Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary

Recommended Posts

David Mantik is a close friend. He and I spent some time with another friend, Noel Twyman, a few months ago. During lunch, David had to chuckle when

I mentioned the "Moorman in the Street" issue. He had no trouble at all admitting that John Costella, PhD had demonstrated that he (Mantik) had been

mistaken about her location and that Moorman was probably on the grass at the time she took her photo. He didn't hesitate, wince, wiggle or squirm

about it. He is human. Humans make mistakes. All humans make mistakes.

In this instance, regarding David Mantik, it appears that Pat Speer has demonstrated that he too is human. Hopefully, he can say he's WORNG (sic).

I'm confused, Greg. Are you saying that I should admit I'm WORNG about Mantik, or wrong about the X-ray, which Mantik refuses to admit he is wrong about it. If the latter, you need to look at the slide I've posted, using Mantik's exhibits, which prove to an absolute certainty that he's wrong about the location of the lead smudge. If the former, well, yeah, I'll admit that Mantik has at times admitted his mistakes. Somewhere online, as I recall, there's a message chain of Mantik with someone (Clint Bradford? Tony Marsh?) in which Mantik ultimately admits he was wrong about--as I recall--the limo stop. So I know he's capable of admitting a mistake. Which makes it all the more frustrating that he refuses to do so in this instance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I recently looked at jfk again with the oliver stone commentary and it was very enlightening...

Getting back to the main crux of the thread, how is this for a recommendation:

Simply ask people to re-watch the movie JFK!

I decided to watch this again with a couple of my kids (the "director's cut", ooh) and am amazed how well this film holds up. Back then, before the ARRB, this movie was able to put a fine point on at least 100 interesting facts about the case. Back then, I was a newbie and admired the movie for its dramatic elements (e.g., the DC exposition) and Stone's technical prowess. Over the years, I came to realize that the story was more compelling than I first thought and I would argue that most of us no longer consider it relevant. Even if we liked it, we feel that it's no longer current. However, looking back, I can see that this movie has all of the elements that we need going forward.

  • A well-made, richly produced movie that dramatizes most of the important elements of the case
  • An awesome cast (especially the likable Kevin Costner as the hero and the frenetic Joe Pesci as Ferrie)
  • A plot that stitches everything together into a workable, believable narrative
  • The places where Stone takes dramatic license are exactly the places where he should take dramatic license (e.g., Willie O'Keefe). Plus, he uses a fairly consistent practice of portraying the authenticity of elements proportionally; in other words, impressions are illustrated through innuendo and hearsay and facts are spoken of plainly and repeatedly.

Of course, some people will argue that the movie is over-long at 3:09, but I have a hard time believing that someone is going to do a lot better within that timeframe.

I have not yet addressed the goal of 50th anniversary actions, but how about we encourage our friends, families, and local schools to simply show this film again? It might inspire ARRB round two.

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

  • Create New...