Sunday, April 09, 2006

History Channel vs Oliver Stone

I just finished watching the History Channel's version of the Kennedy assassination. The 3D graphics were pretty amazing, showing how the second shot traveled downward through Kennedy's neck into Connely's back. They even had Oswald's scorecards from when he qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines. One of Oswald's target illustrations was a human torso at 200 yards where Oswald scored 49 out of a possible 50. Kennedy was only 88 yards away from Oswald when the third, lethal shot was fired.

The H.C. piece also discussed the Oliver Stone movie, "JFK."

Oliver Stone's hero in JFK, Jim Garrison, was described as a real crackpot... Not at all as Kevin Costner portrayed him. Garrison's key witness against Clay Shaw, one Perry Raymond Russo, flunked a lie detector test. The FBI examiner who administered the test was interviewed for the History Channel piece and said that Garrison's witness was obviously lying. He also said that when he reported this to Garrison, Garrison went ballistic.

But the power of film is an amazing thing. Most gullible Americans who watched JFK will believe that Clay Shaw was a CIA conspirator and that Jim Garrison was a hero. They will believe Oswald could not have acted alone for various reasons... reasons that were all addressed in the H.C. piece and shown to be baseless.

Oliver Stone has to know all this. So too, Kevin Costner, Sissy Spacek, and Tommy Lee Jones who starred in Stone's movie. The movie tells many lies, distorts known history, and slanders many innocent people. But that's Oliver Stone. And that's the great and noble Hollywood.

Anyway, I highly recommend this documentary.

4 comments:

Larry Head said...

I agree with this on many levels...But as a Shooter and a Pistol Marksman while in the Service, I was always troubled my the ballistics evidence highlighted in the Warren Commisions report. Bullets, especially high velocity ones such as those used to shoot Kennedy do not behave in tha matter. Had he been shot with a .227 I would have more faith in the plausibility of that account. I have studied ballistics somewhat and it just does not add up...Additionaly, I recall being in te library building in the late 70's...Even then as a kid I questioned the possibility of Oswald making those shots. His marksmans scorecard was at a stationary target at 200 yards lying in the prone, Kneeling, or standing postions. Additionally, the rifle claimed to have been used was sorely inadequate for the accuracy and speed required to make the other shots...And the Evidence that the Bullet exited out the back of Kennedy's skull has never been subjected to the kind of Scruntiy it should have...Hollywaood makes movies and the truth is never as important as the story...Evidence the new breed of Journalists that we suffer with...

Malott said...

Larry,
I hope you get a chance to see the documentary. The computer 3D images based upon measurements at the scene and the Zabruder film would probably answer many of your questions.
I can't comment on the ballistics, other than what I saw in the piece, but I do know that Oswald had placed boxes at the window on which he could steady his shot.

As always, thanks for your comments.

Charlie said...

I'm always fascinated by how quick we are to believe in conspiracy theories about any number of subjects, from Kennedy to UFOs to the CIA staging 9/11. We have reasons to be distrustful of big organizations like government and industry and the military and the intelligence services. We can't know for sure if they are telling us the truth, and a certain percentage of our population is convinced that they never tell us the truth. So we come up with our own, often wild ideas of what really happened, and these scenarios become larger than life the more skeptical we become of the official story.

It appears to me that modernism has somehow fed this sort of thing. We seem to take if for granted that we are always being lied to. I wonder why that is?

Thanks for the review of the HC piece, Chris. It sounds like it's worth seeing.

Larry Head said...

Chris...I plan on seeing the piece when as soon as I can. I don't think Stone had it correct and I am still ambivalent towards a greater conspiracy that the Govm't killed JFK. The boxes would have helped but the action of the Rifle and the ability of even a superb marksman to make that many shots in that time frame with that weapon accurately has been discounted time and again. I simply don't think Oswald acted alone. At the same time...The Warren Report was the typical milkbrad overworded blowhard stuff that we always get out of a Washington Investigation. And it places much doubt on the politicians ability to actually get to the truth of the matter. I believe that the commision, when faced with variables and evidence they could not explain took the lazy way out adn posited it's own theorys as to what happened just to close the deal.