Groucho983 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I just saw the ending of this stupidity. One commenter said that Oswald had a lust for guns and glory that preceded the killing and that Oswald viewed the killing of Kennedy as a way to get his ideals out into the main stream. This astounds me in it's stupidity. Why shut up and start saying he was a patsy after his killing an officer? If he had such lusts, wouldn't he have viewed an officer as a person of notoriety, the basic same as Kennedy, and spout his ideals at every turn anyhow? WTF?

batalion666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i like Oswald as a figure as victim as martyr

grassyknollkiller (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Kenneth O'Donnell, SS, Follow-up Car, WC deposition, May 18, 1964, 7H4481964 KO:"My reaction in part is reconstruction - is the shots came from the right rear."MAN of the HOUSE, by Tip O'Neill, Random House: 1987, pg1781987 KO:"I told the FBI I heard two shots from behind the fence but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

selatik1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Zaharoula: Robert Stone's film was designed 2 cloud & dismiss the involvement of the CIA, FBI, etc in JFK's murder. He's using the Machiavellian technique APPEARing 2 b unbiased & seriously questioning authority, & after an "exhaustive, fair investigation" the conclusion is made that, lo, the government was right all along! The real intent of "documentaries" like these is 2 get the actual sponsors of the murder out of the spotlight & drive home further the big lie that the government is right.

selatik1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Sadly, they'll keep cranking out articles, books & films 2 deliberatly mislead & confuse people about the JFK murder & discredit those close 2 the truth. Garrison & Oliver(NOT Robert!) Stone got close & were attacked by the media. It's wrong 2 reflexively dismiss everything as silly "conspiracy theories". Yeah there's a lot of B.S. out there, & u can't believe it all. But people in positions of power DO plan future events for their own immoral gain, which is the definition of conspiracy.

selatik1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I mean, come on--Robert STONE? Was this someone's clever idea 2 make it appear that Robert Stone's aligned with/related 2 Oliver Stone, who made "JFK"? How 'bout . . . 'NO?' Then there's "Oswald's Ghost"'s MySpace page, which looks "fabricated". A great deal of effort is made 2 align this film & its director with Oliver Stone & "JFK"-a bit too much lock-step, don't you think? The abundance of formulaic "nutty" comments left by "conspiracy theorists" merits a bit of suspicion as well.

selatik1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This film is a piece of propaganda if I ever saw one. I don't buy it. It is yet another skillful attempt to "muddy the water" & diffuse attention on the CIA's & the miltary-industrial complex's (war machine) involvement in JFK's murder. It's all here, the discrediting of Jim Garrison, trotting out of the big-names, enumerating the "false sponsors"--groups the CIA-types set up to appear to have been at the heart of the operation. The Soviets, The Mob, Cuba, Texas Oil Barons--ALL false sponsors.

themeaningoflife38 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

CIA LBJ Chord Meyer Howard Hunt all guilty

LeeHarveyOswald63 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Look You unmotivated ciphers, One Man can make a difference. Just ask Jack Ruby.

Bentherdonthat (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

the assassin and oswald where both on national and international tv twice that night of the dallas frog shoot why dosent any one comment on that?