Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald's Ghost


Recommended Posts

Robert Stone is not in the same league as Oliver Stone.

This has already been screened in Europe, right?

From what I can tell, Robert Stone's "theory" is that Oswald did it all by himself to make himself famous, but what those who propagate this "theory" fail to answer is why then did he deny the deed?

That just doesn't make sense, but it's quite satisfying to those who want to believe it.

At least this film will keep the issue in the public forum and perhaps it can help spin the free the files and JFK Act hearings.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When shown in England I got the distinct impression this was a BBC film.

"The BBC takes a new look at an old contraversy", that's how it began & it ended with thier logo on the credits.

After you watch this you too will want to know who's behind it, that's more important than the message in the film IMO.

Starts off really promising, long lingering shots of the GK & Tink telling his interviewer "we still don't know how it happened".

This was just the directors tactic to stop all the CT's walking out the door in the first few minutes of the film.

It goes down hill fast prepare yourself.

One real nice slip up from the CIA witch, Priscilla Johnson though.

She always told us how she was so sure they had the right man, in this "film" though, she says when she heard who they had arreseted "she couldn't believe it".

So all this time she was a CT afterall, who knew?

That was the best moment for me but admittedly, I'm grasping at straws.

David Lifton started a thread on this, use the search function to find his review, way more intersesting than this goverment funded tripe.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lifton and I were at the same screening, and we sorta tag-teamed Stone in the lobby afterwards. The film is annoying as... Stone sets you up by showing CTs in their element, discussing how and why they doubted the Warren Report. A lot of good footage in the first half. Towards the end, however, Stone turns the film over to Priscilla McMillan and Norman Mailer, and they SPEW a bunch of self-serving nonsense about how poor desperate Oswald knew his one shot at becoming famous was killing Kennedy, and he took it. GIGO. Give me a break!!!! I think it's Mailer that muses that Oswald was looking forward to his trial so he could tell the world WHY he did it. I groaned when I heard this nonsense. It made me sick. Yeah, of course, Oswald was looking forward to his trial--that's why he nearly fainted from disbelief when he found out he'd been charged!

If Sartre is right about hell, hell for me will be my being locked in a room with blithering old fools like Mailer, McMillan, and Bugliosi telling me their take on the assassination. Their hell of course is being locked in a room with me, or posting on the ED Forum, and having us go at them like sharks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Stone is not in the same league as Oliver Stone.

This has already been screened in Europe, right?

Yes it was shown on the BBC here on tv earlier this year, February or March if I remember rightly. I was going to say I wouldn't waste my time going to see it but there is some rare footage in it that is interesting. I think this is the documentary that has previously unseen colour footage of a home movie of Oswald and family the year before the assassinationtaken at his brother Robert's house.

When I started watching it I thought it was going to attempt to give a balanced view but ti end up just going down the same old road.....

A complete disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the documentary that has previously unseen colour footage of a home movie of Oswald and family the year before the assassinationtaken at his brother Robert's house.

Might this be the holiday (Thanksgiving) visit, with LHO seated on a couch or chair and playing with a child? If so, it originally was broadcast at least ten years ago on a long- cancelled American tabloid TV program ("Current Affair" perhaps). I have a video tape of the footage -- somewhere.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifton and I were at the same screening, and we sorta tag-teamed Stone in the lobby afterwards. The film is annoying as... Stone sets you up by showing CTs in their element, discussing how and why they doubted the Warren Report. A lot of good footage in the first half. Towards the end, however, Stone turns the film over to Priscilla McMillan and Norman Mailer, and they SPEW a bunch of self-serving nonsense about how poor desperate Oswald knew his one shot at becoming famous was killing Kennedy, and he took it. GIGO. Give me a break!!!! I think it's Mailer that muses that Oswald was looking forward to his trial so he could tell the world WHY he did it. I groaned when I heard this nonsense. It made me sick. Yeah, of course, Oswald was looking forward to his trial--that's why he nearly fainted from disbelief when he found out he'd been charged!

If Sartre is right about hell, hell for me will be my being locked in a room with blithering old fools like Mailer, McMillan, and Bugliosi telling me their take on the assassination. Their hell of course is being locked in a room with me, or posting on the ED Forum, and having us go at them like sharks.

Yes, to buy some LN theory(ies), Oswald and Ruby must both be cast as desparate losers who feel the need to assassinate someone to be famous or to vindicate themselves (or the Jewish people, in Ruby's alleged case).

That is quite a peculier confluence of insecure assassins (an alleged Commie agitator and a mobbed up Jew who thinks that, by assassinating LHO, he will vindicate Jews (from what I don't know) everywhere).

They should have been in therapy together giving each other a group hug.

People assassinating others to gain immortal notiriety happens all the time, doesn't it?

Every 10 - 15 years is more like it (Chapman, Hinckley come to mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from "Reclaiming History": "Ruby and Oswald. Two nuts."

That sums up his entire 1600 page book.

Is there ANY possibility Ruby was a nut? I would say a very miniscule possibility. But clearly if Ruby was not a nut, he shot Oswald to silence him. Therefore, Oswald was not a nut either. A demonstration that Ruby was not a nut IMO establishes a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...