How accurate is this movie? Did the US really kill its own president? Why would they want to do that?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
How accurate is this movie? Did the US really kill its own president? Why would they want to do that?
Bay of Pigs debacle, simple as.
It was LBJ making a move and all the rest of the government could do was sit there and take it. Real greaseball shit.
Really makes you think
>How accurate is this movie?
its fictional but kino
The theatrical cut is more centered around the paranoia people fetl after having their president literally murdered right in front of them by some rando gay. However the directors cut is the one that goes head on with the cosnpiracy.
Either way theres alot of truth in the film, not stuff that confirms 100% that JFK was killed but stuff that raises doubts, like how the first thing LBJ did as the president was revert JFK´s desition on vietnam, the model of the riffle, the magic bullet and how its still debated if the picture of Lee with the weapon is real or not.
>not stuff that confirms 100% that JFK was killed
>not stuff that confirms 100% that JFK was killed
This is not really the part people find controversial :/
There wasn't a conspiracy.
The only reason this conspiracy nonsense ever got so big is because most Americans can't wrap their heads around how some average guy with a rifle can gun down their president in the open. As if Oswald isn't part of a long line of glory-seeking schizos that have assassinated world figures.
>Americans can't wrap their heads around how some average guy with a rifle can gun down their president in the open.
there is also a lot of random chance (serendipity) involved like Oswald getting a job in the Book Depository a couple months before. The motorcade route being announced in advance in newspapers and Kennedy decided to use an open car. People find it hard to believe in a long chain of random events any one of which if broken would have led to a different outcome. But of course things like that happen every day.
>The motorcade route being announced in advance in newspapers
Wait, I thought it was a spurn of the moment decision
>falling for the fake news
The route was actually changed at the last minute to go directly by the book depository
Exactly this, people with the benefit of retrospect like to misattribute this kind of thing to some kind of hyper-competent boogeyman when time and again the usual suspects (CIA, communists, whatever) have proven themselves to be cartoonishly impotent villains at best and incompetent buffoons at worst. If there were no crazy conspiracies, the state would lose the illusion of power so ironically keeping them alive helps them keep control.
Consider that even with JFK assassination precedent, the pope didn't even have a bulletproof popemobile until the 80s *after* his own assassination attempt
>misattribute this kind of thing to some kind of hyper-competent boogeyman
if you actually read from the people who have done the legwork on this subject for the last 60 years, this isn’t what’s being argued for at all. there’s a grand canyon sized area of possibility between
>Oswald was a lone nut
and
>hyper competent operatives planned every inch of the assassination
and we have the last 60 years of American clandestine operations in dozens of other countries like Iran, Italy, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, etc. that give the public illustrative examples of how the US carries out coups and the kinds of people they’re willing to work with to maintain a degree of separation and plausible deniability by design. It’s not so much that there are masterminds within the US government, it’s that the US government has an infinite money glitch and employs some of the most talented risk assessment analysts in the world, and both of those things together mean that even fricking it up completely still works for the people in charge because the risk is hedged on all sides.
Can someone explain this scene with the CIA director in Nixon?
What files was Nixon so concerned about? Is it proven to be real?
Was the director dude implying he had JFK killed?
Operation Northwoods. It was a proposed but not implemented series of false flag attacks that the US would blame on Cuba so they could invade. It passed through the Joint Chiefs but Kennedy thought it was insane and shut it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
>Back and to the left
was schizo bullshit. You can clearly see that the reason he moved that way was backpressure from the exit wound exploding the front of his skull off.
I could go either way. There's enough fishy stuff surrounding the case to make me think it was Oswald or a man on the Grassy Knoll. In either case to think that OZ did it all by himself with ZERO help. CIA, KGB, Mafia, Cuban, or otherwise. Is moronic.
I could see certain elements in government standing by and letting it happen, and I could see “oh shit that confidential informant we had shot JFK, bury all the evidence he ever worked for us”.
But I’ve been to Dealey Plaza and it’s a lot tinier than the movies make it seem. There’s not really anywhere on the Grassy Knoll for a second shooter to hide. The distance from the Book Depository isn’t far, it was a slow-moving open-top vehicle with a raised rear seat, and Oswald still missed 1/3 shots.
the hypothesis isn’t a literal man on the grassy knoll, it’s that shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll, aka the giant parking lot overlooking the street that the motorcade turned down.
look, this movie is better taken as a dramatization of Jim Garrison’s attempt to prosecute an individual in connection with the assassination of JFK. a feat, I might add, that literary no one had done or will ever do again. its working theory about who actually did it is background, and as long as the JFK record release continues to be delayed over and over, no one will ever actually know. but one thing is absolutely for sure— the official story is bogus. Oswald did not act alone to kill JFK because he thought the latter was an anti-communist or some bullshit, if anything JFK was closer to being a communist sympathizer. not only that, but how does the lone nut theory explain Jack Ruby walking straight up to Oswald surrounded by a couple dozen officers and plug him ON CAMERA? set aside all the theorycrafting and just think about the facts we absolutely know for sure and try and make the “official story” stand up to them. you’ll sound crazier than the jet fuel can’t melt steel beams people.
also if you think it’s such an easy feat to land a headshot from the Book Depository, go ahead and show us
https://web.archive.org/web/20041130154734/http://www.jfk-reloaded.com/
>go ahead and show us
download link doesn't work but regardless I've "played" JFK reloaded several times before. it's not hard to get a headshot, what it was meant to show was the difficulty of getting a shot that followed the path of the "magic bullet"
I was being glib, and iirc the game can still be downloaded elsewhere on the internet. my general point is that you’d have to be thick as a brick to buy the warren commission’s conclusions about the JFK assassination. but I get why American’s just wanna stay asleep about this subject.
You might be able to convince me about the inside baseball politics and Oswald being a patsy for the CIA or whatever, but JFK was shot from the book depository because it was the ideal position to take that shot, there were dozens of witnesses, and irrefutable evidence of shots being fired there.
It's like 9/11 conspiracies claiming there weren't any planes, that's just fricking stupid. The easiest way was to literally just crash 2 planes, who was piloting them and why is up for debate but disputing the method when it's abundantly clear just muddies the waters and plays into the hands of "the powers that be" that such conspiracies claim to be behind these events.
just to be clear, I’m not a 9/11 truther, Al Qaeda operatives definitely flew those planes into the towers and they definitely collapsed from the points of impact. of course, there’s also evidence from declassified FOIA documents that show the CIA and top level DoS officials actively tracked the movement of the hijackers and couldn’t provide an explanation for how they were mysteriously from no-fly lists which permitted them to re-enter the country and then board the planes, but that’s neither here nor there.
I’m also not implying that JFK was killed in some deep-state coup, in fact I’m explicitly stating that the public will likely never know why JFK was killed and frankly as someone who has read quite a bit on the subject I feel the speculation is best left to people who have dedicated their life to the subject. but I will absolutely argue against the idea that the killshot on JFK was fired from the Book Depository, or that the shot prior to the fatal one somehow moved laterally within the limousine to pass through Governor Connally. that’s the conclusion of the Warren Commission and it’s nonsense. if you leave out shooters on the overpass, which I’d say is fair considering how easy it would be to see them from the ground, there are still lots of places to fire at Kennedy and eyewitness reports state that it sounded like “machine gun fire” in the plaza at that time, implying a number of shooters. there’s a line in this movie where Joe Pesci’s character says “even the shooters don’t know who killed Kennedy” or something to that effect, and imho it’s much more plausible that a number of people, who may or may not have been working in collusion, were there in Dealey Plaza that day. notably, George Herbert Walker Bush was one of the people there that day, and he has provided conflicting alibis until giving up and saying he “doesn’t remember” what he was doing in Dallas on that day.
>It's like 9/11 conspiracies claiming there weren't any planes
No one has ever argued that though. The "no plane" argument comes from the fact that somehow the only video footage of the Pentagon being struck comes from a single shitty CCTV camera and does not depict anything that could be definitively called a plane. Which isn't proof of anything in and of itself, but IS fricking weird.
Why do I get the feeling you are too young to remember 9/11?
>No one has ever argued that though
You're telling me I imagined all those conspiracy theories of cruise missiles or controlled demolition? They're out there and my point is they muddy the water. Also, I'm 30. I was a kid but I distinctly remember 9/11.
>cruise missiles or controlled demolition
Dude, read my post again carefully. The cruise missile theory IS the "no plane" theory. It refers to the Pentagon.
The controlled demolition theory refers to WTC 7, which did indeed collapse without being struck by a plane.
No one has ever argued planes didn't hit the towers. That happened live on television.
>No one has ever argued planes didn't hit the towers
Are *you* old enough to remember 9/11? People absolutely did argue this, just days if not hours after it happened. It's stupid but they did and probably still do. Look up John Lear, holographic planes, anything like that and you'll find it. People deny the television recordings, people deny eyewitnesses because "they were traumatized", or "the news stations received doctored tapes to play" and attribute it to some deep state boogeyman. It muddies the water for legitimate questions behind the attacks by destroying credibility of those questioning it by lumping them in with the schizos.
No one other than schizos ever thought those theories were credible. You're backpedaling and scouring google for evidence of at least one person to have said there were no planes on 9/11. My point stands; you have confused the "cruise missile" and "controlled demolition" narratives with the notion that there were no planes at all on 9/11. The latter narrative never had any traction.
>The latter narrative never had any traction.
Just like the Grassy Knoll theory shouldn't have any traction because of this movie's moronic "back and to the left" assertion, but here we are.
>explain Jack Ruby walking straight up to Oswald surrounded by a couple dozen officers and plug him ON CAMERA?
Ruby's shooting of Oswald was another total random event. Oswald was supposed to be transferred in an armored car hours earlier. Ruby just strolled into the parking garage a few minutes before Oswald was brought out , he was not waiting around all day stalking him. Ruby's movements that day were accounted for. Back then police security was very lax compared to today. They even let Oswald hold a press conference and answer questions from reporters when he was accused of two murders. This would never be allowed today.
Mafia isn't powerful enough to have this level of government coordinated coverup. If they had any involvement at all then it was with the aid of CIA assets.
It took many liberties and wasn't accurate at all - much of it was disproven. But it doesn't matter because it was kino.
No. LBJ and Hoover killed JFK, which the movie doesn't even mention. The Kennedy's had dirt on both and wanted them gone. Hoover was first on the chopping block. They had pictures of him being gay in a brothel (Hoover was gay fyi), which he knew would end his career. They had proof that LBJ rigged the Texas election and was in bed with big oil and criminal elements around Texas. They were slowly killing his political career. Both had no choice but to kill the Kennedy's or face global embarrassment.
Everybody knows who killed the Kennedys. To make it public now would just embarrass the US, so it's kept secret.
The only reason people like JFK is because he didn't live long enough to frick everything up. LBJ is the worst president ever, he started the Vietnam war, oversaw the signing of Hart-Celler and pandered to anti-White Civil Rights Movement rioters, but JFK would have done all that too if he was still around for it.
JFK had plans to draw down involvement in Vietnam, not escalate it
it was the archetype that our beloved govt learned from to perfect their modern day conspiracy technique. because it was the early 60s, it was a little messy, because boomers are morons.
j-j-j-j-j-j
J-J-J-J-J-J-J-J-J
Oswald did it alone. His motive might be the only mystery -- mainly that if anyone else was involved in helping him.
It's a fun conspiracy movie, though.
Sorry, but that does not fit with the narrative
Did jack Rubenstein act alone too?
Yes it's accurate. Read the book "On the trail of Assassins". It gets waaaay deeper into it with actual sources and court documents.
The movie should have been about Dulles, Johnson and Hoover. Those nibbas had him killed. It's really that easy.
If Dulles had JFK killed why was he allowed on the commission investigating the assassination?
>Why would they want to do that?
war makes a lot of money for a small amount of people.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD ACTED ALONE