good movie.........nice way to kill a lazy saturday. Who killed Kennedy? Who cares. He's just as dead. Oswald's rifle being recovered, we atleast know he took part. Who cares, he's dead too. Was he acting alone?......perhaps......perhaps not. Either way, Kennedy's dead......and the one man we know to have fired atleast one shot from his very own rifle recovered at the scene is also dead.
Well I'm back from an extended absense, and this seemed like the perfect thread to post in.
I too have seen JFK and loved it, though if anyone is thinking of watching it on their own, maybe do a little backgroud research into the JFK assassination. I watched this movie for the first time as part of a journalism class in my high school, as part of a section on various forms of propoganda and how different forms of media can be altered to tell a different story....
Than I watched it on my own during the summer. Truly Oliver Stone knows how to tell an event, even one that holds so many different opinions such as the JFK assassination. All in all, it's one of those movies I think everyone should see at least once.
great post,my thoughts as well.I tell people if they are only going to see one more movie in their lifetime,they should make it JFK.I have read several dozens of books on the subject and I totally understand why stone chose jim marrs book CROSSFIRE-the plot that killed kennedy because IMO its the book that has done the most extensive research on the case and proves that stone pretty much hit the nail right on the head on everything he said in that movie.
Originally posted by Kram3r
I'm not going to go into the conspiracy theory in this post because that's reserved for the forum dedicated to it. However, I loved this movie. Great acting & story.
Hahaha...The topic of the whole movie is a conspiracy, but you don't want to discuss that? Hahaha...Too funny.
Yeah, JFK is a great movie. Really nice lights. I loved the sounds...Oooo, the sounds.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Hahaha...The topic of the whole movie is a conspiracy, but you don't want to discuss that? Hahaha...Too funny.
Oh, and you were able to work that out by yourself? That's great. It's good you're not just pointing out the obvious. 🙄
No, I don't want to discuss the conspiracy, which is why I only gave my opinion on the movie. I think discussing the theory would result in this thread being moved into the Conspiracy forum so I left it at that.
Originally posted by Kram3r
Oh, and you were able to work that out by yourself? That's great. It's good you're not just pointing out the obvious. 🙄
I guess the feeling of incredulousness is only something you provoke, but not understand.
Originally posted by Kram3r
No, I don't want to discuss the conspiracy, which is why I only gave my opinion on the movie. I think discussing the theory would result in this thread being moved into the Conspiracy forum so I left it at that.
Haha, I guess you forgot that you mentioned that the 'story' was good, but you're not going to discuss that here. Thank you for your respect for your civic duty. It is wholly honorable. Hahahaha. However, when discussing a movie that has the central thesis of a conspiracy, it would probably be pertinent to discuss that. Otherwise, it's like going to see a football match, and only discussing the lovely boots the players wore.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I guess the feeling of incredulousness is only something you provoke, but not understand.
Is that what you're calling it now, "the feeling of incredulousness"? I thought it was compensation for a small penis, my fault.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Haha, I guess you forgot that you mentioned that the 'story' was good, but you're not going to discuss that here. Thank you for your respect for your civic duty. It is wholly honorable. Hahahaha.
I know I mentioned the story but all I mention of it was that I thought it was good, no more.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
However, when discussing a movie that has the central thesis of a conspiracy, it would probably be pertinent to discuss that. Otherwise, it's like going to see a football match, and only discussing the lovely boots the players wore.
I must say you do make a point. However, there are conspiracy nuts on this forum and giving my opinion may make certain members result in flaming and result in lengthy posts which I don't want to get into and personally, I think is a waste of time.
Originally posted by Kram3r
Is that what you're calling it now, "the feeling of incredulousness"? I thought it was compensation for a small penis, my fault.
You're right. I do have a ridiculously small penis. Thanks for showering me in shame.
Originally posted by Kram3r
I know I mentioned the story but all I mention of it was that I thought it was good, no more.I must say you do make a point. However, there are conspiracy nuts on this forum and giving my opinion may make certain members result in flaming and result in lengthy posts which I don't want to get into and personally, I think is a waste of time.
Fair enough. I can understand your reasoning now, it just seemed a little bizarre at first.
Anyway, yeah, I liked 'JFK'. It's definitely one of Oliver Stone's better movies, along with 'Nixon', 'Platoon', 'Wall Street', and 'Born On The 4th of July'.
Originally posted by Roland
I've seen it and thought it was a great film, I also have the book The Killing of a President. I suggest that if you're really interested in the JFK assassination you take a look at that book b/c it does pose some very good questions about the whole assassination.
Yeah I know.Thats a great book. 👆 It for sure poses some good questions about the assassination for sure.The photos for sure show there was at least one gunman behind the picket fence in that book.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You're right. I do have a ridiculously small penis. Thanks for showering me in shame.
Oh, don't worry, there are many ways to fix such a problem. I recommend this guy he's the best.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Fair enough. I can understand your reasoning now, it just seemed a little bizarre at first.
That's ok.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah I know.Thats a great book. 👆 It for sure poses some good questions about the assassination for sure.The photos for sure show there was at least one gunman behind the picket fence in that book.
Other than the photos the one thing that I think clearly shows there was more than one gunman was the whole "Single Bullet Theory". The theory says that only three shots were fired, one shot missed, the second shot hit J.F.K in the head. The other shot hit the back of his neck, went through his body, exited his throat, continued on to strike Governor Connally by the right armpit, fracturing his rib and collapsing a lung. Now this is where the bullet gets freaky, after collapsing his lung the bullet exits his chest by his right nipple, it then enters and exits his right wrist and then bury's itself in his left thigh.
Also add this into account, the doctor that treated Connally stated that the bullet "behaved as thought it had never struck anything but him."
More than one gunman or freaky coincidence?