Watching "JFK".....

[LeftofU]

how much do I belive and what are the facts worth gleening from this movie? Heard a lot of different things about this movie.
Thanks.

[LeftofU]

1. an ignorant kick

[BlueJazz]

4. Stone (director) said that a lot of the film was based..

...on reports and interviews with undercover people who didn't want to be identified for fear of reprisals.
Naturally the Republicans denied the entire film and called it a pack of lies.
As for myself, I was a LOT more doubtful of the films premise then, than I am today, having seen the dirty crap that the Repugs are capable of....(in this day and age)...

[LeftofU]

5. My greatest fear is that we are in a....

time again by which this is the level of politics.
I think Bush will fight like a trapped rat if he's cornered.
There seem to be alot at stake for them and the godsellers.

[BigBigBear]

2. Garrison's investigation

was roundly criticized as political grandstanding and without much merit. Clay Shaw was a ruined man after it was all over, and Garrison was considered a blowhard, ego-maniacal opportunist by the New Orleans law enforcement community - 'despised' would understate it.

Even most of the conspiracy theorists have distanced themselves from Garrison's central thesis.

Having said that, he did turn up a lot of interesting evidence regarding Ferrie, Bannister and their relationship to Oswald (the C.A.P. connection, Ferrie's library card, Oswald's purported sightings in and around Bannister's office, etc) that have never really been fully explained. Shaw also DID admit later that he worked for the CIA - in what capacity will probably always remain a matter of debate.

Stone takes some liberties in the film (shooters in the sewers, for example, and the Donald Sutherland character, which was loosely based on L. Fletcher Prouty) that have forever doomed it to the lower echelons of credibility - but a fair amount of evidence that Garrison uncovered has retained some mystery.

[LeftofU]

3. thanks...

what should be taken from this picture and run with?

[BigBigBear]

6. Read the book

"On The Trail Of The Assasins." Make up your own mind.

Fair warning - wandering into JFK assasination lore is a risky proposition. It's a pretty deep pool, and Garrison's is only one of many propositions about what happened on 11/22/63.

Like I said, Ferrie and Co. cast an interesting shadow over the JFK story.

I've read a dozen or so assasination books - for my money, the best may be Jim Marrs' "Crossfire".

If you're hungry for the status-quo, establishment-sanctioned version, hold your nose and read Posner's "Case Closed".

Then read Mike Griffith (a Buchanan supporter, no liberal) dissect Posner without mercy here:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm

The film isn't central to assasination research - it's a mishmash of many theories, and portrays Garrison in a far kinder light than most who knew him would agree with.

[alphafemale]

7. Lurid fascination....speculation

It's an incredible tale, but not a place to turn to for "provable facts." imho

I doubt all the questions will ever be answered. Dead men don't talk.

Conveniently enough...for both the guilty and speculators.