| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:on October 26th 2017, Oliver Stone will collapse into a smugness singularity
Category:News & Politics, Educational
Tags:JFK, CIA, conspiracy, oliver stone, jfk assassination
Submitted:jangbones
Date:10/26/17
Views:839
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
I'd like to buy a Jar Jar doll please...
Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7
What liberal women don't understand about liberal men
Who Killed Captain Alex - full film
Bettie Page 'Hip Shake'
More Scenes from 'The Innocence of Muslims'
Charles Krauthammer: Climate Change A 'Superstition‘
Tiny Toons
How f***ing magnets work
Marquis de Sade Spektakel - Trailer
Comment count is 26
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-26
I have very mixed feelings about this movie. On one hand it's an amazingly well crafted narrative, conveying a huge amount of information, like a three hour lecture, except that it never stops being interesting. It's a propaganda masterpiece, like Potemkin.

On the other hand. It's bullshit. Oswald did it. For fifty years, generations of forensics have applied new technology to the old evidence, and it keeps coming up Oswald. Yeah, the government actively pushed Oswald because Johnson wanted to AVOID a war, with the Soviet Union, but Oswald did it. The Zapruder film seems to show a shot from the front, because that's because it doesn't look all the thousands of fake headshots we've seen in the movies. So when we see the real thing, it looks fake to us. But the president's skull shows a shot from the rear. Because Oswald did it.

This conspiracy myth has been incredibly damaging. It's the great grandaddy of Pizzagate, and Alex Jones, and how the Clintons have somehow been getting away with murder, even though Bill couldn't get away with a blow job when he was president.

Fuck you, Jack Ruby, you did us worse than even Oswald.
Urkel Forever - 2017-10-26
All my stars for you, JHM. Couldn't have said it better.

Rangoon - 2017-10-26
For you.

dairyqueenlatifah - 2017-10-26
But why did Ruby shoot Oswald?

decoy - 2017-10-26
E. Howard Hunt had no reason to lie.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-26
Ruby was guy with a rage problem who happened to have a gun when he saw someone he was really angry at. What are the odds, right? And in Texas, of all places!

betabox - 2017-10-26
Thank you.

jangbones - 2017-10-26
JFK is an excellent movie

but i agree completely, its a shame that such a great movie is about such idiocy

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-27
For most of my life, including the afternoon in 1991 when I saw JFK, I believed in a conspiracy. The turning point for me was when I saw the computer modeling of the "magic bullet" trajectory. By now, it's been done several times, and what it proves, incontrovertibly, is that a bullet COULD go through Kennedy's neck and Connolly's wrist, and into Connolly's thigh. It's perfectly feasible. It was all lined up.

spikestoyiu - 2017-10-27
The idea that Ruby was sent there (versus it being an entirely impulsive act by an angry man with a gun) doesn't make any sense anyway because Oswald's transfer was delayed and Ruby showed up at the last minute, after going to the post office.

Bort - 2017-10-27
That "magic bullet" becomes significantly less magic if you position the people in the car as they were at the times of the shootings,, rather than sitting down and facing front with their hands on their laps.

The History Channel did a thing some years ago where they had a marksman try to duplicate the Dealey Plaza shots; he was able to with a great deal of accuracy, and the bullets traveled almost exactly like the real life ones. And LHO didn't even have to be as good a shooter as the marksman; LHO just had to hit a Kennedy-sized object, the marksman had to hit exactly where LHO did.

cognitivedissonance - 2017-10-27
I am pretty sure it's all a plan to pursue the "Ted Cruz' father was the real killer" narrative Trump is fixated with. That or tacking it on to the immigration slanders.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-28
>>>E. Howard Hunt had no reason to lie.

You mean because he was dying? What makes you so sure of that? If you're dying, and you're not going to suffer any consequences, it seems to me that a trivial reason for lying is all it takes. maybe he was lonely, and he wanted someone to pay attention to him. the only thing I remember about Hunt is that he wore a ridiculous wig thinking it was a disguise, and everyone knew it.

I'm not saying that the CIA wasn't plotting against Kennedy. I'm saying that if they were, this low-rent loser beat them to the punch.

This is one of a million tangents that I choose to ignore, perhaps at my peril, but I don't think that it's going to trump the evidence. Oswald was the guy in the window. He bought the rifle. Shortly afterward, he killed a policeman in full view of witnesses. His widow thought he did it. His brother thought he did it. If someone was helping him, how were they helping him? It's not impossible, but there's no evidence. He hitched a ride to the crime scene with a neighbor, carrying his mail order rifle in a package disguised as curtain rods. He left the crime scene in a city bus.

The farther away you get from the actual events of November 22, the more folklore has grown over the narrative like ivy, and there's no theory too ridiculous to be taken seriously. In 1981, Oswald's body was exhumed, because someone had suggested that the corpse in Oswald's grave might be an impostor. I'll give you one guess what they found.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-28
>>>The idea that Ruby was sent there (versus it being an entirely impulsive act by an angry man with a gun) doesn't make any sense anyway because Oswald's transfer was delayed and Ruby showed up at the last minute, after going to the post office.

Also, the transfer was an hour late. If it had gone forward on schedule, Ruby would have missed.

Of course, you can always account for anything, if you add more conspirators to your scenario. Someone could have tipped Ruby off, and they could faked the errand at Western Union (i think it was Western Union, not the post office. It was a Sunday.)

I was five when my dad and I saw Oswald shot on live TV in my Grandparent's living room. It was a weird age for this stuff to be happening. When you're five years old, and you've been watching TV your whole life, and you've only known one president, when that president is killed, it doesn't seem that remarkable. You think that this is how the world is supposed to be.

I remember playing with Christmas ornaments. They were angel figures.. One angel was JFK, and one was Oswald. I gave the Oswald angel a little toy rifle.

decoy - 2017-10-28
John you can't paint Hunt as a "low-rent loser." Nixon didn't tap him as an in-house black operator for nothing, he was one of america's top spymasters for almost three decades. He was completely lucid in his final days and neither he nor his family benefited from his reveal at that time or since. Cross referencing his assertions with earlier veiled statements he'd made as well as statements by Frank Sturgis, Madeleine Duncan Brown, Marita Lorenz, Jack Ruby, J. Edgar Hoover and even Nixon himself corroborate Hunt's story. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded it was most likely a conspiracy and not a a lone gunman. History is replete with political assassinations. All the motives and mechanisms were there. Why anyone would think that we've somehow evolved beyond such intrigue is absurd.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-29
I was talking about Oswald.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-29
The house committee concluded two shooters, one of them was Oswald, and the other one missed. This was based on acoustic evidence that didn't stand up.

http://www.73q.com/video.php?vid=112227

Don't ask me how this ended up in 73q

>>>History is replete with political assassinations. All the motives and mechanisms were there. Why anyone would think that we've somehow evolved beyond such intrigue is absurd.


We haven't. That's not the question.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-29
The motives and the mechanism are always there, or at least they can always be inferred. If you want to, you can infer the motives and the mechanism for someone somewhere in government or industry putting chemicals in the water that make the frogs gay.

decoy - 2017-10-29
Strike gay frogs and insert CIA's MK/Ultra project, which was twisted and horrific and an actual real thing, and you have all the more reason to see the agency for what it was capable of and inclined to do.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-30
I've always considered MK Ultra to be pretty credible, but we're not talking about what they're capable of. We're not talking about motives. We're talking about a historical event that either happened a certain way, or didn't happen a certain way, And that means we're talking about the evidence, The government is always capable of doing evil. That's a given, but it's not evidence.

15th - 2017-10-27
"I saw my brethren chained within the cave, mesmerized by the shadows playing against the wall. It was all an illusion. I was free and conscious for the first time. I could have easily walked away, but I felt a sense of duty, responsibility. I returned to the cave and masturbated furiously."

-Oliver Stone
StanleyPain - 2017-10-27
To be fair, for a conspiracy theory that's supposed to be garbage, the CIA and FBI sure went through a lot of trouble to cover up shit, make sure Oswald was painted as the sole assassin as soon as possible, and sweep a whole bunch of other shit under the rug.

I mean, Oswald may have acted alone. Oswald may have been a disgruntled asshole who, all by his lonesome, decided to kill JFK. But it's interesting how, in the aftermath, the connections and coincidences and hints all add up to something way beyond the scope of just a "lone crazy man." It's not so much that I believe all the fancy elaborate shit about numerous gunmen and the military intentionally trying to kill JFK, but there is some WEIRD shit when you dig around this whole thing. The new documents don't really have any bombshells, but they tend to confirm a lot of the weird narratives about how the CIA was planning a lot of bizarre anti-Castro shit without the knowledge of the White House.
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-27
>>>But it's interesting how, in the aftermath, the connections and coincidences and hints all add up to something way beyond the scope of just a "lone crazy man."

But do they actually add up to SOMETHING?

Look at it the other way. If somebody shoots the president, what are the chances that they're going to be a normal person without a weird history? John Wilkes Booth and Charles J. Guiteau, who assassinated James Garfield, were both narcissists with delusions of grandeur. Guiteau in particular was just plain fucking nuts. At his execution, he read a ridiculous melodramatic poetry he's compsed for the occasion. I don't know a lot about Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated McKinley, except that he was an anarchist, which was pretty unusual, right?

Some people in the government believed that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, most notably LBJ. These people were cold warriors, they suspected things. But there's no doubt that the government as a whole wanted to promote the lone gunman theory, regardless of whehter it was true or not.

The recently released memo from Hoover, describing the need to push the lone gunman theory, was written on the day of Oswald's death.

https://tinyurl.com/ybabl23l

On that day, two days after the assassination, Hoover probably didn't know with certainty what the real truth was. They wanted to reassure the public immediately, before they were certain of what was going on. This backfired in the long run. There probably wasn't a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but there was, in effect,, a cover up. Even Hoover's memo now has the opposite effect. It looks fishy.

But, I repeat, Oswald did it. In 2013, PBS reexamined the evidence, using high speed ballistic photography and advanced computer forensics, and once again, it implicated Oswald... in the Book Depository... with the cheap Carcano rifle. This would either mean that the 1963 evidence was manufactured in anticipation of future technologies OR that new generations of conspirators have been recruited over the years, apparently for no other reason than to protect the mostly dead guys who would have hatched the original conspiracy.

The lone gunman narrative is the only complete narrative. The person who got Oswald the job at the School Depository was the neighbor of a friend of Marina's. The friend tells the story here:

https://youtu.be/-cLvrkqZxdc?t=1h57m14s

It seems pretty random. Was this lady in on the conspiracy, or had someone been placed in the neighborhood in advance to befriend Marina's friend, and so to create the illusion of randomness in placing Oswald in the building? Or was it the people who arranged the route of the motorcade? Or is everyone who gathered the evidence of the trajectory, which clearly says that the shots were fired from the School Depository? And again, could 1963 fake evidence that would stand up to 2013 technology? What about the witnesses who saw Oswald, who had just left the Depository, shoot Officer Tippet an hour later? Were THEY in on it? Would all of these people be able to keep a secret for 50 years?

And if you were the mastermind of this huge conspiracy, would your point man be this fucking schlemiel, who reneged on his defection, and lived in a boarding house because he couldn't even support his family, and would you give him a shitty mail order rifle?

Not impossible, I suppose. But VERY unlikely!

>>> The new documents don't really have any bombshells, but they tend to confirm a lot of the weird narratives about how the CIA was planning a lot of bizarre anti-Castro shit without the knowledge of the White House.

Well, that's another story, isn't it?

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-27
(Let me back this up a little. I went into the full argument, but all Stanley Pain said was that there are some coincidences, and there certainly are. It was only thirty years later that they found a group photo with Oswald with Dave Ferry, one of the crazy Right Wing/Organized crime figures who Oswald may have known in New Orleans, but if these people were involved, what did they do? Wouldn't they at least have gotten him a decent rifle? Oswald had to get a lift to the Depository from one of Marina's neighbors.

cognitivedissonance - 2017-10-27
A good friend of mine wrote her thesis on the psychological state of Leon Czolgosz. Her conclusion was that he was only an anarchist in that it gave him a nice narrative for his life and a purpose.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-10-28
If there's anything that unites these guys, it's having a nice narrative for their lives.

Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement