Whether or not any of Garrison's beliefs regarding the assassination is true, I have no idea. But I've always believed there's no way Oswald acted alone.
reading up on him and learning he was a total crackpot who literally had no case nor evidence and was just trying to make a name for himself in the media really ruined the movie for me, which at first watching was a mind blowing experience
I’ve been busy working on repairing my garage which is rotting away on its foundation.
God, I hate that. Why is it always garages? Is it because nobody lives in them and stuff goes too far before it's noticed? Once a garage has one little wrong thing that's noticeable it becomes an enormous time sink. It's as though biggerboat were put in charge of all the world's garages...
All good rbk. I highly respect your opinions here.
thanks brother feeling is mutual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Rewatched the 3.5 hour version of JFK, mostly for the 16 minute Donald Sutherland monologue in the middle.
This is a very well-made movie, but it's gotten a little clunky in the thirty years since it was released.
Costner, while great in the closing summation scene, is terribly miscast in the rest of the movie. His southern accent is laughable and his character way too earnest.
All the scenes with his home life and Sissy Spacek should've been cut. They're not interesting.
What is interesting is remembering how revolutionary the fast-paced editing was at the time...now, it just seems normal.
The huge cast is great, but when Sutherland is on the screen, you see what this could've been. He truly was a master.
Whether or not any of Garrison's beliefs regarding the assassination is true, I have no idea. But I've always believed there's no way Oswald acted alone.
agree with pretty much all of this esp the part about needing to just get rid of all the family stuff.
I've done a TON of reading on the assassination and I'm not gonna derail this thread and turn it into a conspiracy theory tangent but there is some very interesting stuff and you can fall down a very deep rabbit hole.
good place to start is the 1976 HSCA (house select committee on assassinations) and then of course there are a million books on it, mark lane and gaeton fonzi have very interesting books on it (list is way too long to include everyone but there are def a ton of crackpots so have to really vet who you're reading).
fwiw tommy lee jones' character was revealed to indeed be a contract agent for the CIA and southerlands character was based on a former army special operations officer named L. Fletcher Prouty and opinions about him obv vary wildly.
one thing that is undebatable is the warren commission was fiction and at the very least the actions of the FBI and CIA following the assassination were incredibly suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickroll
reading up on him and learning he was a total crackpot who literally had no case nor evidence and was just trying to make a name for himself in the media really ruined the movie for me, which at first watching was a mind blowing experience
back and to the left, back and to the left
you shouldn't just take as gospel everything you read.
he def had his issues but a bunch of the accusations about him were totally fictitious or extremely exaggerated and made by people with serious motives to discredit him.
at the very least like southerland says in that famous Washington meeting and what remains true to this day garrison is the only person to ever bring anyone to trial for the assassination of JFK and if it's such an obvious case of one lone gunman acting completely on his own why have all the files that were supposed to be declassified continue to be held from the public and protected so fiercely from declassification so many decades after the assassination?
on a totally different note one thing I always found interesting but apparently I'm the only one as I've never seen/read/heard anyone else even mention this but and maybe it's because my knowledge on this subject is lacking and there are tons of other examples of this but it seems to me that so often when someone is so radicalized and politically motivated to the point of carrying out an assassination of a major public figure or just a major act of political violence such as 9/11 or McVeighs OKC bombing etc when captured they don't ever protest their guilt or try and claim they didn't do it they just want to tell everyone why it had to be done and justify their actions.
but from the time oswald was arrested to the time he was so conveniently murdered he maintained his innocence quite adamantly he never once acted like most other people I can remember in history who we know to be absolutely guilty (not talking about other possible assassins who claimed to be framed and who were never conclusively found to have done it).
I'm guessing I must be wrong on this subject otherwise someone else would have brought it up but just seems like all of the debate about the assassination focused on physical evidence (and rightly so) and would have been interesting to get more into his mindset and motives (there has been some very cursory discussions nothing to the level I've seen for other suspected terrorists).
sorry for the wall of text this is a subject that really fascinates me and somehow I still haven't been completely convinced of anything other than there is very little likelihood that oswald acted alone (HSCA came to same conclusion) and at the very least the FBI and CIA acted aggressively after the assassination to hinder the investigation and keep a ton of facts from the public.
lol and all the "RBK is a looney dingbat" faction, you're welcome!
