Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xju5oa_beyond-jfk-the-question-of-conspiracy-part-1-of-9_news
Discuss some of the ways this film contradicts Oswald's Ghost. How does this film depict Oswald, Jim Garrison, the forensic evidence, etc.? If you have the time, check out Stone's film JFK.
Please note the link above is only the first part of several. It requires that you click through to the next part.
This film is demonstrating the argument for a conspiracy versus Oswald's Ghost which completely argues for lone gunman. In this film we hear from all the witnesses that described the shots coming from the grassy hill instead of the building. Most of the eye witnesses depicted in this film to not recall any shots coming from the building at all. One witness recalled a man in a suit over by the fence in the railway yard with a gun. Being this well dressed would suggest someone with a much higher rank than just some crazy person wanting to shoot the president. This film brings a lot more attention to the fact that the police would not take the time to talk to witnesses whose accounts of what happened clearly went against the lone gunman theory that they were trying to prove. Both films it is very obvious how little evidence there was and also how poorly handled the evidence was. This film also made clear the fact that many people that were a part of the warren commission had reason to dislike JFK. There are so many different conspiracy theories out there about the JFK assassination that i find it very difficult to see truth in that either. everybody has a different explanation for the events of that day that its hard to grasp the concepts and decide on the most viable option. What was made very clear in this film is that JFK and the Kennedy family in general had done a lot to piss a great many people with power off. The family clearly had many enemies that had the means to pull off the assassination. I found that Oswald in this film was depicted as quite a mystery. Maybe there were two different Oswald's. The possibility of multiple alias. everything about this is shrouded in so much mystery with way to many different ways to explain it all.
ReplyDeleteThese clips provide interesting insight and new revelations on the JFK assassination. There were new witnesses introduced but these witnesses were never called to testify in the case. For instance, the man who is deaf claimed that there was a gunman in the grassy knoll area but his story was disregarded by the police and they would not take into account his version of this event.
ReplyDeleteAs with the majority of other depictions of the assassination, it is brought up that the autopsy evidence was lacking and mistreated as well. The forensic evidence suggests that the body may have been altered so there would be no further questions asked. It was interesting to note that Oswald and Jack Ruby may have been previously acquainted as stated by several eyewitnesses who saw them together.
Jim Garrison’s role as a district attorney led to the differing of opinions as to the nature of Garrison’s character. Some thought he was only considering facts that were “convenient” to him and disregarded the rest of the evidence. By Garrison launching his own investigation, he realized that there would be obstacles such as how the FBI may try to cover up evidence and hide files from him.
There is a common depiction in this film that Oswald could not have possibly fired the amount of shots that were claimed to have come from the depository. His average target aiming ability was further assurance that it would be near impossible to have hit the moving vehicle that JFK was in. Even though Oswald may have not been part of the “lone gunman theory”, he was portrayed as having a possible connection to the CIA.
Specifically in this film, Clay Shaw was identified as having a key role in plotting the assassination. Shaw was linked to Oswald through eyewitnesses who claimed these two were well acquainted. Previously in Oswald’s Ghost, they did not emphasis the possible involvement of Shaw nor did they go into details about his trial.
These clips shed some new light into the JFK assassination. What they were saying is what Oswald was saying all along; he was a patsy. These clips go into more detail as to how the assassination was orchestrated by many different sectors of the government. It says that the CIA was primarily responsible for his assassination based on the testimony of a former CIA operative. One of the higher ranked officials full out admitted that the CIA had the president killed, but assured her that no one would find out. The sad part is, they were correct. They also said that the FBI, the Secret Service, the Mafia, the Cubans, and the KGB were also playing a role in the assassination. But what struck me as very strange was that they also said that the president himself had a hand in his own murder. It was because he was trying to pull the troops out of Vietnam, yet saying he wanted to keep them there was a total contradiction. I believe that he was trying to get the military out of Vietnam and not trying to keep them in the fight. The directors in the CIA specifically asked about Oswald being around and if people saw him or not. This to me says that the CIA was using Oswald as a decoy to cover up the fact that they wanted president Kennedy killed because he was trying to dismantle the CIA. The whole thing screams conspiracy on account of the CIA, as well as the FBI and the Secret Service for aiding in the cover up. This also helps prove the Warren Commission wrong in their assessment of the evidence which I already knew was wrong based on the botched forensic evidence. They also said that the commission used witnesses that had nothing to do with the assassination, yet saw that they were important to mention. Jim Garrison was correct in saying that this was conducted by the CIA in the first place. No one was closer to the president than the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service. Who better to plot a presidential assassination than the people who knew him the best: the people who reported directly to him.
ReplyDeleteThese clips provide an in-depth look at some of the evidence that was somewhat overlooked during the original investigation. The use of the reenactment for the movie JFK, although not official, did shed some light on some logistical anomalies and ignored witness statements. This film primarily contradicts Oswald's Ghost in their differing shooter theories. While Oswald's ghost leaned toward the lone gunman theory, Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy emphasizes the impossibility for there to only have been one shooter. It also provided evidence as well as motive behind the Warren Commission publishing false findings. There is so much evidence and varying theories it makes is difficult to ascertain the truth, which was likely part of the plan all along. The mishandling of evidence and sloppy unclear police work muddies the truth enough that nothing can be proven without a doubt. There are reasonable common sense findings one can come upon when doing sufficient resource, but the fact is will never be fully resolved is frustrating and i one event has shaped a country.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most glaring things about these videos that is so different from not only Oswald's Ghost, but more importantly the Warren Commission report, is the presence of these so called eye witness testimonies. If these were legitimate witnesses who expressed their account of the shooting, any reasonable trial would have to include them. With eye witnesses saying there was a shot from the grassy knoll and the Zapruder film showing what looks to be a shot from that area, it would be difficult to suggest that Oswald was the only shooter. I am curious as to whether or not these testimonies were simply ignored for the Warren Commission or if the idea of the conspiracy made these witnesses change their story. With so much controversy surrounding the idea of a potential shooter from the grassy knoll, witnesses may think that they had saw something that maybe they never did. When your mind wants to put the pieces together to solve the a puzzle, sometimes you have to grasp at straws to make everything fall into place.
ReplyDeleteThis video shows how those of the Warren Commission used the media to sway the public. When the decision was made by the Commission, none of the public had been shown or told about any the evidence that was used to come to their conclusion. The public therefore had to take the word of the professionals and the conclusion of the report as the stone cold truth, for what other reason did they have not to trust it? With the public's mind being sold on what they believed was the truth, any other explanation would come off as absurd or not believable.
Jim Garrison is depicted at very typical conservative American. He is shown as a man who is not radical just a very good attorney trying to uncover the truth. Having seen the Oliver Stone film and hearing some of explanations from Garrison, I have to say that some of the connections that were made to prove a conspiracy were a little out there. However, I do I think that the contributions of Garrison in the investigation of JFK were very vital in uncovering some of the faults with the lone assassin theory. Regardless of some of the legitimacy of his theories, at least he was able to bring light to some of questionable conclusions that the Warren Commission came up with.
If nothing else, this video makes the viewer wonder why certain evidence was not even considered. Regardless of the overall interpretation and verdict, all relevant evidence and sources should have been included to make a well informed decision.
Right from the very first part of this video you can see the point of the video is to show that there is a large area available for conspiracy. Whereas in Oswald’s Ghost we can see more the point involving the fact that Oswald did have a motive to perform the assassination and makes the audience really believe he was the lone gunman. This video also really focuses on the eyewitness testimonies, which are quite different from the warren commission report. It is sometimes hard to understand why these reports are ignored, or even changed given such a large area of conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteThe film depicts Jim Garrison as someone who is rational for the most part. The main idea I got from his presence is that he shed some light on the problems with the lone gunman theory. His investigation allows us to see that the report that was given to the public is near impossible.
The film depicts the ideas of the forensic science and evidence in a way that the public didn’t have a broad idea of the real evidence because it was really kept a secret for the most part. The public believed the Warren commission report because it seemed to make sense of things that were not known at the time. Since after the assassination of JFK is known as the time that American’s stopped trusting the government we can link this to the idea that at the time of the report they simply had no reason not to believe what it had to declare about JFK.
This film is an in depth documentary expanding upon JFK the hollywood film. It is a reflection and dissection upon key players in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Jim Garrison is obviously of the utmost importance and this movie portrayed him in a positive light. He came across like any american, and all of us, who simply have questions about what really happen Nov. 22 1963. The final image of him essentially on his death bed really still not knowing what happened resonated with me and just showed the intensity of his passion for finding the truth (despite potential mistakes he had made)
ReplyDeleteBy taking a personal perspective i think this film did a better job than Oswald's ghost relating to the viewer.
I was really surprised about the footage in regards to Clay Shaw. Previously i feel he had been disregarded in a lot of ways, but this film was in depth with his trial and potential connections to the case, adding validity.
Again this film did an excellent job showing mishandling of evidence, refusal to intake eye witness testimony and the failure to properly execute an autopsy. This film did a better job in convincing the viewer that a conspiracy was truly at hand by reaching us on a more personal human level. This film also tore the Warren Commission to pieces and showed how the CIA and FBI may have altered media opinion in order to sway the commissions findings to suit their needs.
I feel like the CIA is such a missing voice in regards to the assassination of JFK. In each film we see a lot of negative evidence against them, it would be interesting to see a documentary from their point of view and how potentially the chaos and severity of the issue impacted their reaction causing mishandling of certain things as the Kennedy's obviously have a lot of things to hide. The lack of communication from the Agencies' side leaves things so up in the air!
I think this film works to uncover more of the the "actual" story rather than pointing fingers at Oswald. I like that this film tries to point out some of the flaws of what the government says happened. Oswalds ghost was set on the fact of a lone gunman. While this film works along side the film JFK. This film even mentions how some of JFK was dramatized, overly emphasized but that it did have true facts behind it. The film encourages that people don't assume JFK to be rubbish, but to actually think about what the film is saying. I found that this film and Oswald's Ghost both discussed popular topics, like if Oswald could really fire 3 shots in 6 seconds. But Oswalds Ghost tended to jump over topics like that, not really going into depth of them. While this film works to get people thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to that is the forensic science behind the story. Oswald's Ghost help to depict the idea that Oswald was guilty, forensics proved it. But we know that people say that forensics show different. For example: the "magic bullet" theory. As well as the ideas that forensics were lost, or done incorrectly.
The film provides a strong analysis of the JFK assassination. It was very informing because of the actual witnesses. The film was much more upclose and personal than other JFK films we have watched. The interviews with people, like the deaf man and others makes the evidence seem false and it contridicts Oswalds Ghost. This film was different than Oswalds Ghost due to the fact that it didnt support the lone gunman theory as strongly. The film depicted Oswald as not the only criminal. Like stated in the first clip, one man states that several countries laugh at America and can't believe their ignorance in believing that Oswald was the only criminal in the shooting of JFK. The film exposed the forensic investigators for their poor analysis of the crime.
ReplyDeleteThis film focused more on the whole picture, and the real story rather than having a very narrow view like Oswald's Ghost. This film showed evidence of the real events instead of only giving attention to the 'lone gunman' story. The witnesses in this were actual people with difference perspectives on the event, unlike Oswald's Ghost where the witnesses interview were carefully chosen to support the lone gunman story. The purpose of this film is to not make make the audience believe a specific story or conspiracy but instead to reveal the actual events and let people judge themselves what really happened. The witnesses seem more real and true to what they believe in this but in Oswald's Ghost it seemed that the witnesses themselves were not completely believers of what they were saying. This film also shines more light on the reasoning for why JFK was killed and what was the reasoning behind it. Oswald's Ghost seemed to shut out everything that did not support the lone gunman story to make people believe it but this movie spends time on all the aspects of the assassination.
ReplyDeleteIn this film they look and all the different evidence that was not looked at. Some of the things at they never took the time to look at was the different eyewitnesses saying they heard shots coming from the grassy hill. This resulted in the eyewitnesses we never asked to testify in the case. In the video Oswald’s ghost they focus mostly on the lone gunman theory. With all the different evidence that was miss treated lead to questions so in turn it almost looks as they are trying to cover up something. With them not having the eyewitnesses testify make it feel like because it does not fit the out come they want, makes the not important so they overlook the evidence. Jim Garrison was the district attorney the worked the case and he was only looking at evidence convenient to him. When Garrison did his own investigation problems could appear such as the FBI trying to hide videos or different pieces of evidence. The film also talks about how Oswald could not take the shot they are saying he did. With his ability they are saying he has makes it impossible for him to hit a moving target.
ReplyDeleteOswald's Ghost focused so much on Lee Harvey Oswald being the only suspect, that he was in fact a lone assassin, but Beyond JFK seemed to take a far more broad approach. Oswald's Ghost tried to depict Oswald as a crazy person with a personal vendetta against President Kennedy, they seemed to use the word "nut" quite a bit in the film. They attempted to convince people (no matter what the evidence said) that Oswald was the only possible shooter and had been planning this attack for months. It seems almost refreshing the depiction that Beyond JFK presented regarding Lee Harvey Oswald. The didn't seem focused on him being a crazed person, they in face tried to depict him as more of the "patsy" that Oswald claimed he was. I was a little surprised that Beyond JFK did portray Oswald as a violent spouse though, perhaps they were trying to make it seem as if they were completely siding with him.
ReplyDeleteAnother striking difference I found between the two films was their depictions of Jim Garrison, one saying he was a homophobic tyrant and the other saying he was a man out for justice. Oswald's Ghost showed reporters claiming that Garrison devoted a fair bit of time humiliating the gay community, this was probably to discredit his attempts to charge Clay Shaw. Beyond JFK used very similar footage featuring Garrison but spun it as him just trying to uncover the truth about what happened to Kennedy. I also found that Beyond JFK showed that Garrison was forced to present his findings at an earlier time due to pressure from outside sources discovering that he was actually performing his own investigation. I do not recall hearing this, or at least this extensive of an explanation in Oswald's Ghost. I also don't recall Oswald's Ghost saying that Garrison's office had been tapped by the FBI, which I found interesting coming from the Beyond JFK film.
Another discrepancy that I found between the two films was in the portrayal of Jack Ruby. Oswald's Ghost made it seem like he just happened upon the scene and shot Oswald in cold blood in an attempt to make sure that a trial never happened. Beyond JFK questioned his brother Earl Ruby who made it seem like Jack just wanted to injury Oswald and cause him pain as Jack felt very close to President Kennedy.
Both films show the forensic evidence as being mishandled, whether that was done intently or not is up to the discretion of the viewers. Both films seemed to use a lot of the same footage and photographic evidence to back up their stories, but both ended up showing all of the missing links and missing evidence itself.
I found that both films gave very convincing arguments for who was behind the death of JFK but neither proved to really answer any questions. Maybe no film is capable of really taking on this arduous task and we will never really know the answer of why JFK was killed and who actually orchestrated the entire event.
The film seems to contrast the ideas shown in Oswald's ghost, showing that the assassination was an act of conspiracy, rather than from the actions of a lone gunman. There are many ways this is shown, such as the many eye witness testimonies regarding the grassy knoll. The Warren Commission states that the witnesses they chose saw a gunman from the Texas schoolbook depository, however from photo and video evidence it is shown that many more people ran towards the smoke coming from the grassy knoll, rather than the depository.
ReplyDeleteAnother way this is shown is that it emphasizes the incompetency of the police in not only conducting the investigation/autopsy, but in regard to the crucial evidence. An example is the fact that people were auctioning off Jack Ruby's gun that was used to shoot Oswald. It seems to indicate how the government and the world has moved on from the assassination as if nothing happened, even though many regard it as one of the most crucial events in american history.
Throughout the film, it is hinted that the reason for the cover ups could be from the possibility that the CIA was behind the assassination. This would explain many of the cases of evidence being tampered, and why the warren report was so poorly designed to answer everyone's questions
The film is much more personalized than Oswald's Ghost and doesn't really approach "the loan-gunman" theory. It's more of the story of the assassination of JFK and what the Zapruder and Oswald's ghost failed to illustrate, such as the fact that some evidence was ignored and/or manipulated, eyewitnesses weren't taken into consideration or quickly discredited, and failing to review other vital facts as pieces of the puzzle.
ReplyDeleteThe film is sort of the bigger picture and delivers almost every aspect of what happened on the day of and after the assassination leading up to the conviction of H. Oswald.
Jim Garrison was viewed in different, contrasting lights. Many, however, may say he was taking the evidence that were to his liking and only considered the theories that were somewhat convenient to him and his situation.
The main difference between Oswald’s Ghost and the documentary posted on this blog post is the fact that Oswald’s Ghost believes that Oswald acted alone on the day of the assassination while the documentary posted on the blog believes that Oswald could not have acted alone. Both films contained testimonies from the day that Kennedy was assassinated. In Oswald’s Ghost, most testimonies contained information on how Oswald was standing on the 6th floor of the depository building. Almost all of the testimonies revolved around Oswald and how he was the culprit. The video on the blog contains testimonies from witnesses who believed that there was more than one shooter. One of the witnesses claimed to have seen a man holding a shotgun at the grassy Noels. Policemen (experienced with gunshots) also ran to the grassy Noels when a gun was shot. Oswald’s Ghost did not mention this at all.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that Oswald was depicted as more of an innocent individual than what was depicted of him in Oswald’s Ghost. Gary Oldman (acted as Lee Harvey Oswald in the film) believes that it was not possible for Oswald to kill Kennedy because the gun he used was a “piece of shit”. Also, when Oswald claimed to say that he did not do it, Gary Oldman felt as if there was some kind of truth beneath those words. In general, the documentary depicts Oswald as an individual who could not have acted alone or act at all. While in Oswald’s Ghost, Oswald was not considered innocent period.
Jim Garrison was depicted as an individual who seemed to support the fact that Oswald was not alone when it came to the assassination. In the movie JFK, he seemed to be ignoring the facts that Oswald could have possibly acted alone.
The evidence talked about in the film was considered as “not enough” to point out the person who assassinated Kennedy. It even explained more possible conspiracy theories that were not explained or even considered in Oswald’s Ghost. This includes theories that involved the mafia, CIA, communists, military industrial complex, FBI. The film would then go into depth about these possible theories.
Comparing with Oswald’s Ghost, Beyond JFK is completely working on the opposed side of the “lone gunman assassination”. Oswald Ghost suggests that Oswald was capable to be the only assassin, and the film also depicted the motives why Oswald would shot the president Kennedy. In term of depicting Jim Garrison, Oswald Ghost tried to put a negative comment on him as well. But in Beyond JFK, the film focus on the alternatives of the lone gunman assassination, several actual eye witnesses were interviewed in the movie, and all of them told their version of the story, but none of them were taken account on the court. They all suggested that there were more shots came from the grassy hill, and they all saw the smoke of the shots, and described that when they tried to report what they saw to the polices and how them had been ignored. Beyond JFK developed more deep and wide connections between the death of Kenney and the potential assassins of the president, like the mafias and even the vice president, but did not offer any answers to these questions that the film rose. Both Oswald’s Ghost and Beyond JFK explained how the forensics are mishandled and inappropriate treated during the entire the investigation.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary follow a completely different perspective than the Oswald's Ghost film did. It involved witnesses that contradict the Warren Report and the lone gunman theory. It also puts more emphasis on how evidence wqas tampered with and thet the autopsy was done completely wrong. A very convincing proprosal of a conpiracy is depicted in this film with more evidence backing it than what was presented in Oswald's Ghost.
ReplyDeleteOswald was shown as a more mistaken than guilty man in this documentary. At the same time the documentary didn't suggest that he is definately innocent and maintans the possibility that he could have been involved.
Garrison is portrayed, at first, as somebody that fully backs the lone gunman theory and would only admit evidence thaqt supported the theory. It goes aon to show that he decided to conduct his own investigation and that he realized he would have trouble finding any substantial evidence due to the FBI keeping most evidence hidden.
This film does contradict Oswald’s Ghost in a number of ways. It does show quite a few of the controversial facts surrounding the JFK assassination, often backing it up with evidence and eyewitness testimony. Firstly there is focus on direct eyewitness testimony regarding smoke rising and people hearing a gunshot from the grassy knoll. We even hear later that through a desire to “close the case”, the FBI asked two witnesses to change their testimony. This raises questions of why this was not looked into further, but we later hear from Oswald’s wife that he never did stand trial for his supposed crime, which is true, because he was shot by Jack Ruby only a few days later. We did not see very much discussion about this in Oswald’s Ghost.
ReplyDeleteJim Garrison was another figure that I don’t believe was even mentioned in Oswald’s Ghost. Here we have a very significant figure involved in the JFK Assassination investigation, a district attorney who had formerly been in the FBI, who ran his own investigation in secret regarding Oswald. There is much more to the story, even a man who was arrested who was alleged connected to the conspiracy as part of his investigation efforts, and a man who Garrison alleged to be a conspirator within the assassination dying a week after his investigation was uncovered.
In Beyond JFK there is also a lot of focus on Oswald didn’t act alone, but that he was a conspirator, and seemed to have a double life contrary to his public image of a ‘lone nut’. The main difference from this film to Oswald’s Ghost is that this film is specific in the evidence believed by conspiracy theorists which overturns the conclusions made by the Warren Commission, while Oswald’s Ghost raises a few questions about it but does not focus as much on the forensic evidence or controversies behind it so much as looks at why we as a society question the assassination, and why these questions about the evidence arose in the first place, but then goes back to the lone gunman theory and doesn't even address some very controversial evidence in the process.
This film reveals a higher measurement of information about the assassination of JFK. It contradicts the film Oshwald's Ghost by illustrating more evidence on the conclusive events that occurred on November 22 1963. Furthermore, JFK: The Question of Conspiracy displays new eye witness testimonies which provide a completely different outlook in contrast to Oshwald's Ghost and the "lone gunman theory." They film analyzes that Lee Harvey Oswald could not take the shot Oswald's Ghost suggest he did, due to the fact JFK was in a moving vehicle and his aim could not be that precise to hit President John F Kennedy. JFK: The Question of Conspiracy supports that the events of November 22 was a result of a conspiracy. In the film, Jim Garrison is portrayed as someone who was a person of reasoning, and he demonstrated that by bring attention to the Warren Commissions conclusion. In my opinion, I think it is very possible that Warren Commissions was persuaded by the CIA and FBI to change the report in their favor, and just to point the finger at Lee Harvey Oswald.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Oswald's Ghost which supported the lone gunman theory, Beyond JFK suggested that Oswald was just a part of a conspiracy. Citing various pieces of evidence that contradicted the official Warren Commission, the inconsistencies in the report should at the very least raise some suspicion. For example, Beyond JFK made use of multiple eye witness testimonies that all claim to have seen or heard evidence of gun shots coming from what is now known as the grassy knoll. None of the eye witnesses recall shots coming from the Texas Book Depository, where the Warren Commission claims Oswald fired the shots that kill JFK. Secondly, the film mentions that the chances of Oswald being able to fire off 3 shots in a span of 6 seconds is highly unlikely. The film says it is hard to believe that Oswald was able to do what many sharpshooters have been unsuccessful at.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the film analyzes specific pieces of evidence, which was someone Oswald's Ghost did not do. Instead, Oswald's Ghost seemed to focus in on Lee Oswald's history and his overall character. Beyond JFK's analysis on critical pieces of evidence that contradict the official report should cause others to question the investigation into the JFK assassination as a whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between Oswald's Ghost and JFK: The Question of Conspiracy is the emphasis put on the multiple shooters conspiracy. In Oswald's Ghost, Oswald is actually believed to be the lone gunman, while in this documentary the focus is put on multiple shooters and eyewitnesses who claim they had seen suspicious activity such as smoke coming from the grassy knoll, police reacting to the gunshot by running towards the grassy knoll instead of the library, and even a man seeing somebody standing behind the fence with a rifle. Other evidence such as the difficulty of shooting 3 shots in the time span Oswald had apparently shot was extremely difficult to do, especially from how far away he was and with a faulty scope.
ReplyDeleteIn the JFK documentary, Oswald is depicted as almost an innocent man who wasn't crazy enough to commit this assassination. The film showed an interview Oswald had with the media where a couple people interviewed for the film had said he didn't look like a person who would commit the crime. This goes well with the theme of the film that seems to attempt to convince the audience that he wasn't the only person partaking in this assassination. Jim Garrison is depicted as a detective, rightly searching for the truth and uncovering hidden elements to the case.
The evidence for the assassination case in this documentary is shown as being taken care of extremely poorly and even ignored. Many eyewitnesses were shown to have been ignored by the people taking care of the case, and even been attempted to convince that what they had seen or heard was wrong, such as where the smoke and noise from the gun came from. This depiction portrays that the case was being controlled by the government, and the only outcome was going to be the outcome the government wanted.
The film “Oswald’s Ghost” argues that a lone gunman assassinated JFK. This weeks film "Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy", argues that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. The film takes a look at the 1991 film JF, which is a drama based on the events that transpired resulting in the assassination. It is argued that the film distorts history by confusing fact with fiction, but at the same time takes a deeper look into the events that transpired.
ReplyDeleteA series of interviews with the cast of the film “JFK” suggest that Oswald was not capable of assonating JFK. The actor that plays the role of Lee Oswald in the film argues against the lone gunman theory stating that it is impossible for him to have fired that many shots in the time frame. He also references the fact the gun had a faulty scope (worth a dollar) and outdated ammunition. It was further noted that hundreds of marksman’s have tried to reenact the shooting and that non have been successful.
Jim Garrsin was portrayed as patriot in the who loves his country. He want the American people to get off there asses and do something about the assassination. He dismisses the Magic bullet theory, and the whitewash that was fed to the American people called the warren report.
The film looks at eyewitnesses in the JFK assassination, many of which support the theory of a second shooter on the grassy noll. A man is interviewed and clams that he witnessed a man fire shots from the grassy noll and watched the shooter pass the gun to a railroad worker, who then took it apart and placed it in a tool box. The man reported what he had witnessed to the police. The police did not want to speak with him (probably because he was mute). The film Oswald ghost does not look at the evidence that supports the idea of a second shooter but rather put the blame on Oswald.
Overall the film “Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy” seems to look at the bigger picture. It goes into greater detail in observing the events that took place. It looks further at the implication of the JFK assassination. Oswald’s Ghost does not look at eyewitnesses of the grassy noll and was set up to support the outrageous lone gunman theory.