Let me be clear ... it was the film's JFK facts that I found 99% accurate (according to my limited research which may not have even included the book Alex says is vital) ... not the Clay Shaw facts. I have zero idea if those are true, and I have zero problem if the movie is presented entirely from Garrison's point of view.

I also have no problem with Garrison's story being dramatized. Yeah, he didn't present the Zabruder film in court. But, as the District Attorney, neither did he even present the case. That would have made for a rather boring conclusion to the film, eh? So, yeah, his story dramatized per movie bio conventions. The JFK stuff presented, to my satisfaction, with remarkable accuracy.


And, frankly, if Alex doesn't see a conspiracy with his own eyes by watching the Zabruder film, I see no reason to read a book he claims as vital on the subject. I don't mean to get personal, Alex. But we are clearly living in two different worlds. There's nothing wrong with yours.

Having not seen the film I'm curious, I always thought of it as a drama rather than a documentary. Meaning it's goal to entertain would trump any dispassionate search for truth.

On the other hand, the Nova episode that dealt with the JFK assassination was, I thought, well done and explained in detail how the single shooter explanation was plausible.

Have the Mythbusters tackled this one yet?

You seem to be confusing me and flippyshark in this post, I have not recently offered any book as vital. However, I did a couple weeks ago ask if among the couple dozen books (I believe) you said you've read on the Kennedy assassination any were defending the case of Oswald as a lone shooter? I also then suggested Vincent Bugliosi's recent Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Not because it is vital (I've only read small parts of it) but because it is an extremely detailed anti-conspiracy case that lays it out in a single source.

That said, no I don't see any proof of a conspiracy when watching the Zapruder film. I feel I've seen adequate explanation of everything shown in that film without relying on complex (and frequently simply irrational) conspiracies.

And I feel bad for flippyshark. Apparently he can simultaneously be confused with JWBear and me.

No, but Penn and Teller have on BULL****. They constructed a tasteless but nevertheless interesting experiment to show that, if shot by a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, a melon (or head) will actually move TOWARD the rifle as matter is expelled from the other side. Every time, the melon falls toward the rifle. (The same experiment is pictured in their book How To Play With Your Food) Not really all that scientific, and likely to irritate more than enlighten, but that's Penn and Teller sometimes.

This thread seems in danger of derailing, and I've found that absolutely no one will ever change their minds on this issue. I've seen friendships break up over it. I'm totally cool with those who are convinced, though I am not.

I've been confused with worse.

And I have Bugliosi's book, but I haven't jumped into it yet.

I've sat down with people and watched the Zapruder film over and over, and marveled at how we all saw what our predispositions led us to see. We all pointed fingers at specific spots on the screen shouting "Look! How can you not see that?!" and we all went away mad.

Which I now find really interesting.

yeah, which is why I'll discuss politics, religion, abortion, homosexual sex, anyone's mother, and Hitler on the internet, but will NOT discuss the Kennedy assassination.


Alex, i'm sorry if I thought you were recommending the Bugliosi book as vital instead of merely illuminating. I didn't read it, and I neglected to get back to you in that thread because I didn't want to perpetuate a Kennedy assassination discussion. That's a tough call, here, where I'd love to discuss the film JFK.

Let's see....movies....

I didn't go far back so I don't know...

Anyone see 'Mirrors'? Comments?

I know from my last visit that people did go see 'Tropic Thunder'. I didn't care for the gore parts but it was funny and I loved Tom Cruise in it. I don't know why some people don't like him, I don't see what they do, I guess. I had heard from here that he was in it but I didn't tell my family and they were blown away by it.

:snap: :snap: to the LoT gang. :cool:

I really enjoyed Tropic Thunder. Not a laugh-a-minute, but I was entertained throughout. Tom Cruise was hysterical. Robert Downey, Jr. great as always. I'm sure I missed half of the references, since I also caught so many of them everywhere.

I like it when satirists turn the scalpel on themselves, or their own field at least.

Yes, that did add to the fun of the movie.

I just could have done without the blood. LOL I know, dwelling here. And, I dont' want to spoil it for anyone so I'll just leave it at that.

I loved RDJs character. And the end scene with Lance....oh, Hubster just doesn't know who anyone is and he didn't get that one.

Who were the other actors nominated for the Academy Award with Ben Stiller's character? I couldn't catch them all. John Voight, hahaha. And then Tobey Maguire for the gay monk film from the preview that had me in stitches. Oh, there was one more I recognized, and now forgot. But I missed one or two, it went by so quickly.



Also, the gore in the first scene was excrutiating, but thankfully not so much in the rest of the film.