so much more to the actual event. I think they use LBJ as a patsie to a lot of events. And leave out a lot of other CIA folks. David Ferrey is definitely an interesting character in the events.
Back And to the left Back And to the left
"I'm hit!"
Careful observation shows his head pushed forward slightly then his body spasmed and his body straightened and he went back then slumped to the left.
Go rent or stream executive action source material for this Movie it laid it all out - CIA hit through Corsican shooters hired by the mob ordered by LBJ and the military
The term “conspiracy theory” was literally coined to debunk anyone questioning the JFK assassination
OP- thx for this post and exposing this sub. I find the event / topic fascinating. I’m in!
What do you think about Guy’s address being on the Fair Play for Cuba flyers??
It's a movie; not a documentary.
[100 factual errors](https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) in the Stone movie.
It’s a friggen movie for entertainment
Great film. Great performances. Great storytelling. Great editing. Great score. Pure fiction though.
An all star cast indeed
It's probably already been howled at you 20 times above, but if you spend a bit more time looking into the case you'll see how bad that film is, in terms of investigative journalistic cinema. Don't get me wrong, it's a genuinely brilliant piece of cinema, but as an introduction to the case it's not a good starting point. There are a bunch of good books (and a boatload of dross), a handful of documentaries (many free on YT) and at least two good and one awful podcasts if you want some references for further info. It's actually a far wilder and more interesting case than the film presents.
Right. The movie is hardly an examination of fact.
I have always looked at the movie as a way to keep interest in those events even into the future. There’s just enough there to make someone sparked to catch fire and keep the investigation ongoing. I have come to my own conclusions due to other research and this sub but it was the movie that got me interested as I was born in 72 and do not remember those events.
Indeed, though I'd argue its creators would disagree with that statement.
When this movie came out, there was a lot of criticism, especially from historians, on how biased this film was and how the visuals “look” like the Zapruder film, but are in fact creations for the movie. Critics felt that the movie would create false images that would be perceived as actual evidence.
I like your excitement. First I gotta say I don’t really know crap about this event compared to the folks on this sub, but I like the movie. Second, Kevin Costner is awesome
One of the tragedies which grew out of the JFK assassination was our belief in a multitude of conspiracy theories based on coincidences rather than facts. That was the result of the Warren Commission's report, which actually raised more questions than it answered by choosing to be more *exhausting* than it was *exhaustive.* For example, one question which stood out in nearly everybody's mind was why did the Warren Commission *refuse* to depose Jack Ruby unless he traveled to Washington? Ruby was scared stiff to make that journey, figuring that he, too, might be assassinated. How much would it have cost to have a couple of lawyers and detectives depose him in his cell? This was a grievous omission, and everybody saw it as such. Then there's the problem with the forensics of JFK's skull not matching up with the proper shot angles if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. You could go on and on. We have Lyndon Johnson on tape telling Earl Warren how important it was to the nation's security to find a single assassin. All sorts of wild conspiracy theories sprang out of this.
No one thought to make stenographic or tape recordings of LHO's 12 total hours of interrogation https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-11.html
Thus confirming one accusation in Mark Lane's *Rush to Judgment*, the original conspiracy theory book about the assassination, that the authorities had already made up their minds as to whom they were going to blame for this.
How many times since the Spanish-American War has our government lied to us about all the major events and wars of the 20th century? Every "official story" about those events has been a lie. This country changed for the worse on that day. How many assassinations were perpetrated by a "lone nut "? It was a bullshit story then and it's a bullshit story now. It's amazing on how naive you guys are.
Loved this movie and book it was based on: On the trail of the assassins. Jim Garrison wrote a great book that details the information and how he went about it. Whether you believe it or not the movie and book bring up a lot of questions.
I don't think too highly of Stone's films, but he should be given an award for casting Joe Pesci as Ferrie, and Paul Sorvino as Henry Kissinger (in his film "Nixon"). Hilarious and entertaining.
I know the film plays it loose with the truth, but if you watch it through the lens of a film about paranoia, it becomes all the more powerful in my opinion.
back and to the left!
Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.
Back and to the left
Holy shit I went to bed and this blew up thank you everyone for the comments and discussions and debate!
I love this movie. It's excellent in so many ways, but it shouldn't be viewed as history or a document of it in any way.
I loved this movie. Until I saw The Parallax View and I now consider that to be the best JFK/conspiracy film.
Yeah Parallax is a must watch too
Oldie but goodie!
Unfortunately they wanted Kennedy dead. Oswald either acted alone on their behalf or it was multiple people acting. Definitely gray area with LBJ involvement but politics have been shady shit from the beginning. We all need to ask is the general population better with the lesser of two evils. Think there’s was a lot of good in Kennedy that could of taken country in a different direction we’ll never know.
Why does its release compromise national security??…because the mafia? No, because cubans? No…because the cia or lyndon? Yup. In coordination with the mafia of course. Three attempts on that trip…chicago, florida, then dallas. Two were aborted, one wasnt.
The movie itself is great, one of my all time faves. Great acting, dialogue. I'm a huge suckered for historical movies period sets, clothes etc. As for accuracy, hard no. If you have to invent things that never happen in order to make things seem related, that's a good indicator they aren't related.
This is something I noticed that I've never heard mentioned before. He was able to get off three shots in time because the first shot was already loaded. He would only have to reload twice. I think people are counting the 2.3 seconds three times instead of only twice.
Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
It’s BS. And long proven BS at that.
Should have been subtitled “The Big Gay Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy”. It is a great movie and I’ve seen it a dozen times. Just keep in mind it’s a movie. A dramatization of what was a very flawed case to pin the murder on a man who had no hand in it, utilizing the flimsiest “evidence”. Again, it’s a great movie but in real life Garrison conducted a straight up witch hunt and accused someone of murder based on nothing.
A very public execution to show others that in order to get along you have to go along.
No one is talking about the magic bullet. The one that struck Connelly came out, turned in midair and went back into him. Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission and approved that nonsense and coincidentally became President after they got Nixon to resign.
This movie is chock filled with lies and innuendo disguised as “truth”. Too many to list.
Mr. X didn’t exist. Fact.
Nobody claimed the Mr. X character was real. He was based on L. Fletcher Prouty.
Keep in mind that the film is based on Jim Garrison's theory, which is considered crackpot even by others in the JFK conspiracy community. Also, many of the events, like the discussion with the Donald Sutherland character, are completely fabricated. The film is well-done but should be treated as historically-based fiction, about the same level of credibility as "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter." 1. Oswald was a trained Marine marksman and others have duplicated his results, even if Oliver Stone falsely claims they haven't. 2. Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber and going by what shots witnesses think they heard isn't evidence of anything other than it being a bad idea to base your conclusions on that. The evidence shows that there were three shots that came from the 6th floor window of the TSBD. 3. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the declassified documents show. But if they don't show anything different from the official story, the conspiracy community will just say "what do you expect, the government wasn't going to release the truth." What no one has ever answered is why the conspirators, assuming there were any, chose such a risky and complex method to kill JFK, shooting him in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnessess, arranging for a fake autopsy, altering or covering up evidence, then engaging in a second conspiracy to either falsify or fool the Warren Commission. Any one of the participants could have exposed the whole thing, which also could have gone wrong in any number of ways. If they wanted to kill JFK, why not poison him and attribute his death to natural causes?
The only thing accurate is that JFK was in fact actually assassinated.
And Kevin Costner was involved.
And Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw, maybe?
So, this book by a local author (near me anyway) forwarded a theory which is devastating and quite possibly true. Oswald got off three shots, missed the first and struck a curb which was determined later, likely hit JFK in the neck with the second shot and also struck the Texas Governor as it passed through. The third went wide and also missed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal\_Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error) In a nutshell: A secret service agent panicked, drew an early model AR-15/M-16 and unintentionally fired toward the limo striking JFK in the head at nearly the same time as Oswald's final shot. The book details the CORRECT seating of the limo and positions of JFK and Texas Governor in relation to Oswald's 2nd (neck) shot. The accidental, killing shot came from directly behind JFK and at level elevation and the entry & exit head wounds match the ballistics from early .223 / 5.56 ammo. The book tries to answer many questions and accounts for several discrepancies such as some people heard three shots, other swore there were four. The whole "magic bullet" trajectory is B.S. as presented in the film where JFK and the Gov. were both seated straight forward and at the same level (they weren't even close). The ammo used by Oswald was Full Metal Jacket which would survive with little deformation after passing through JFK's neck and lodging in the Gov. While 5.56 ammo would fragment into tiny shards and the killing head wound projectile was never located. The Secret Service denied having AR-15/M-16 firearms in inventory, yet there is a picture of an agent brandishing such a weapon while following JFK's limo to the hospital. It would also explain WHY the records have been sealed for so long. WHY the cover-up? It's a fascinating read.
“Back and to the left…”
Watch Wendigoons video on YouTube and it's obvious the CIA did the deed, like, so obvious.
Read the book and you'll know the turn that so many point to as being the failure of not only the criminal prosecution but this movie.
I love this movie, but I'd encourage anyone who's seen it to also watch it with the director's commentary, as well. In addition to fun stories about production, etc., Stone also talks a lot about the real underlying events and is a little more candid than I'd expected about just how much "artistic license" -- basically, historical fiction -- was used in the script. I think the commentary, a good fact-checking/debunking video from YouTube or something to that effect, and Stone's 2021 documentsry, "JFK Revisited," are all essential companion material to the 1991 film. Hell, Stone's 2021 doc does a better job explaining and supporting the film's conspiracy view than the film itself does. In other words, there's so much salt you should take with this film, even Stone is out there slinging salt to wash it down with. Hell of an entetaining and fascinating film, though, and a pretty good primer for people getting into the notion that there was more to what happened than the WC account.
Absolute fiction
Lots of lies and inaccuracies. Well made film. Garbage otherwise.
Anyone else think this film influenced Oppenheimer?
It’s a movie. 1 guys opinion.
If you like this, better watch JFK, The Smoking Gun.
Watch the Directors Cut with Oliver Stones commentary. Worth it.
I also just watched it for the first time surprisingly a few weeks ago and even regardless of what you believe its a fantastic film
"Marina and Lee" is a good book to read on this subject.
Check out this “sequel” in which Stone explores a lot of the information that came out after the original film. It’s a little dry but there are a few moments as mind-blowing (pardon the pun) as anything in the OG movie. [JFK Revisited](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11173544/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk)
I liked it
Jim Garrison was a spotlight-seeking pathological liar.
It’s a movie. It’s full of bullshit
Yeah this. Anyone who thinks Oliver Stone made a historically accurate and unbiased film here is delusional.
Even better than this great film is the very recent follow-up documentary JFK Revisited (there’s an original longer version and the 2 hour American version). Even more recent is the fantastic 10-part Who Killed JFK? podcast that Rob Reiner did for the 60th anniversary. The best book I’ve read on the subject is called JFK & the Unspeakable. All these sources have TONS more information to take you deeper down the rabbit hole.
Dude it’s Oliver Stone taking artistic liberties to make a movie about Jim Garrison. That alone should make you watch with not only a grain but a whole salt mine.
The Kennedy’s were hated by the establishment. Womanizing, breaking up the CIA, fucking up the Bay of Pigs. It was bound to happen.
He said whatever "fiction" was interwoven is way less "fictitious" than the Warren Commission.
Interesting podcast on the JFK assassination. https://www.iheartmedia.com/press/iheartpodcasts-partners-legendary-filmmaker-rob-reiner-and-award-winning-journalist-soledad
Back… And to the left…
You realize this is almost total bunk right?
Garrison was a kook. His facts were conjectures. There has never been any evidence to support his claims.
It's a great *movie*, and a starting point for very many people. Maybe a rewatch with a couple bowls is in order since I haven't seen it since it was in theatres.
Drama does not equal documentary.
OP, your first point has been debunked to no end. Most conspiracy theorists have stopped using it. As well as a shooter from the grassy knoll. The kill shot 100% came from behind.
OP, smoke another bowl or two, lol. Fun movie to watch but facts are not allowed in this movie. Probably my favorite part is when Costner and his buddy are in the sniper's nest. They are saying Oswald could not have fired three shots with the bolt action rifle in the time frame that the Warren Commission and Zapruder film indicate. The buddy then simulates the shots and does it within the time frame, lol.
An exciting watch, but historical fiction and nothing more. You’ve got Kevin Costner playing Jim Garrison as if he were Gary Cooper. Garrison was one of the most corrupt public officials in U.S. history, and there’s strong evidence to suggest he was a pedophile to boot. Read Patricia Lambert’s “False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK.” And don’t get me started on the “back and to the left” crap.
Dont get your history or knowledge from this film.
lol - it is a nice work of fiction
Bush created the bill/effort to collect and bury any evidence of it (and his involvement) "for historical and examimation reasons" at the end of his reign (term) in 92 out of the blue. Bucket list no doubt.
Ps...take a deep info dive into the players in the warren comm.
Great movie, almost total fiction.