Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
W.
If any of you are moviegoers than you have no doubt seen the trailer for Oliver Stone's new feature length movie entitled W. which quite simply is about the life of one of the worst presidents who ever lived: George "Dubya" Bush. Personally, I don't whether to think if this a serious documentary portraying the "truth" about Bush's life and tenure as President, or if this is an absolute joke. Here is the trailer of this movie which I will no doubt see since I am totally against Bush's disgraceful role as President.sg7vwicPx98
Comments
Actually, my Aunt is really cute about it. She tells my Grandmother that she "got a phone call from her friend Oliver" fairly often in recent months.
- Oliver Stone
- Tons of inaccuracies in "The Doors."
- A guy who worships Fidel Castro.
Three strikes and your out of my $6. (Yep, movies here still cost $6.)
I couldn't care less whether he is a fan of Fidel Castro or Ronald Reagan as long as he makes a good movie.
I have been entertained by most of the Stone movies I have seen. I will certainly see this one . . . although maybe not in theaters . . . I still haven't seen Dark Knight in a theater yet.
When one of the members of the Doors (Ray Manzarek) calls Stone's film about the band "highly inaccurate" and said "What Stone did to Morrison was a travesty."
Maybe your threshold for quality is lower than mine, but I'm just not that excited for W.
Stone is a clever guy. He makes movies that say what people want to hear. Want more ticket sales? Allege a JFK conspiracy! (Leaving aside the argument that if you take your history from Oliver Stone, you've gone to amongst the worst sources.)
If he calls his movies fiction, then great. But he keeps pretending that they are accurate. It's junk social science, and I'm not a fan of junk. You shouldn't be either.
Then there is the fact that Kennedy's head of security was sent by the CIA to an obscure foreign mission which he himself says he wasn't needed for and has stated his surprise at being asked to go. This is the man who had previously taken responsibility for JFK's security at public appearances, security which on the day of the shooting was extremely disorganised. The coincidences are stacking up.
Then there is the fact that Oswald physically could not have done it. The professionally trained shooters were unable to recreate the shot he supposedly made, not to mention the magic-bullet problem. Any reasonable person has to accept this, yet the CIA didn't reopen the investigation and concluded that Oswald was the solitary killer.
There was also a strong motive for getting Kennedy out the way after he had reduced the power and budget of the military and Big Business. He had refused to enter Vietnam which the US promptly did under Johnson.
Finally, the fact that the CIA files related to the incident had their secrecy notice extended by 50 years for ''national security''. How could the documents put the country at risk?
Oswald didn't do it. It had to be a larger group rather than a single shooter because of the evidence stated above. Other people have proposed the Anticastrists after Kennedy promised not to eliminate Castro after the missile Crisis, or the Mafia who had supported Kennedy during the election but who Kennedy then proceded to fight against once in power. However neither of these groups have the power or scope to conduct such an operation.
I'm not saying that people on the inside certainly did it, it remains a hypothesis. However as I said it is clearly the theory best supported by the evidence.
Sorry, high school history is NOT a good source.
No matter how any security guards, police officers, and secret severice agents were on guard, a crowd of people who not only heard gunshot, but also just watched a very well liked President just get shot are going to be in a panic. Some will want to see what happened and will crow toward the area, while cops and guards may try to fend them off. Some people will run off, which is a fairly reasonable instinct. Some of the officers/agents will be in charge of medical attention of the President and others in the car who were injured or in shock. Some of the officers/agents, will head of in pursuit of the culprit.
Now, add into this, that you are talking about multiple jurisdictions here. All of the primary people in charge need to be in contact with each other to figure out who needs to go where, and they did not have the advantages in communication that we have today. In fact, they would probably be lucky if they had the name of the man in charge of any other agency that was present. Even today, you should see some of the train wrecks in communication between various first responders.
In general, these conspiracy "theories" tend to make great leaps in logic when much simpler and more likely explanations exist.
9/11 could have been a huge government conspiracy. It is not difficult to come up with a conspiracy story about bombs and such that fits the evidence. However, the two planes full of terrorists is a much simpler, and less extraordinary, explanation. Therefore it is more likely. JFK is the same way. I could easily come up with a story about grassy knolls, multiple snipers, and secret service conspiracies that matches the evidence. The Lee Harvey Oswald story is much simpler.
Remember, claims require evidence to support them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to say there are aliens visiting earth, blurry video of random lights isn't going to cut it. We're going to need some HD footage that is clearly not doctored in any way. I honestly believe if we gave HD cameras to all the UFO nuts, we would never hear from them again.