MovieChat Forums > Parkland (2013) Discussion > I Am A Conspiracy Theorist And I Just Wa...

I Am A Conspiracy Theorist And I Just Watched This Movie


I inquired about this movie yesterday, because I was fearful that it would be too offensive for me. A couple of nice posters answered me, so I decided to take my chances.

I do think the movie is worth watching IF you have an interest in the Kennedy Assassination. Some of the sequences are very good, and I enjoyed the vintage news coverage.

I do think that the movie takes the position that Oswald's guilt is a foregone conclusion. Marguerite Oswald, his mother, is portrayed as a lunatic. Lee himself comes across as creepy; in real life, he protested his innocence and claimed to be a patsy. In the movie, he says little, and looks guilty.

It has been pretty well established that Lee Oswald worked for the CIA and/or the FBI. The day jobs he held were "cover" jobs so that he wouldn't arouse suspicion. Oswald was actually given the job at the Book Depository by his CIA handler. So what his mother says about him seems to be absolutely true. However, the way she says it, it sounds like she's saying her son is an alien from outer space, and she does not sound credible.

I know that Tom Hanks made this movie, and that Tom Hanks believes wholeheartedly in Oswald's guilt. So I'm not surprised, I'm just a little disappointed.

Also--the viewer does not get a good look at Abraham Zapruder's film. I wonder why? Maybe it would show that the last shot CAME FROM THE FRONT.

reply

I'm pretty sure the reason the head shot was not clearly shown was because they didn't want that on their film. That's why the Zapruder film is always obscured in the movie.

As far as Marguerite, everything we've seen about her shows that she was pretty much bat-crap crazy. Bob Scheiffer interviewed her the day of the assassination, and she was straight up crazy then. Most of her other comments are very clearly on the record, albeit sometime after the shooting.

Lee doesn't really say anything that contradicts what he said. In a deleted scene he was mad about the FBI harassing his wife, this is pretty much on the record. He didn't tell Robert anything at all.

Ultimately, the movie wasn't about who was behind the shooting, just what it did to people afterwards. It's why the most important real life people (Jackie, LBJ, Lee Oswald) were not seen much, and really only from the perspective of others.

reply

Just wanted to say I'm a "conspiracy theorist" too! ?
I believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President & a conspiracy to cover it up.
I believe JFK made a lot of powerful enemies while in office.
I don't believe in the official "conspiracy theory" that Oswald acted alone & fired the kill shot.
Nor do I believe George Hickey accidentally fired the kill shot either as has been promoted in the news media this past 50th anniversary.
I don't believe we'll ever truly know who was behind the assassination.
I wish I had a time machine that could travel back to that day & freeze the moment of the kill shot to see the trajectory of that fatal shot & who fired it. I'd then follow that person in the days/weeks/months leading up to "the big event" & immediately afterwards to learn who was truly behind it all...

reply

I too wish I could go back in time and try to keep President Kennedy from leaving the plane at Love Field. However, if there were that many people determined to kill him, it was just a matter of time.

reply

Oswald acting alone killed Kennedy.

Notice how the OP uses the classic conspiracy fallacy called the "red herringn" with this:
"it has been pretty well established that Lee Oswald worked for the CIA and/or the FBI. "

No it has been conclusive established he did not.

The other main conspiracy theory relies on straw man such as the claim that Oswald had to reload "three times." I fact Stone does this is his absurd movie.

You reload a bolt action twice to fire three shots. You start with the gun loaded.

reply

Explain how an unemployed Oswald could afford to print flyers and pamphlets and hire people to help him hand them out?

Explain how unemployed Oswald was able to afford his trip to Mexico City

Explain why he wrote to the Fair Play For Cuba org about getting arrested for fighting with anti-Castro activists BEFORE his arrest?

Explain why he used the address 544 Camp St, an address known to be used by anti-Castro groups

Explain why Oswald asked to speak to the FBI when he was arrested in New Orleans(and why the New Orleans agents didn't mention it to headquarters in DC)

The circumstantial evidence that Oswald was involved in intelligence operations is pretty overwhelming. The only question is "who" exactly was he working for?

reply

Okay, Freedom, I'll give this a try:

1. Affording Mexico City: It was one of the only times in his life that Oswald actually cut loose with his money. What was amazing was the FBI actually went back and found with pretty good accuracy how much money Oswald could have had. They concluded that he had around $200 and would have needed something like $45 for his trip to Mexico City. That hardly seems like evidence that he's some sort of CIA trained ninja. The bus ticket to Mexico City was $8 one way and $16 or something round trip. Also, you have to read the account from Marina about just how frugal Lee was--something he inherited from his crazy-as-an-outhouse-rat mother. Bill Gates is frugal. Lee Oswald was just cheap. One of the last things he ever said to his wife was that he was going to finally buy her the washing machine she wanted. With two kids he wouldn't even let her have a washing machine. When you consider that he didn't chase women, didn't smoke, didn't drink, didn't go to restaurants (although, interestingly on Thursday he ate like a king for lunch at a restaurant for once--which isn't at all something a condemned man would do or anything), it's pretty easy to see how he could saved that money. The FBI went through his finances and found absolutely zero assets or financial transactions from any source other than his labor or unemployment benefits (he was able to game the system mildly by claiming dependents before they were born, etc...) Coincidentally he was on his last month of unemployment benefits when JFK took the parade. There was not one cent from another source. Not one. In Mexico, he ate at a cheap restaurant that offered food and drink for a small fee of around $1. He stayed at either the Hotel de Cuba or the Hotel Havana for some ridiculously crazy rate. He said he bought Marina a trinket down there but he actually purchased it for about $1 at a store in Texas. She was shocked because, get this, it was, ONE OF THE ONLY GIFTS HE BOUGHT HER. When you're fighting with your wife and you are a CIA ninja with a lot of money floating around, you'd buy your wife something so she doesn't disown you and take your children. Instead, if you're cheap, you just ignore her and buy her a gift every three years. He didn't have a girlfriend and he didn't buy clothes for her or for himself. He had two jackets at the time of his death and one was found 900 yards from where JD Tippit was murdered.

2. Being arrested/Fair Play for Cuba:

This is something that Garrison and others grossly pulled out of context. COMPLETELY out of context. Oswald said that he was being harassed and had argued with ultraconservatives in New Orleans where he was facing considerable difficulty getting his message across. He also wrote that he was being attacked by the New Orleans police for being a vagrant when we know from arrest records that they did nothing of the sort. Lee Oswald was an attention-whore. He had an inflated sense of who he was. The proof of this is the letter you speak of to the Fair Play Committee is perfectly illustrative of this. He said also that he was "getting responses and feedback from people in New Orleans who were going to join". (paraphrasing). We know that this is untrue because he was the only member in New Orleans. He literally was the committee. Also, the committee was in the middle of a spitting contest with other communist organizations about some matter of communist technicality that is worth forgetting. They were fighting over something said in one or the other and yet Oswald reference the information in the Worker--which the people at the Fair Play headquarters laughed off thinking, "This guy has no clue what he's doing--he doesn't even know his communism".

3. Explain why he used the address 544 Camp St, an address known to be used by anti-Castro groups

Okay, first off, you need to understand that what Jim Garrison said about 544 Camp Street was an absolute lie. HE ABSOLUTELY MADE IT UP. It wasn't a right wing hang out. It wasn't a crazy place where John Birchers had ground zero for revolutionary activities. It was...wait for it...Oh, my god...a place where there were mail boxes! Conspiracy? I think not! Oswald was getting his mail from a mailbox!?!! That sounds good enough for me! That means there was a third shooter in the Daltex Building if ever anything did. Garrison claimed up and down that the two addresses led to the same place. In reality there were two problems. They absolutely did not and also, that address was not Banister's address. His real address was 4907 Magazine street. The word that Oswald was around there all the time came from Jack Martin. Martin was a complete drunk and heroin dabbler who also claimed that Ferrie knew Oswald--something Ferrie denied right up to the time he died vehemently and was proven to be true.

4. Explain why Oswald asked to speak to the FBI when he was arrested in New Orleans(and why the New Orleans agents didn't mention it to headquarters in DC)

Because he KNEW the FBI and the FBI knew of him (by paper trail and by name). They had asked him about his time in Russia. They wanted to know what he'd known and what he'd told them. They had called him and left him messages and Oswald was just such a mouthy little motherf&$&*$ that when the New Orleans cops started asking him about what he was doing, he figured he'd make them look stupid by asking them to get the FBI to make himself seem more important. He knew the names of several FBI agents who'd asked to speak with him...that isn't a crime. I know a lot of FBI agents. I'll bet a lot of people know FBI agents. Here's a better question: why are you so concerned with the FBI meeting in New Orleans as opposed to him screaming when Hosty walked in to sit in on the meeting when Fritz was questioning him on 11/22. I mean, that had to be proof of conspiracy right? If the FBI is part of the conversation, automatically that means you're kind of a big deal. Because of course, the FBI never talks to bit low-lifes or anything. Just so you know, the FBI is supposed to handle all matters related to treason and criminal espionage--the crime that Oswald had clearly been attempting to commit but had so little to tell the Russians they didn't even want him. So, the fact the FBI was looking in to his affairs means exactly nothing. As for why they didn't report it to the FBI in DC is basically you CTs talking at crossed purposes. The reason was because nobody was actively WATCHING Lee Oswald. They were following him by name. They were following him as one of several defectors. But he wasn't some majorly important issue. Every time Oswald did something it created administrative paperwork. That was all. No one was ACTIVELY watching Lee Oswald. If they were, then you could argue that he was a CIA agent. But when he moved or did anything NOBODY thought it was important enough to do anything other than just file a standard report and then move on. Incidentally, that is EXACTLY what the agents involved in the case testified to doing. If they said they were watching him but they actually didn't file any paperwork, you could argue they were doing something nefarious like conspiring. Instead, they did exactly what they testified to--they let him go without taking him seriously.

It's far easier to think your government is nefarious than it is incompetent but that's exactly what happened here.

4.

reply

It's far easier to think your government is nefarious than it is incompetent but that's exactly what happened here.


Uhhh, no, just the opposite. Most people would rather think their government incompetent rather than nefarious.

To state with certainty, "that's exactly what happened here" actually undermines your point. That is what is called a false certainty. You could state ,'that is what, in my estimation, happened here', or 'that is what I conclude happened here'. To emphatically state you know exactly what happened is, in my opinion, just a whole lot of bluster.





reply

Fair enough...I'll concede that point to you. But I think it's interesting that, like all conspiracy theorists, you don't argue the actual facts. You just resort to pulling one line out of context, giving me some kiss-a$^, psycho-semantic, idiotic feeling about what I said. You don't argue that, oh, by the way, Oswald acted 957 shades of guilty. You go with your feelings. So, sure, I'll concede I might have overstated the end. But I did not screw up any of the facts and I'll challenge you to find anything in there that is wrong.

reply

But I think it's interesting that, like all conspiracy theorists, you don't argue the actual facts. You just resort to pulling one line out of context, giving me some kiss-a$^, psycho-semantic, idiotic feeling about what I said. You don't argue that, oh, by the way, Oswald acted 957 shades of guilty. You go with your feelings.


Once again, you are buying into a false dichotomy. Either Oswald was guilty OR it was a conspiracy. The other choice is: Oswald was guilty, but he did not act alone.

As far as the Oswald in Mexico City fiasco, I don't think it's really relevant. Whether he was or wasn't in Mexico City, the fact is that he was impersonated in Mexico City at least once and probably twice. No one to this day has an explanation as to why he was impersonated. Doesn't that pique your interest, just a little?

reply

1 - In the 1960s Mexico City was like Casablanca. There were spies everywhere. The CIA, KGB, and DGI(Cuba's CIA/KGB) had a strong presence in the city. We now know for a fact based on recently declassified documents that the FBI and CIA were closely monitoring Oswald in the weeks/months leading up to the assassination. We also know for a fact today that the CIA photographed everyone who entered the Soviet and Cuban embassies in MC. Oswald allegedly visited those embassies several times while he was there. Despite all this, there are no known photos of Oswald in Mexico City. Not one. Despite all this, it seems the evidence that Oswald was in MC is stronger than the evidence that he didn't visit. There's mainly some legit questions about how he was able to afford it, whether or not he travelled alone, and was he impersonated.

2 - 50 years later, we know that Garrison was onto something. Thanks to the wok of Jeff Morley, we now know that Carlos Bringuer and the DRE group in New Orleans was financed by the CIA. We know which CIA agents dealt with the DRE. We know from Oswald's personal writings and his taste in books in 1963 that he was not as hardcore a Leftist as he made him self appear to be publicly. We also now know that the FBI and CIA were actively trying to undermine the Fair Play For Cuba group in 1963. Oswald started his own Fair Play group in New Orleans against the wishes of the organization's leadership based in NY. Do you think the timing of all this stuff is coincidental? Do you think Oswald did all this stuff for his own personal amusement? And why was he doing all this public stuff in New Orleans but keeping a low profile while living in Dallas?

3 - The 544 Camp St address, which appeared on the Flyers that Oswald handed out in August of 1963, was used by right-wing anti-Castro groups before and after Oswald lived in New Orleans. That's a proven fact. I think Garrison was crazy but he did get a few things right. One of the groups found to have used the address was the CRC(Cuban Revolutionary Council), another CIA-backed anti-Castro Cuban group.

4 - Again you're wrong. The evidence shows that the counter-Intelligence branch of the CIA and possibly the FBI were actively keeping an eye on Oswald in 1963.

Now, I'm willing to grant you the fact that just because Oswald may have been a CIA or FBI asset doesn't mean the US government was wittingly involved in the murder of JFK. The government might have found Oswald useful in their COINTELPRO operation against the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. That operation had nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination. However, Oswald's status as an asset might explain why the radical things he did or said publicly didn't set off alarms in terms of National Security in the months or years before the Kennedy assassination. It could also explain why files relating to the agents who dealt with Oswald in New Orleans or Mexico City are still classified 50 years later.

reply

Oswald acting alone killed Kennedy.


Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? Because even Nixon, LBJ and Bobby Kennedy apparently weren't so enthralled with the Warren Commission report. Is there something you know that they did not know?

reply

Has it ever occurred to you that all your conspiracy friends are really just using the myth of conspiracy (and by extension, your stupidity) to just line their pockets by perpetuating stories and myths that are untrue in the first place? I mean, it's been pretty well established Robert Groden is the biggest crackpot in history and Fletcher Prouty was a close second in the "Holy-Motherthumping-poo-I'm-off-my-meds-today" department. Did it ever occur to you CTs that those guys are just completely using you to make a little money here or there?

Come to think of it, the only people that haven't really lied about this case on a wholesale level is, wait for it, the US government. People whined about documents being classified, the government went ahead and made them open to the people. The people wanted a committee to basically have a retrial--they did a retrial. The only group that was very truthful was the US government. Or, at the very least, compared with the CTs, they certainly are.

reply

Has it ever occurred to you that all your conspiracy friends are really just using the myth of conspiracy (and by extension, your stupidity) to just line their pockets by perpetuating stories and myths that are untrue in the first place? I mean, it's been pretty well established Robert Groden is the biggest crackpot in history and Fletcher Prouty was a close second in the "Holy-Motherthumping-poo-I'm-off-my-meds-today" department. Did it ever occur to you CTs that those guys are just completely using you to make a little money here or there?

Come to think of it, the only people that haven't really lied about this case on a wholesale level is, wait for it, the US government. People whined about documents being classified, the government went ahead and made them open to the people. The people wanted a committee to basically have a retrial--they did a retrial. The only group that was very truthful was the US government. Or, at the very least, compared with the CTs, they certainly are.


First of all, I'll ignore the personal insult. Obviously, you don't know me so you could not possibly assess my intelligence based on one post I made on IMDB.

But to the point, yes, it has occurred to me that many Conspiracy Theorists are just making money off of the JFK Assassination. And that is deplorable. But many of them are sincere and have done excellent research, IMHO.

I've also kept an open mind on this case- I'm not 100% convinced it was a conspiracy, but the balance of evidence and my own analysis based on other secret government operations that have been exposed (such as CIA involvement in drug trafficking in Laos and Nicaragua) has led me to lean toward a conspiracy as the most likely explanation. On the other hand, the evidence toward Oswald being involved at some level is certainly compelling. But note that Oswald being involved does not preclude a conspiracy.

I have no idea what 'trial' you are talking about. There have been several 'mock' trials on the Kennedy case. There was also a libel trial for E. Howard Hunt. Which trial are you referring to?

reply

I'm talking about the whining you CTs did that resulted in 50 million dollars of wasted US tax money in the form of the House Subcommittee. All we heard was how unbelievably incompetent the Warren Commission was. Okay. Right. So, you whine and whine and whine and you get the HSCA. Sure, they concluded there was a conspiracy. But they did so on evidence that was later proven--beyond ABSOLUTELY any doubt, to be flawed. The acoustics evidence was proven to be flawed--thereby cancelling out their ruling. But what was interesting was the medical evidence, the ballistics evidence, the FBI investigations...all of that was put before a panel of experts from around the world. IN EVERY INSTANCE THEY AGREED WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION. IN EVERY SINGLE ONE. The only conclusion that was different was the acoustics evidence that was flawed. That's it. Nothing else. Not a single thing. So, essentially you have guys like Robert Groden disagreeing with the 23 greatest photographic experts in the world. That qualifies as a researcher to you? Not to be to blunt but is your crack pipe hot to the touch? You say there was a CIA conspiracy for drug trafficking? Really? I'd love to hear your evidence on that. And not just, "It's pretty evident that Oswald was trafficking heroin with the martians and the little green guys and he had Howard Hunt there with him". That's not EVIDENCE.

"The evidence against Oswald is compelling"? What? How's this: there hasn't been a crime in the history of the world that has a suspect more guilty than Lee Oswald! It's IRON CLAD! He's seen 45 minutes later by four witnesses murdering only the third lawman in the state for the last 10 years. Okay, yeah, CTs love to point out that he couldn't have been there and blah blah blah. Let's just cut the crap and come to reality. HE SHOT TIPPIT. END OF STORY. THERE WAS NO OTHER STORY. He leaves, goes and hides in a movie theater. Oh, by the way, he's the ONLY employee to leave the building. He's the last suspect seen at the floor where we know beyond any doubt the shooting came from. You need more evidence than that? The guy is found out to be a known would-be political assassin. He lies about owning a rifle, which is found at the scene. He lies about where he was. He's caught in a lie 48,494 times during questioning. Yeah, because if you're innocent that totally happens.
"Involved in some level"?
Yeah, and Elton John is involved in some level in homosexuality. It's compelling to think that Tiger Woods isn't a virgin. There is compelling evidence that my dog likes to lick his stink hole.

I mean, wake up! "He was killed because of a CIA/Laos drug trafficking ring?" Just about every investigator in the last 50 years has torn this case apart. How much evidence is there that the mob or the CIA or the DEA or the green men were involved? The only thing that has stayed consistent is the evidence against Lee Oswald. That's it. Nothing else. Your compelling theory is so stupid it's not even worth addressing. At least have a theory that is somewhere in the rational universe. There is no evidence that anyone but Lee Oswald did the deed. Not a single piece. Bring a piece forward and let's see it get shredded. Lee Oswald was the only one who did it. Tell us all what happened, hot stuff. The FBI, the CIA, everyone involved has investigated the case from all sides. Amazingly they found exactly nothing from the mafia. And yes, I'm daring you to go ahead and say that EVERY investigator and FBI agent is crooked enough to cover it up. I'm daring you to say that everyone in power is so completely guilty they tried to cover it up. You can't. You'll hide beyond some nebulous idea with no facts. Carry it through and every conspiracy theory falls flat at some point. Yours just happens to fall apart sooner than all the others (so, I guess in a back-handed way, that's pretty good thinking of you).

reply

I'm talking about the whining you CTs did that resulted in 50 million dollars of wasted US tax money in the form of the House Subcommittee. All we heard was how I'm talking about the whining you CTs did that resulted in 50 million dollars of wasted US tax money in the form of the House Subcommittee. All we heard was how unbelievably incompetent the Warren Commission was. Okay. Right. So, you whine and whine and whine and you get the HSCA. Sure, they concluded there was a conspiracy. But they did so on evidence that was later proven--beyond ABSOLUTELY any doubt, to be flawed. The acoustics evidence was proven to be flawed--thereby cancelling out their ruling. But what was interesting was the medical evidence, the ballistics evidence, the FBI investigations...all of that was put before a panel of experts from around the world. IN EVERY INSTANCE THEY AGREED WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION. IN EVERY SINGLE ONE. The only conclusion that was different was the acoustics evidence that was flawed. That's it. Nothing else. Not a single thing.unbelievably incompetent the Warren Commission was. Okay. Right. So, you whine and whine and whine and you get the HSCA.


One thing we can agree on, the HSCA was a joke. It is my opinion House never really wanted to investigate the assassinations of JFK and MLK, but were forced to do a dog and pony show for the benefit of their constituents. That is why Richard Spague, the first counsel for the committee was fired. He wanted to investigate the CIA.

"The evidence against Oswald is compelling"? What? How's this: there hasn't been a crime in the history of the world that has a suspect more guilty than Lee Oswald! It's IRON CLAD! He's seen 45 minutes later by four witnesses murdering only the third lawman in the state for the last 10 years. Okay, yeah, CTs love to point out that he couldn't have been there and blah blah blah. Let's just cut the crap and come to reality. HE SHOT TIPPIT. END OF STORY. THERE WAS NO OTHER STORY."

There were other stories about Tippit. First of all, the police lineup against Oswald in the Tippit case was prejudicial. But more importantly, other witnesses identified men of a different description than Oswald and one witness said he was shot by two men. But for the sake of argument, let's say Oswald shot Tippit. Oswald can be guilty of shooting Tippitt and it can still be a conspiracy.

"He was killed because of a CIA/Laos drug trafficking ring?"


I did not say that. I was using CIA involvement in drugs as an example of a proven case where 'conspiracy theorists'are later proven right. Remember, John Kerry was himself labeled a 'randy conspiracy buff' because of a subcommittee he headed that demonstrated connections between the Contras and the Cocaine trade. Years later, the same accusations were leveled against Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News. Webb was later vindicated by the CIA Inspector General Report, but too late to save his career.

"And yes, I'm daring you to go ahead and say that EVERY investigator and FBI agent is crooked enough to cover it up. I'm daring you to say that everyone in power is so completely guilty they tried to cover it up. You can't. You'll hide beyond some nebulous idea with no facts. Carry it through and every conspiracy theory falls flat at some point."


You just set up a straw man. I never claimed the FBI was involved. But if it was, you really only need one guy to make the FBI a part of the plot or a part of the coverup: J. Edgar Hoover. If you doubt Hoover ran his agency with an iron fist, I suggest you read a few biographies on the man.

You can scream 'Oswald Did It' as much as you want, the fact remains that the people aren't buying it, despite 50 years of saturation with the Warren Commission viewpoint. I might also point out that all evidence indicates that neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon completely bought into the Warren Report, and I think those two both know a thing or two more than you or I.

reply

50 million dollars! That's just awful. Damn CT nuts. That's almost as awful as creating a bogus cover story about a magic bullet which divided the country in two, even after 50 years. It's almost as awful as submitting to an administration that escalated a devastating war which ended up costing (inflated) 680 billion dollars, 60,000 American dead and 2 million Vietnamese dead.

reply

Yep...exactly. My personal favorite is how Robert Groden's books are just a bunch of hypothetical. "Nixon was in Dallas the night before...COULD IT BE that he was meeting with the conspirators?" Or, "Was Jackie Kennedy wearing pink to identify her as the target car?" Those are my favorites. I love the way the CTs can get mileage out of small things. After all, they've already solved the case, don't you know.

reply

[deleted]

tom hanks is another shill, tied at the hip to Zionist Hollywood which was created by Zionist bankers. Zac effron, jew. Abe zapruder, jew. Jack ruby, jew. the writers of this movie, 2 jews. They killed him for two reasons, he turned down the false flag invasion plan in "operation northwoods" and he planned on gutting the federal reserve(every single chairmen has been jewish)and issuing us bank notes instead of federal reserve notes, nationalizing the bank and taking away private ownership of the bank from the Zionists that have controlled western banking for centuries, which would allow the us to issue their own currency without paying interest on every dollar they print, which would have to be paid back in the form of compound interest. Compound interest is the worst form of interest, you don't just pay a fixed rate that you agreed to pay, they charge you interest on your interest and the longer the interest with interest doesn't get paid, the more the interest increases. some jews have talked about compound interest but they don't get much publicity, even Einstein's views on compound interest are rarely exposed, much like his incest, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it."
this movie is pure propaganda produced only to reinforce the official story that jfk was killed by a lone gunman, it's complete b.s, they even have a scene where the Disney jew, zac effron, tries to dramatically revive the president in a operating room, only a moron would try to revive a man who's brains were shot out of his head. Watch the video, his brains are all over the place at the end. Jews control the media, education system, government and banking systems of the western world and they abuse that power and our people. Their propaganda is very effective, most people are so brainwashed that they feel offended when you call out the jews on their atrocities that they tune out everything that's said or attack relentlessly whoever dared speak ill of the "chosen" people. They are not the biggest victims in history, they have been conquerors(Russia/Khazaria, Palestine, Cannan) and exterminators(cannanites, amalkites) as many times as they've been victims. They cry about being slaves yet 70% of them owned slaves in the colonial era, many of which were whites enslaved by the ottoman empire and sold. Sephardic jews are invaders, they weren't brought to Europe as slaves by romans, they invaded spain in 1500 BCE, long before Rome existed with their first empire, Phoenicia.

reply

You make some good points about Kennedy; unfortunately, all your bashing of Jewish people confuses the issue and makes your post unreadable.

I agree that Tom Hanks is a shill for the mainstream media. I agree that Kennedy was killed partly because of the Federal Reserve situation.

I would urge you to edit your post. Your good points are lost in all that ranting, and you're just going to upset people.

reply

I have the feeling it was an inside job. Whoever knew the parade route should be investigated. Also did someone ask JFK to leave the top down on the car? So what is the truth of November 23 1963? Will we ever know? Just asking???

reply

Typically when a bullet hits one in the back of the head, it snaps the head forward--not back, and to the left. But I suppose Oswald had a string on the bullet, and pulled it back out, as soon as it hit Kennedy's head.(?) Or is there some other explanation some of the ballistic 'experts' on this board can conjure? I first saw the Zapruder film on a PBS special when I was just a kid, and I knew enough about ballistics then to know that a gunshot forces its victim away from the shooter. Not toward him.

reply

I think the review presented on CNN this month on The Sixties confirms my beliefs even more. There was more than one shooter.

reply

"Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." That's not usually the direction in which one's head flails, when they've been shot from behind. I first saw the Zapruder film when I was about 12 years old, and I knew enough about ballistics then to know the last shot came from the front.

reply

Of course there was more than one shooter and more than likely our CIA and Military did the deed, because Kennedy wasn't as pliable as they wanted him to be. They wanted war...they wanted tax money, they wanted to sell their products. As Eisenhower said...watch your Generals. We didn't. As things are now, our Military decides who will be the president and how that hawk will give them the tax money they want. As long as they are in charge, America will always be at war with one country or another. It's really easy to see...follow the money.

reply

The warren Commision had their man from the beginning. All evidence and witnesses had to fit that lone nut theory and any evidence or witness that did not support this was not presented to the WC. So many witnesses with contrary views to the single shooter theory were not called and evidence contradicting this was either lost or not presented.

reply

[deleted]

"Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." That's not usually the direction in which one's head flails, when they've been shot from behind. I first saw the Zapruder film when I was about 12 years old, and I knew enough about ballistics then to know the last shot came from the front.
Why would this be the case? I have seen the post mortem photographs as I presume that you have and the visible damage to the skull was to the right front. If the material expelled from the skull exits out the front, physics tells me that the skull would go in the opposite direction from the material. Remember that 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Recoil, jet engines are examples of this. So is the head in the Zapruder film.

reply

Physics also dictates that if you are hit in the back of the head with a bullet, your head will snap forward--not backward. The only way I can see a bullet coming from behind and causing JFK's head to snap backward would be from a lower angle, from across the street. Still two shooters. Still a conspiracy. When a bullet goes through, it takes the majority of blood, and (in this case brains) out the exit wound. Jackie had a handful of Jack's brains in her hands at the hospital. You can see from the Zapruder film that the majority of matter goes out the back of his head.

reply

Physics also dictates that if you are hit in the back of the head with a bullet, your head will snap forward--not backward. The only way I can see a bullet coming from behind and causing JFK's head to snap backward would be from a lower angle, from across the street. Still two shooters. Still a conspiracy. When a bullet goes through, it takes the majority of blood, and (in this case brains) out the exit wound. Jackie had a handful of Jack's brains in her hands at the hospital. You can see from the Zapruder film that the majority of matter goes out the back of his head.
This is incorrect. The impact of the bullet created a shock wave among the contents of the head, and the contents were mostly fluids. The entrance wound was smaller than the exit wound as the majority of the damage to the head was due to the shock wave. The contents exiting from the head created a recoil effect, snapping the head to the rear.

I just watched the Zapruder film and it confirms the material exiting above and the front.

reply

Watch the Zapruder film again, very slowly. You can see the bullet first enters his forehead, above his right eye. No splatter of blood has come out the back of his head yet. There is an explosion of matter out the entrance wound, but that actually happens, unlike in the old movies, where a simple blood stain appears. The Wild Bunch got this correct by showing blood spurting out the entrance wound. Then his head snaps back, and the back of his head blows off. And I didn't say the entrance wound was larger than the exit wound, unless you are thinking I said the bullet exited his forehead. I have maintained since I first saw the Zapruder film as a child that the final/fatal bullet hit him in the front of the head, and exited out the back.

reply

[deleted]

A point was made earlier in this thread about the undertaker who prepared LHO for burial to the effect that the police took his fingerprints after the body had been prepared. If DPD and the FBI were going to frame Oswald, they would have done it at their leisure while his body was still in the morgue. Besides, fingerprinting is standard procedure when a body comes to the coroner, especially after a murder, so the logical conclusion here is that the mortician was incorrect.

Here is the copyrighted story by one M Duke Lane.


Grave Doubts: A Report on the Exhumation and Autopsy of
the Remains of Lee Harvey Oswald
================================
Copyright (C) 1992 by M. Duke Lane

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or
published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

In the nearly thirty years since JFK was killed in Dallas' Dealey Plaza,
there have been many mysterious and sinister rumors which have circulated
about this case. Not all of these have been proven correct or are
substantiated by evidence, but it remains that if told often enough by enough
people, such rumors often come to be accepted as "fact" by many of the people
following the progress of the assassination investigation. This is especially
true of allegations which appear in print in multiple authors' works.

One of the rumors which sprang up some time ago surrounds the exhumation of
LHO's body from its grave at Rosehill Cemetery in Fort Worth, TX. Apparently,
this rumor began with a statement by the mortician who had attended to LHO's
body prior to its burial. The mortician had stated following the exhumation
that the cement burial vault had been found "broken open" when the exhumation
began and that, moreover, LHO's skull not only didn't show evidence of a
craniotomy (cutting of the skull bones to facilitate examination of the brain
during autopsy), and the head was discovered severed from the body upon
exhumation.


This of course led to speculation that sometime between when LHO was buried)
and when his body was exhumed for examination, the casket was dug up and the
head of the accused assassin replaced with that of the "real" LHO, who'd in
actuality had nothing to do with the assassination at all. This supposedly
resulted in extensive damage to the cement-and-steel burial vault, which was
said to have been "broken open " on disinterrment.

This "planted head" (no pun intended) scenario leads us to believe that the
conspirators were so meticulous and omniscient that no detail escaped them,
not even the far-off contingency that someday, someone would want to exhume
the accused assassin's body to identify it by dental examination. It ascribes
to them such dark powers as the ability to dig up the grave at some
unspecified date unnoticed by anyone including Rosehill groundskeepers. It
implicates Fort Worth and Rosehill Cemetery officials and the exhumation
examiners as being witting or unwitting co-conspirators, "part of the
cover-up" by accident or design.

There are enough strange goings-on, enough lies and obfuscations, enough
unanswered questions about the JFK assassination without adding the
improbable and unsubstatiated, into which categorization this scenario must
certainly fall. It is preposterous and the facts simply do not bear out the
theory, as the following discussion will show.

Background
----------
Before examining the exhumation and autopsy itself, let us first review the
background against which this scenario is set. Who wanted LHO's body exhumed
in the first place and why? What were the circumstances which led up to the
exhumation?

In 1977, British author published a book[1] alleging that a look-alike
Russian agent, who had been the real assassin, had been buried in LHO's
place. To prove this theory, Eddowes entered into a series of legal
wranglings which eventually included the Tarrant and Dallas County Medical
Examiners' offices, Marina Oswald Porter, Lee's brother Robert Oswald, and at
least two courts. Perhaps typically, the Medical Examiners couldn't agree who
held jurisdiction over the matter (LHO was killed in Dallas County, but is
buried in Tarrant County). Marina sided with Eddowes, although she in fact
believed that the grave was empty. Robert wished to avoid the publicity he
knew would arise from the exhumation, and managed to delay the exhumation for
a little over a year.

Finally, on October 3, 1981, the way was cleared for the exhumation and
autopsy to take place. Marina refused to allow Lee's remains to leave the
Dallas/Fort Worth area, and the counties involved, citing "adverse
publicity," refused to allow county facilities to be used for the
examination. It had been decided earlier that the examination site must be
able to be effectively secured against all intrusions; an additional
consideration was the willingness of the staff to have their normal routine
disrupted and deal with possible controversy that could be expected from a
case of this nature. At last, permission was received from Baylor Hospital of
Dallas' Department of Pathology to use their facility, where it was conducted
the following day, October 4, 1981.

The examination team was selected by Marina and Eddowes, and included two
forensic pathologists and two forensic odontologists and their assistants[2].
All expenses were borne by Eddowes. Baylor accepted a nominal fee for the use
of their facilities, and the doctors worked for expenses only due to the
controversial nature of the case. At least one of the attorneys involved had
received no compensation for his efforts as late as 1984. These facts are
cited to allay any suspicions that the examination team was chosen by anyone
but those closest to the case, and that none of the participants were
involved for personal enrichment. It can be easily asserted that there was no
"outside direction" or "ulterior motives" involved in this endeavor: it was
100% above-board.

The Exhumation
--------------
Originally, it was planned to remove both the casket and cement burial vault
intact, to transport them to the vault company to be opened, and then to
proceed to Baylor. The doctors' report[3]--from which this information is
largely drawn--notes that backhoes began work shortly after dawn and worked
as speedily as safe and possible for better security and to allow the
cemetery to open for regular visitation as soon as possible. Even despite the
early hour, a small crowd had gathered at Rosehill Cemetery.

When the vault was exposed, it was immediately noted to be cracked--not
"broken open" as later reports had it. The plan to transport the intact vault
and casket was abandoned, and workers removed the lid of the concrete vault,
finding the casket to be severely water damaged. It is noted in the report
that "the cover was weak in many areas, and in one place had caved in
partially exposing the remains." So much, one would have to admit, for the
"high-grade, steel-reinforced vault" described by the mortician!

By the time the casket had been removed and placed in a waiting hearse at
9:00 am, a large crowd of spectators and news media representatives had
gathered. Concerns about security were relieved that these onlookers assumed
that the body would be taken to the Dallas Institute of Forensic Science (at
Parkland Hospital, a county facility which, as was noted earlier, could not
be used), and the casket was able to be offloaded at Baylor without incident.
It was taken into an examination room that had only one doorway, and to enter
that room, one must have walked throught two anterooms. It was, by any
standard, a secure examination site; there was no possibility of interference
or shenanigans.

The Examination
---------------
LHO's remains arrived at Baylor at 9:20 am, shortly after departing Rosehill
Cemetery. Security, as already noted, was of paramount importance, especially
to Marina who was concerned about publication of unauthorized publication of
photographs as had occurred earlier. The autopsy team was directed to take
only close-up documentary photographs as necessary to complete and verify
their identification of the body. Even still, a family friend videotaped the
entire proceeding (the tape has never surfaced). Security was handled by a
private agency chosen by the attorneys. The examination was not able to be
compromised in any way, and was totally under the control of the principal
parties.

Lest there be any doubt remaining about the integrity and security of the
examination, members of the news media were totally excluded from the
proceeding with the exception of one UPI reporter who was allowed only so far
as the anteroom (by agreement with the attorneys). The only persons present
during the proceedings were the four members of the examination team,
assisted by one pathology technician and one dental radiology technician. The
head of the Baylor pathology department and his chief associate helped with
the Baylor equipment, and a court reporter recorded the proceedings. Also
present were attorneys for Eddowes, Marina Porter, Robert Oswald and Rosehill
Cemetery, and the aforementioned family friend taping the proceeding.

But wait! What about the mortician? Wasn't he there? After all, he is the one
who told us about the severed head, the lack of a craniotomy, the one who
stirred the dark seeds of mystery and conspiracy for all the world to ponder.
Isn't he mentioned anywhere?

In point of fact, he is. The doctors' report devotes an entire sentence to
this man: "The mortician who closed Mr. Oswald's casket remained in the room
until the casket was re-opened" [emphasis added]. It is implicit in this
statement that, upon the opening of the casket (which we will speculate
included his identification of the remains as being dressed as the body he
buried in 1963), he left the room. This means that he was not present during
the medical or dental examinations, would not have seen a "severed head," and
most certainly did not witness the condition of the skull, least of all in
the detail he claims!

It would be possible to end the discussion here, for unless the doctors,
author Eddowes, Marina Oswald Porter, Robert Oswald and their respective
attorneys are all "part of the plot," we have seen conclusively that the
story told by the mortician is pure fabrication, that he did not in fact
witness the examination and was not in a position to make the observations he
claimed and which were duly reported by "researchers." Certainly, there is
nothing to be gained by describing the examination step by step, and in the
interests of space and decency, I will decline to do so.

It would be possible, except that in exposing the myth, it is important to
also set the record straight, to air the true facts. I won't describe the
condition of the body except to say that, considering the water damage to the
casket, you can imagine that it was not well-preserved. The casket materials
were largely rotted, the clothing was in various states of disintegration,
but each could be reasonably easily identified (the report goes so far as to
describe "a relatively intact pair of white with green diamond pattern boxer
undershorts" on the body!). The body itself was "markedly decomposed," but in
position suggestive of the "funeral photo" seen by many in various works on
the case. LHO's gold wedding band and a "red stone ring" were on the little
finger of his left hand (both were later identified by Marina as ones she had
placed upon her husband's hand when he'd been buried 21 years before).

The report specifically states that "the body as existed in the coffin showed
no evidence of mutilation other than postmortem disintegration," [emphasis
added] meaning very simply that the head was not severed prior to the
examination, and it was not replaced by a person or persons unknown operating
mysteriously in the dead of night.

So what about the "severed head?" Again the report is explicit: "The head was
removed from the remainder of the body by incision of the mummified soft
tissue maintaining the skull, cervical and thoracic vertebral column in
normal continuity." Note the words "incision of the mummified soft tissue."
Clearly, the doctors are describing the corpse which they were examining,
stating that they severed the head; they'd already confirmed that there was
"no evidence of mutilation," and also that everything was "in normal
continuity." Not words which would describe a head being chopped off of a
buried man and replaced by a free-standing skull of another man.

The head was removed from the corpse for one very simple reason: the body was
in sufficiently poor condition that the doctors did not wish to move it any
more than absolutely necessary. In fact, they limited their examination to
the anterior (front) not wishing to risk any greater damage to the body than
was required for their examination.

What about the missing craniotomy cuts? Again, the report: "A previous
autopsy saw cut in the usual fashion was present on the calvarium with an
anterior inverted V-notch in the right frontal region." In short, it was not
missing. The report does indicate that "the previously sawed calvarium was
not separated nor was it easily dislodged;" the team did not make any further
attempts to satisfy themselves that this was authentic since their purpose
was to conduct a dental examination of the deceased Oswald, not to perform a
complete post-mortem autopsy.

The team continued with its dental examination using LHO's Marine dental
records and satisfied themselves--the report goes into great detail about the
teeth and their comparison to the 1956 dental records--that the body in the
coffin was indeed that of LHO. "Positive dental identification was made," and
was duly reported at a 3:00 news conference held at Baylor Medical Center by
the examination team. "The remains in the grave marked as Lee Harvey Oswald
are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald," they said. The news conference was held just
as the remains of Lee Oswald were being transported back to Rosehill Cemetery
for reinterment in a new casket and vault.

The historical medical record directly opposes the claims made by the
mortician, and completely debunks the myth of the severed head. We can only
speculate upon the motivations of the mortician--who, throughout this article
has remained deliberately unnamed--for making these claims. That they were
repeated in print and lectures so many times and for so long, tending to
establish the claims as "fact," demonstrates the lack of research which has
gone into many books, and the reliance that the public has upon the
"authorities" on the Kennedy assassination to learn the truth of this event.
Hopefully, this discussion will lead readers to not accept everything that
they read as gospel, and to occasionally question the "authorities" when
their claims are as strange and ominous this was.

No matter the perspective one adopts, it is always good to remember the
ancient axiom: "Not is all as it seems to be." This was yet another case in
support of it.

END NOTES
---------
1. Eddowes, Michael, The Oswald File, Clarkson N. Potter, New York, 1977

2. The examination team consisted of Linda E. Norton, MD, the team's chief
forensic pathologist and former Dallas County Medical Examiner; James A.
Cottone, DMD, MS, Associate Professor and head of the Section of Forensic
Odontology, Department of Dental Diagnostic Science, The University of Texas
Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School; Irvin M. Sopher, DDS, MD,
Chief Medical Examiner for the State of West Virginia, South Charleston, WV
and clinical professor of pathology, West Virginia University School of
Medicine and Marshall University School of Medicine; and Vincent J. M.
DiMaio, MD, Bexar County Chief Medical Examiner, San Antonio, TX.

3. Norton, et al, "The Exhumation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,"
Journal of Forensic Sciences, Official Publication of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences (JFSCA), Volume 29, Number 1, January 1984, pp 19-38.




Please note the highlighted section and then read the rest of the report. This same mortician said that there was no ink on LHO's fingers prior to the visit by DPD and the FBI to the funeral home and it only appeared after they were there.

The mortician mentioned in the story, was identified as the same man who prepared LHO for burial. Taken altogether, I'd say that the credibility of the mortician has taken a gigantic nose-dive, at least to me.

Besides that, you don't bring latent fingerprints forth by putting ink on the hands. That is done to ink a card in order to establish or confirm the person's identity. And like I said that would have been done at the morgue.

reply

I believe Oswald acted alone and just watched this film for the fourth time. The perspective that Oswald acted alone is clearly presented only in the director's commentary. It is not presented in the film.

As some conspiracy-minded commenters have pointed out, there is nothing in this film to deny the notion that there could have been a second shooter, that Oswald might have been a patsy, that he didn't know anything, etc. The film itself is dealing with people at this particular Ground Zero and nearby and their individual reactions to the world blowing up around them.

I think the strength of "Parkland" lies in its straightforward presentation of people responding to something they can't understand. Where it may bother conspiracy theorists in a way it doesn't bother me is the way specific people, such as Hosty and Sorrels, are depicted as being as surprised as anyone regarding what happened. But you don't need them as active players in order to have your conspiracy.

I could go on and make some points about evidence itself being what's problematic, i. e. Officer Tippett's murder, Oswald's "curtain rods," his sudden impulse to catch a Van Heflin film in the middle of his workday, etc., but that doesn't go into what the movie is about. About the only real piece of "conspiracy evidence" that gets bashed in "Parkland" is the matter of the Parkland surgeons performing a tracheotomy on the spot to try and give Kennedy more room to breathe. Some conspiracy theorists claim that wound was intentionally damaged later on to obscure evidence rather than at the moment in an attempt to save the President. But even here, it's not something that requires a Lone Nut view to accept. You can still say it was an entrance wound, or an exit wound, and it doesn't really change anything in how "Parkland" handles it.

The secondary stuff about Oswald's loony mother and Oswald's sullen enjoyment of the anarchy he sowed (in a confrontation scene with Hosty that is deleted from the film but available on the DVD) is likewise consistent with my view of him acting alone, but not dependent on it. That Oswald and his mother were odd people is something many people get without believing he was Kennedy's killer.

I'm grateful and appreciative of "Parkland" for what it is. This extends to understanding it was not made as a scene-by-scene refutation of "JFK" but as a piece of representational art that stands up well enough on its own.

reply