Totally disregarding the film, the WC EVIDENCE WOULD BE INSUFICIENT IN A COURT OF LAW TO PROSECUTE OSWALD. IT IS JUST A THEORY LIKE ANY OTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT ITS THE OFFICIAL THEORY
We've heard this all before, so I won't say 'the best,' simply the most revelatory book yet published on the JFK assassination: James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Douglas is planning a trilogy, with the next two volumes covering Martin Luther King and Malcom X's assassination and Bobby Kennedy gets the final volume.
Amazing that this is still being debated in 2011. What is frightening about the internet is the degree of irrationality that surfaces among all the opinionaters, sounding off (like me) about this and that. Rather than give out advice about avoiding movies and actors' testimonies, the best advice would be to ignore most comments on youtube . A simple internet search will reveal that no one to this date has duplicated what LHO is reputed to have done. Oldman is simply expressing common sense.
Gary Oldman should stick to acting (which he does very well) and stay away from making false claims. He states no one has been able to duplicate what LHO did. Not true. It's been duplicated and bested a number of times.
Gary is brilliant in this role. I am so grateful to this film as it finally proved that Oswald DID commit the murder. I advise you conspiracy people to read the Warren report and compare what Ruby said in his jail cell to what was shown in the film, it will lead you to the path of enlightenment I hope (as it did me).
@THEGUVNOR91 No I mean DID. You see when this film came out it reignited the debate. The film was full of classic misconceptions (the seating position in the magic bullet scene being a very obvious one). As a result there were several definitive works and tests done as well as computer simulations that show beyond any doubt in my mind that Oswald was the trigger man.
@coolhand67 His attempt on Edwin Walker around six months previous and his murder of JD Tippit also are very damning evidence of his guilt in the murder of Kennedy.
He is absolutly right. The gun claimed to be the one used would never be able to hit the target at the distance he was firing, also according to weather reports he was firing into the wind which means that the accuracy would have been even lower.
ya see comments on people believing oswald did it. maybe so. only lee and the real shooter and spotter will ever know the answer to that one. but i heard a excellent question the other day and it said that he believed officer tippet was the shooter behind the fence and thats why he was killed also. think about that one. a man in a dallas police uniform was filmed not seen filmed behind the fence with a gun. if only they had did a powder test on him when he died also. weird huh? godbless.
@39tommyboy Officer Tippit had been a police officer from 1952 until his death. He also worked side jobs for extra money to support his wife and three children. A hard working family man, and a WWII veteran. No, Officer Tippit was not the shooter on the grassy knoll. Nor did he have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy.
@billybagbom Typical sheeple "bad fact checker". Yeah he should realize that it's totally possible for a bullet to cause 7 wounds to 2 bodies and lose only 10 g of it's mass. Anybody who believes in the lone nutter probably is one.
a lot of people are stuck on 'the best marksman couldn't replicate that shot', but what if the shots that day were a misfire, thus the grassy knoll shotgun man/woman finished off what the shooter couldnt? still a conspiracy.. but it's an idea that shows its a set of shots that cant be replicated because it was a mistake in the first place and thus scattered
watch this to understand long distance sharpshooting or what Hollywood and Call of Duty nerds call "sniping." It's much harder to hit your target than you think!
Gary Oldman is wrong. And so was the movie JFK. They had him doing the shooting in about 6 seconds. Not true . He did it in 9 seconds. And the gun was more the capable of doing the job. The JFK Movie is a total joke and wrong is so many ways.
@TELEVISIONARCHIVES you are so right...the moon landing was fake, jfk was killed by oswald, 911 was an inside job, oprah is skinny again, the japs accidently bombed pearl harbor and mcdonalds and wendys and burger king is good for you. oh yeah and one more thing.......obama is a us citizen, the germans won world war 1 and 2, michael jordan was never aggressive on the offensive end, tombstone pizza will kill you and nancy kerrigan is dating tonya harding.
@TELEVISIONARCHIVES The only joke here is you my friend. The 9 second timeline has already been dismissed. Even a leading Marine Sniper training officer couldn't reproduce his efforts. The "magic" bullet supposedly only loss some 10g of its mass after causing 7 injuries to 2 bodies and didn't have even microscopic traces of blood, tissue or clothing (WC). You have your head so far up your backside probably not worth arguing with.
Not true; Oswald was a crack shot in the Marines, and that would not have changed during his time in Russia and New Orleans, no matter what sort of "shit gun" he used.
In what exactly is he mistaken? That Lee could not do it? You are completeley brainwashed If you think he did. Its same with 9/11. Science does not apply with people like you. You just seem to be unable to use brains properly and look at the facts with clear mind without any ideology. I guess you are scared of learning the real truth. Your stupid middleclass life would crumble like a house of cards.
One of the last "new" things to come to light was Michael Paine admitting that he knew about the Neely St backyard photos BEFORE the 11/22. He felt that Oswald was presenting "an icon of himself" when he showed Paine the picture. He was probably trying to distance himself from it & since the Warren Commission didn't ask...he just didn't tell.
Wesley Frazier ended up selling the car he drove LHO for $10! (It's currently in a Guiness Museum)
Frazier and his sister readily admitted in various interviews that they had no reason to pay particular attention to the length of the package BEFORE it meant anything to anyone. (Those statements get very little attention)
11/22 was the only day LHO walked away from Frazier & not with him to TSBD after he parked.
LHO said he only brought lunch to work (I doubt he devoured a 28-inch hero sandwich!)
Seriously, Marina knew exactly where to look for the rifle when cops came to the Paine house.
The bolt-action of the rifle was on the right-hand side....though even it was on the "wrong side" (which it wasn't) that would not exclude any possibility.
Also, Oswald really made only 1 of 3 shots (the head shot). Even though it is ASSUMED he used the scope, the iron-sights of the rifle was available through him (between the mount of the scope and the rifle itself) CTers love to say the mount prevented the use of the sights, but that's not so.
There have been a few documentaries that went to into that nonsense in detail. Including the fact that Garrison's so-called "doctor" who interviewed Russo after administering, set the stage by asking leading questions they wanted answered a certain way. (eg. "Shaw, Ferry and Oswald are talking about assassinating someone...now tell me about it")
Yet so many people take Garrison and Oliver Stone's "JFK" seriously.
Because he was NOT affililiated with the CIA...not any more than someone reporting a crime is "part" of the police department. All he did was filled out questionnaires for the Domestic Contacts Service...something asked of businessmen, students and journalists who traveled abroad...BIG DEAL!
The point is that Shaw claimed he had no connections with the CIA (job-wise, etc) whatsoever, but a former CIA director confirmed under oath that Shaw was a contact of the CIA.
In short, Shaw was not a CIA operative, but he lied about his contact with the organization. If he was not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK, he would be liable to be found guilty for perjury.
As if someone automatically knew that answering a questionnaire about foreign travel was tied in with the CIA. As if answering a questionnaire was a link to assassinating JFK.
Another weak link that the conspiracy theorists can afford to play....no proof required, no standards for evidence needed....just an endless game.
But about the photo of David Ferrie and Oswald standing together with military men? Ferrie denied knowing either Clay Shaw or Oswald, but evidence shows Oswald knew Ferrie.
What about it! Big Deal! Jim Garrison built this lame case (dismissed by a jury in a mere 50 minutes) around the testimony of a man who repeatedly not only kept contradicting himself, but repeatedly either failed or refused to answer questions in multiple lie detector tests....gee I wonder why Oliver Stone didn't have a character playing a "Perry Russo" in his stupid movie. Considering that the real-life Jim Garrison built his whole case around Perry Russo's testimony...that says it all.
The character of Willie O'Keefe (Kevin Bacon) is a composite of four witnesses, including Perry Russo. However, one of them was, in fact, a male prostitute.
I guess they did not want to spend half an hour maybe more of introducing the four witnesses and their accounts.
But remember, the validity issue of their testimony is hinted at in the film:
After Davide Ferrie is murdered, Garrison's associates are reluctant to rely on O'Keefe's testimony, because of his occupation as a hustler...
I enjoyed at how Stone "accounted" for Garrison's CHIEF INVESTIGATOR, William Gurvich quitting the investigation. Gurvich even when to Robert Kennedy telling him the case was baseless. He quit because of "Illegal and unethical practices in the DA office" (CBS-TV interview June '67) and Gurvich gave the memorable quote "As Garrison himself put it...' I can say what I damn well please about the CIA and they'll never reply"
"Garrison's associates are reluctant to rely on O'Keefe's testimony, because of his occupation as a hustler... "
GIVE US A BREAK! His other key witness was a heroin addict!
You had turkish bath owners, former prostitutes and inmates and gays coming out of the friggin' woodwork getting lawyers and going on (according to NBC, UNPAID) interviews talking about how Garrison was having people in the DA's office either bribe or hold past offenses over the heads trying to help his case against Shaw.
That's a good point, but when people from all walks of life can seperately corruburate a story and even Garrison's chief investigator confirms it, that's solid.
Same thing with the 6 people that ID'd Oswald for shooting Tippet, most didn't knew each other beforehand (only 2 did) and they all were there at the scene when the cops arrived, all corruburating each other, all pointing to the man Johnny Brewer saw duck into the theatre that he saw looking scared waiting for cops sirens to die down.
"I think it was all a conspiracy involving the gov't, pro-Castro/pro-Cuba plotters, and the Mafia."
That's is a complete contradiction regarding motives...granted conspiracy theorists can speculate till doomsday, but they'll never have a 2nd shooter or a 2nd gun or a bullet tied to a weapon other than Oswald's, they'll never have plotters and they don't have a conspiracy...just endless imagination.
I am one of the few who thinks there had to be a 2nd shooter.
The 'kill shot' (where Kennedy's head is blasted open), Kennedy lunges to the back and (his) left.
If the 'kill shot' came from the book depository, surely he would lunge to the FRONT?
I think many people here are missing that point.
Another point, the impression I get here is people are claiming because he shot Tippet (assuming he did for the moment), he must have shot Kennedy too! Not exactly concrete, is it?!
"One of the few things that the movie JFK did accurately was show..."
Yes , my point, the few things this dumb movie actually depicted was so few and far between it is a joke.
And really, do you think it is implausible that Oswald didn't hear the commotion caused by Baker and Truly down one flight of stairs trying to get the elevator to work? According to Truly HIMSELF on CBS-TV Sept. '64 "the ceilings are very low and there are only a few steps seperating each floor".
"smoke on the Grassy Knoll"??? From 2 people that changed their stories (Holland and Hill) and more importantly - SMOKELESS POWDER had been widely in use 50 YEARS PRIOR!...if Oswald's shitty gun didn't emit smoke, WHY would it from guns of this "pro hit team"????
AND NO ONE saw Oswald anytime near the shooting....he had no alibi and plotters wouldn't/couldn't take the chance of him being seen....did they just pray no one saw him and not blow the whole plot?
"If he was in on it, Oswald wouldn't want to be seen, but he walked out the front door.... "
I don't understand what you are saying.
As opposed to what?...running out of a back exit? I think it's safe to say that after shooting a President, Oswald had no desire to get caught or incriminate himself by acting suspiciously if he could avoid it. Once he shot Tippet with all the witnesses who saw him shooting/ running away with the gun, he really WAS "in flight".
That's is the whole reason for "smokeless powder"...it doesn't emit smoke.
In this case the 2 people that said they saw smoke, BOTH changed their stories over time. In 3 radio/TV interviews on 11/22/63 Jean Hill never said she saw a shooter or smoke from gun fire, THEN in conjunction with Oliver Stones "JFK" she lands a book deal and suddenly remembers 28 years later. SM Holland on 11/22 also gave a pathetic account and on CBS-TV in June '67 talks about a "long puff of steam"......NONSENSE!
Yes, but again... the powder may not smoke, that I do not doubt...
What I am saying/ask is, again I am no expert on guns (bloody hate them really!), but do rifles not need to be oiled? If so, could the heat from firing make any oil left over in the barrel etc smoke? Example: Smokeless coal does not smoke... but if you dipped it in oil first, it will smoke.
I'm no expert, but surely the powder is only one factor?
That's a good question, but the oil would't necessarily be placed in the chamber in a sufficient amount. Any "exhaust" from firing not only dissipates almost instantly, but you would practically have to be a few feet away focusing on it.
Consider the 2 sources of "smoke from the Knoll" Initially, SM Holland gave this a terribly inaccurate account of what took place (as seen on the Zapruder film) On CBS-TV in June of 1967 he said he saw a "long puff of steam", it's easy to visualize what he means and it's difficult to take it seriously.
Jean Hill gave laughable interviews on radio/TV on 11/22 saying "JFK was looking at a dog in the middle of the seat"! & there were 3 or 4 shots AFTER the head shot & NEVER mentioning ANY smoke.
uuhhh...it was test fired. Maybe watch a Discovery Channel show as recent as last year, showing a Mannlicher-Carcano being fired. The denial of "smokeless powder" doesn't cut it....sorry. Then to imagine that these "pro-hit men" (who according to Stone hit the target in only 1 of 6 shots) would use black powder is wrong.
Back to the 6 shots...know what the earwitness accounts in Dealey Plaza were? 136 hearing 3 shots and only SIX hearing 4 shots!...if you want details on this, let me know.
What happens at IMPACT? The spray from the head shot goes FORWARD. Again on impact. Take a fixed point of reference on Jackie's car door...look at JFK's shoulder's on IMPACT....where does it go ? Slightly forward.
Using the "logic "of 'the back to the left' ...does JFK get thrust into Connally from the upper back shot? Did Connally's wrist go flying from the bullet that past through it? Did Connally get thrown forward into the Roy Kellerman?
Another thing to consider is that even by 1963, firearms were smokeless, and on November 22, 1963, there was a strong wind that day, so I do not understand the claim of "smoke" on the grassy knoll. Can you explain that?
The Miranda case was not decided until 1966, so, obviously, there were no Miranda warnings in 1963. According to Posner's "Case Closed," Texas law in 1963 did not permit confessions to be admitted unless the defendant confirmed it in writing later (which they almost never did), and for that reason, there was no point to making a transcript, because nothing it contained could be used anyway.
People who think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy need to watch this movie and get the truth.Kennedy was killed by the United States Government so that we could go to war in Vietam.
and watch Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" & "Two Men in Dallas" & "The Men who Killed Kennedy" and research The 488th Military Intelligence Unit-Jack Crichton-George Lumpkin-Lt Col George Whitmeyer
"People who think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy need to watch this movie and get the truth"
From distorting Ealene Roberts saying cops were signaling Oswald...to lieing about Oswald's record as a sharpshooter... to the number of shots fired...to ignoring the 6 people that ID'd Oswald at the Tippet scene...to not even seeing a "Perry Russo" (the real-life Garrison's star witness) in the movie, etc., etc....Oliver Stone's "JFK" was for suckers!
No that is true, but it does seem odd that the man who was getting blamed for the assassination was killed by Ruby, a mafia bagman!
I think had Oswald been allowed to go to trial, even if he really was the lone killer, it would have reduced the conspiracy theory(ies) surrounding the JFK assassination.
Personally I think had Oswald not been killed and gone to trial over the JFK assassination, a lot of important people would be investigated and possibly imprisoned...
You can do it, and LHO DID do it. The weapon was NOT a piece of shit. Think about it people. If you were going to assassinate the President of the United States, and then frame some loser for it, would you try to frame him by using a weapon that was a piece of shit? So whether you believe it was Oswald acting alone, or a conspiracy, either way, the weapon was not a piece of shit. And for the record, the shot was not difficult at all, the scope was not mis-aligned.
Actually, the scope was defective. Thats a fact. However, critics often sight that the gun was mishandled or possibly dropped when they found it or that Oswald might have damaged it after the shooting. The point is that the scope was defective and nobody can explain why.
If the shot was not difficult, why could 15 marksmen not re-create it? Unless you're saying you're a better shot than 15 marksmen, which I seriously doubt would be true.
Merely postulating here, and may well be off target (no pun intended!)
Just assume for now he WAS working undercover for the CIA, ONI, et al.
Is it possible that his being a terrible marksman was part of the cover story and he was, in reality, a terrific shot? Could it be that even with a crappy weapon, he had sufficient accuracy to hit a target?
I hasten to add that this is just an idea I have; I'm not convinced he was the lone killer, or even if he was involved in the actual shooting
That's a misconception brought about by the movie "JFK"...Oswald reached ther level of sharpshooter (using a similar bolt action weapons consistently hitting 48/49 out of 50 in a rapid fire setting more than TWICE the distance (200 yards) than the head shot (88 yards) The scource for this is his marine training scorebook sold to Dr. Charles Lattimer by Oswald's MOTHER.
Oswald wasn't a great shot, but good enough...he really only hit 1 of 3 of his target (JFK's head).
Ok, that I can believe about a misconception... but :-
As I stated before, I figure the bullet that hit JFK's head came from the front (in the Zapruder film, JFK moves back and to his left).
If Oswald fired the kill shot from the depository, surely JFK would have lunged forwards?
To be honest, I don't think we will ever know what really happened. Even if Oswald was really the lone killer, the powers that be should have been more transparent, not indulge in so much cloak and dagger.
Dale Myers bullshit propaganda cartoon is as valid for scientific evidence as Elmer Fudd is valid for rabbit hunting, and Popeye is for the health benefits of spinach. He is exposed as the lying coward he is here:
watch?v=kSa3gO5h1ak
watch?v=eTZl1pqryBo
watch?v=IkXoAUTVbxE
The Single Bullet Myth is a fraud based upon drawings and conjecture, not X-Rays, photos, or the FBI's report. Arlen Specter is confronted with the facts here
yes the rifle was crap. It had a defective bolt and the scope was sighted for a lefthanded person, Oswald was righthanded....Hmmmm! The Warren Commission report makes a good doorstop that's all. Warren flunkies must enjoy being lied to, gluttons for punishment I'd say.
I believe Gary. I know hes an actor that does his reserch and everything he said, I myself have heard one way or another. I love how hes so passionate in the roles he plays.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
*Sigh* One of my favorite actors... But God... The gun was not a piece of shit... I know about six jarhead buddies who could shoot the same target with the same weapon :-/
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Garry you are one of the top five actors ever but you are seriously under informed about Oswald. 1)This gun was not "A piece of shit" it has been used for years by the italian army. 2) The ammunition can be purchased today. 3)My friend was able to hit a target 7 times in 6 seconds at 75 yards. I guess old Oliver got in your ear. Still loves your movies Gary. As an actor you rock it
he's incredible! he did such an amazing job acting as Lee Harvey Oswald. I like how he refers to the gun as a peice of s**t. lol! anyway thanx for posting this!!
Gary Oldman is a fantastic actor, but he's wrong about this. Oswald was an excellent marksman even by Marine standards. The difficulty of the shot is also exaggerated in film footage. If you actually go the the sixth floor museum you will see that it's now a difficult shot.
Your an idiot REGGIE,88 YARDS ON A MOVING TARGET NOT DIFFICULT? 1ST THE SCOPE WAS DEFECTIVE, 2ND ELM STREET HAD A WEIRD ANGLE WHICH MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT,3RD CAN YOU IMAGINE THE NERVES YOU MUST HAVE TO DO THIS? OSWALD COMMITS A BRILLIANT ASSASSINATION COOL AND CALM THEN AFTER THAT HE BECOMES A BUMBLING IDIOT? I DONT BUY IT.
Serious discussion REGGIE? Nice way to deflect the issue. Its idiots like who believe bogus-liosi,putz-ner who write these massive books,that are nonsense.When the testimony of baker&truly clearly show there was a conspiracy! Sure oswald could have gotten lucky,but you cant be in 2 places at the same time.You were saying?
Bogus-liosi? LOL Bugliosi could have written a book propogating some bogus conspiracy theory and made more money. What he did instead was write the truth.
And he did not have to spend 21 years writing it long hand. The end notes just on acoustics runs dozens of pages on legal pads. Of course i doubt CT could stand to read thru 2800 pages of EVIDENCE and CITATIONS. No all they can do is call him names because they have nothing
Yeah, I just love how much conviction he has. Not just in this video, but all the time.
Is anyone besides me in love with Gary's voice? I dunno what it is about it, but I can't get enough of it. Actually, I can't get enough of him in general. Haha.
Mmhmm, Bearger! I've been obsessed with him for about a month and a half (which is a long time for me. I usually go through phases by the weeks. Ha), and I've yet to find a single thing wrong with him. He's just so perfect, isn't he? ^_^
To bad Gary Oldman isn't as good a researcher as he is a actor . 100 provable lies from start to finish , JFK was the most worthless piece of shit movie every confabulated in hollywood and that's a fact ~!
Totally disregarding the film, the WC EVIDENCE WOULD BE INSUFICIENT IN A COURT OF LAW TO PROSECUTE OSWALD. IT IS JUST A THEORY LIKE ANY OTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT ITS THE OFFICIAL THEORY
edge78a 1 month ago
We've heard this all before, so I won't say 'the best,' simply the most revelatory book yet published on the JFK assassination: James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Douglas is planning a trilogy, with the next two volumes covering Martin Luther King and Malcom X's assassination and Bobby Kennedy gets the final volume.
Arcodanska 7 months ago
Amazing that this is still being debated in 2011. What is frightening about the internet is the degree of irrationality that surfaces among all the opinionaters, sounding off (like me) about this and that. Rather than give out advice about avoiding movies and actors' testimonies, the best advice would be to ignore most comments on youtube . A simple internet search will reveal that no one to this date has duplicated what LHO is reputed to have done. Oldman is simply expressing common sense.
Arcodanska 7 months ago
The pity is-people who watch movies to get history. Perhaps we should stick to reading books to get history. I always learned more that way.
gotch09 8 months ago
Gary Oldman should stick to acting (which he does very well) and stay away from making false claims. He states no one has been able to duplicate what LHO did. Not true. It's been duplicated and bested a number of times.
autoad 8 months ago
His accent ♥
misscarly12 9 months ago
you yanks must be a bunch of lemmons to believe lho killed jfk
blakey66 10 months ago
Gary Oldman said "a piece of sh*t " I think i'm in love.
JulieDanney 1 year ago 4
sure can do it.. he did do it...
grettoz 1 year ago
Tell em Gary tell em what's up
junksmasher777 1 year ago 3
Damn right you can't do it!
TPBXDRicky420 1 year ago
Gary Oldman is the freakin man.
Smithfilmproductions 1 year ago 15
Gary is brilliant in this role. I am so grateful to this film as it finally proved that Oswald DID commit the murder. I advise you conspiracy people to read the Warren report and compare what Ruby said in his jail cell to what was shown in the film, it will lead you to the path of enlightenment I hope (as it did me).
coolhand67 1 year ago
@coolhand67 I hope you mean 'DID*N'T*'
THEGUVNOR91 1 year ago
@THEGUVNOR91 No I mean DID. You see when this film came out it reignited the debate. The film was full of classic misconceptions (the seating position in the magic bullet scene being a very obvious one). As a result there were several definitive works and tests done as well as computer simulations that show beyond any doubt in my mind that Oswald was the trigger man.
coolhand67 1 year ago
@coolhand67 His attempt on Edwin Walker around six months previous and his murder of JD Tippit also are very damning evidence of his guilt in the murder of Kennedy.
Toneytc 10 months ago
@coolhand67 Believe the Warren Report?
TheAmbassador11 1 year ago
as a 1,000 yard bench rifle shooter, from the 1970's I have always said the first shot is your best. when speed shooting,
the first shot at Kenedy was a wide miss, then the next two were perfect.
come on, tell me another fairy tail:
donze52 1 year ago 3
@donze52
youve just told us one!!!
grettoz 1 year ago
@grettoz
check out my videos, when time allows. and keep warm
in the dead of winter. (donze52)
donze52 1 year ago
He is absolutly right. The gun claimed to be the one used would never be able to hit the target at the distance he was firing, also according to weather reports he was firing into the wind which means that the accuracy would have been even lower.
krehall 1 year ago 3
ya see comments on people believing oswald did it. maybe so. only lee and the real shooter and spotter will ever know the answer to that one. but i heard a excellent question the other day and it said that he believed officer tippet was the shooter behind the fence and thats why he was killed also. think about that one. a man in a dallas police uniform was filmed not seen filmed behind the fence with a gun. if only they had did a powder test on him when he died also. weird huh? godbless.
39tommyboy 1 year ago
@39tommyboy Officer Tippit had been a police officer from 1952 until his death. He also worked side jobs for extra money to support his wife and three children. A hard working family man, and a WWII veteran. No, Officer Tippit was not the shooter on the grassy knoll. Nor did he have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy.
Wicwire 1 year ago
Lee Oswald was a liar. He did it . His own brother said he did it.
TELEVISIONARCHIVES 1 year ago
Yeah, actually it IS totally possible for a single bullet to pass through 2 human bodies, and lose very little mass. So?
billybagbom 1 year ago
Oldman's a really good actor. Loved him in Dracula. Not a very good historian or fact-checker, though.
billybagbom 1 year ago
@billybagbom Typical sheeple "bad fact checker". Yeah he should realize that it's totally possible for a bullet to cause 7 wounds to 2 bodies and lose only 10 g of it's mass. Anybody who believes in the lone nutter probably is one.
PabloPena108 1 year ago
a lot of people are stuck on 'the best marksman couldn't replicate that shot', but what if the shots that day were a misfire, thus the grassy knoll shotgun man/woman finished off what the shooter couldnt? still a conspiracy.. but it's an idea that shows its a set of shots that cant be replicated because it was a mistake in the first place and thus scattered
zachedwards92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zachedwards92
watch this to understand long distance sharpshooting or what Hollywood and Call of Duty nerds call "sniping." It's much harder to hit your target than you think!
YOUTUBE:
Longest Sniper Kill Ever 1.5 Miles
blotto85 1 year ago
Oldman is a great actor....very underrated
level2statedept 1 year ago
Gary Oldman is wrong. And so was the movie JFK. They had him doing the shooting in about 6 seconds. Not true . He did it in 9 seconds. And the gun was more the capable of doing the job. The JFK Movie is a total joke and wrong is so many ways.
TELEVISIONARCHIVES 2 years ago
the cam ran at 18.3 fps it was such an easy shot
Obelisk2290 2 years ago
@TELEVISIONARCHIVES you are so right...the moon landing was fake, jfk was killed by oswald, 911 was an inside job, oprah is skinny again, the japs accidently bombed pearl harbor and mcdonalds and wendys and burger king is good for you. oh yeah and one more thing.......obama is a us citizen, the germans won world war 1 and 2, michael jordan was never aggressive on the offensive end, tombstone pizza will kill you and nancy kerrigan is dating tonya harding.
level2statedept 1 year ago 2
@TELEVISIONARCHIVES The only joke here is you my friend. The 9 second timeline has already been dismissed. Even a leading Marine Sniper training officer couldn't reproduce his efforts. The "magic" bullet supposedly only loss some 10g of its mass after causing 7 injuries to 2 bodies and didn't have even microscopic traces of blood, tissue or clothing (WC). You have your head so far up your backside probably not worth arguing with.
PabloPena108 1 year ago
Bill Hicks on JFK. The troof.
4lph4num3r1sm 2 years ago
What, the joke about confronting Jackie O with a mini-sniper rifle around your neck? :-S
blofeld39 2 years ago
No, the fact that's it was impossible to hit JFK from where Oswald supposedly was unless the bullet was magical.
4lph4num3r1sm 2 years ago
Not true; Oswald was a crack shot in the Marines, and that would not have changed during his time in Russia and New Orleans, no matter what sort of "shit gun" he used.
blofeld39 2 years ago
so he was better than 120 marksmen then!?
use your common sense, so many facts are out now.
CT2507 2 years ago
Only a few marksmen tested the shot, and most of them got it.
blofeld39 2 years ago
so Oldman and others are full of shit?
well, put yourself in Oswalds situation and consider all facts that are known. u'll see the theory don't hold.
CT2507 2 years ago
I'm not saying he's full of shit; he's a nice fellow, but he's mistaken.
blofeld39 2 years ago
that's your opinion. i trust in the common sense of Oldman, because it corresponds with my own.
CT2507 2 years ago
Are you saying I have no common sense?
blofeld39 2 years ago
im saying that u don't have enough life experience... so the common sense u have will be rather limited.
CT2507 2 years ago
How old are YOU, anyway? You're not one of those Birthers, are you?
blofeld39 2 years ago
im 41... what's a birther?
CT2507 2 years ago 2
One of those crazies who thinks President Obama was born in Kenya; by your response, I see you aren't one.
My apologies. :-)
blofeld39 2 years ago 3
a guy who knows to apologise, is man in my opinion!
CT2507 2 years ago 3
Thank you very much. :-)
blofeld39 2 years ago 2
In what exactly is he mistaken? That Lee could not do it? You are completeley brainwashed If you think he did. Its same with 9/11. Science does not apply with people like you. You just seem to be unable to use brains properly and look at the facts with clear mind without any ideology. I guess you are scared of learning the real truth. Your stupid middleclass life would crumble like a house of cards.
krata77 2 years ago 3
2 interesting things about what you mentioned:
One of the last "new" things to come to light was Michael Paine admitting that he knew about the Neely St backyard photos BEFORE the 11/22. He felt that Oswald was presenting "an icon of himself" when he showed Paine the picture. He was probably trying to distance himself from it & since the Warren Commission didn't ask...he just didn't tell.
Wesley Frazier ended up selling the car he drove LHO for $10! (It's currently in a Guiness Museum)
pajasa62 2 years ago
Frazier and his sister readily admitted in various interviews that they had no reason to pay particular attention to the length of the package BEFORE it meant anything to anyone. (Those statements get very little attention)
11/22 was the only day LHO walked away from Frazier & not with him to TSBD after he parked.
LHO said he only brought lunch to work (I doubt he devoured a 28-inch hero sandwich!)
Seriously, Marina knew exactly where to look for the rifle when cops came to the Paine house.
pajasa62 2 years ago
The bolt-action of the rifle was on the right-hand side....though even it was on the "wrong side" (which it wasn't) that would not exclude any possibility.
Also, Oswald really made only 1 of 3 shots (the head shot). Even though it is ASSUMED he used the scope, the iron-sights of the rifle was available through him (between the mount of the scope and the rifle itself) CTers love to say the mount prevented the use of the sights, but that's not so.
And "defective" is WAY to strong of a word.
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
Yep, no argument from me there....
There have been a few documentaries that went to into that nonsense in detail. Including the fact that Garrison's so-called "doctor" who interviewed Russo after administering, set the stage by asking leading questions they wanted answered a certain way. (eg. "Shaw, Ferry and Oswald are talking about assassinating someone...now tell me about it")
Yet so many people take Garrison and Oliver Stone's "JFK" seriously.
...they don't need any sodium pentothal.
pajasa62 2 years ago 4
I like how I get negative comments, but no one hear can challenge me what I said...nice.
pajasa62 2 years ago
The point is that we don't know the full story (missing links and all, there are some things still unknown) of the Kennedy Assassination.
Still, you can be nice about it rather than than scoffing at other people's posts and calling them out for making an error, etc.
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 3
Exactly... That is the whole problem! :-S
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago 2
The scene where David Ferrie breaks down and tells Garrison that there was a conspiracy is fictional. No such conversation took place.
However, a few weeks before he died of an aneurisym, Ferrie did warn an aide of Garrison that going public with the case was a bad idea.
MannequinSkywalker 2 years ago 10
I think we'll never know exactly all those involved...
However, it is true that Clay Shaw worked as a contact for the CIA and submitted info over to them for free without pay.
Why then would Shaw lie on the stand about not been affiliated with the CIA?
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 5
Because he was NOT affililiated with the CIA...not any more than someone reporting a crime is "part" of the police department. All he did was filled out questionnaires for the Domestic Contacts Service...something asked of businessmen, students and journalists who traveled abroad...BIG DEAL!
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
The point is that Shaw claimed he had no connections with the CIA (job-wise, etc) whatsoever, but a former CIA director confirmed under oath that Shaw was a contact of the CIA.
In short, Shaw was not a CIA operative, but he lied about his contact with the organization. If he was not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK, he would be liable to be found guilty for perjury.
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
As if someone automatically knew that answering a questionnaire about foreign travel was tied in with the CIA. As if answering a questionnaire was a link to assassinating JFK.
Another weak link that the conspiracy theorists can afford to play....no proof required, no standards for evidence needed....just an endless game.
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
But about the photo of David Ferrie and Oswald standing together with military men? Ferrie denied knowing either Clay Shaw or Oswald, but evidence shows Oswald knew Ferrie.
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 3
What about it! Big Deal! Jim Garrison built this lame case (dismissed by a jury in a mere 50 minutes) around the testimony of a man who repeatedly not only kept contradicting himself, but repeatedly either failed or refused to answer questions in multiple lie detector tests....gee I wonder why Oliver Stone didn't have a character playing a "Perry Russo" in his stupid movie. Considering that the real-life Jim Garrison built his whole case around Perry Russo's testimony...that says it all.
pajasa62 2 years ago
The character of Willie O'Keefe (Kevin Bacon) is a composite of four witnesses, including Perry Russo. However, one of them was, in fact, a male prostitute.
I guess they did not want to spend half an hour maybe more of introducing the four witnesses and their accounts.
But remember, the validity issue of their testimony is hinted at in the film:
After Davide Ferrie is murdered, Garrison's associates are reluctant to rely on O'Keefe's testimony, because of his occupation as a hustler...
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
"I guess they did not want to spend half an hour maybe more of introducing the four witnesses and their accounts."
Pardon me , but that's nonsense.
The movie was what 3 --1/2 hours long, Oliver Stone took a minute to spit out each bit of bullshit in that movie.
The whole movie culminated in the trial against Clay Shaw... The WHOLE MOVIE was Garrison's case.
CONTINUED.....
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
I enjoyed at how Stone "accounted" for Garrison's CHIEF INVESTIGATOR, William Gurvich quitting the investigation. Gurvich even when to Robert Kennedy telling him the case was baseless. He quit because of "Illegal and unethical practices in the DA office" (CBS-TV interview June '67) and Gurvich gave the memorable quote "As Garrison himself put it...' I can say what I damn well please about the CIA and they'll never reply"
pajasa62 2 years ago 3
"Garrison's associates are reluctant to rely on O'Keefe's testimony, because of his occupation as a hustler... "
GIVE US A BREAK! His other key witness was a heroin addict!
You had turkish bath owners, former prostitutes and inmates and gays coming out of the friggin' woodwork getting lawyers and going on (according to NBC, UNPAID) interviews talking about how Garrison was having people in the DA's office either bribe or hold past offenses over the heads trying to help his case against Shaw.
pajasa62 2 years ago 3
One must consider how reliable the witnesses would be? Are they earnest, or trying to get publicity?
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 4
That's a good point, but when people from all walks of life can seperately corruburate a story and even Garrison's chief investigator confirms it, that's solid.
Same thing with the 6 people that ID'd Oswald for shooting Tippet, most didn't knew each other beforehand (only 2 did) and they all were there at the scene when the cops arrived, all corruburating each other, all pointing to the man Johnny Brewer saw duck into the theatre that he saw looking scared waiting for cops sirens to die down.
pajasa62 2 years ago 5
"I think it was all a conspiracy involving the gov't, pro-Castro/pro-Cuba plotters, and the Mafia."
That's is a complete contradiction regarding motives...granted conspiracy theorists can speculate till doomsday, but they'll never have a 2nd shooter or a 2nd gun or a bullet tied to a weapon other than Oswald's, they'll never have plotters and they don't have a conspiracy...just endless imagination.
pajasa62 2 years ago
I am one of the few who thinks there had to be a 2nd shooter.
The 'kill shot' (where Kennedy's head is blasted open), Kennedy lunges to the back and (his) left.
If the 'kill shot' came from the book depository, surely he would lunge to the FRONT?
I think many people here are missing that point.
Another point, the impression I get here is people are claiming because he shot Tippet (assuming he did for the moment), he must have shot Kennedy too! Not exactly concrete, is it?!
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago 2
Exactly, the clue to the truth lies in the Zapruder film where JFK slumps back after his brain is blown out over Jackie, the car, etc.
If Oswald fired all shots (let's say he was), Kennedy's body would have slumped foward onto the floor of the car.
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
"One of the few things that the movie JFK did accurately was show..."
Yes , my point, the few things this dumb movie actually depicted was so few and far between it is a joke.
And really, do you think it is implausible that Oswald didn't hear the commotion caused by Baker and Truly down one flight of stairs trying to get the elevator to work? According to Truly HIMSELF on CBS-TV Sept. '64 "the ceilings are very low and there are only a few steps seperating each floor".
pajasa62 2 years ago
"smoke on the Grassy Knoll"??? From 2 people that changed their stories (Holland and Hill) and more importantly - SMOKELESS POWDER had been widely in use 50 YEARS PRIOR!...if Oswald's shitty gun didn't emit smoke, WHY would it from guns of this "pro hit team"????
AND NO ONE saw Oswald anytime near the shooting....he had no alibi and plotters wouldn't/couldn't take the chance of him being seen....did they just pray no one saw him and not blow the whole plot?
pajasa62 2 years ago 9
If he was in on it, Oswald wouldn't want to be seen, but he walked out the front door....
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
"If he was in on it, Oswald wouldn't want to be seen, but he walked out the front door.... "
I don't understand what you are saying.
As opposed to what?...running out of a back exit? I think it's safe to say that after shooting a President, Oswald had no desire to get caught or incriminate himself by acting suspiciously if he could avoid it. Once he shot Tippet with all the witnesses who saw him shooting/ running away with the gun, he really WAS "in flight".
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
I am no expert, but do rifles not need lubrication in the barrel, moving parts, etc?
The powder may not smoke, but surely the heat from firing and the friction of the bullet leaving will cause any remnant lubricant to smoke?
I am asking if the powder is the only variable in whether a gun will smoke or not.
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago 2
That's is the whole reason for "smokeless powder"...it doesn't emit smoke.
In this case the 2 people that said they saw smoke, BOTH changed their stories over time. In 3 radio/TV interviews on 11/22/63 Jean Hill never said she saw a shooter or smoke from gun fire, THEN in conjunction with Oliver Stones "JFK" she lands a book deal and suddenly remembers 28 years later. SM Holland on 11/22 also gave a pathetic account and on CBS-TV in June '67 talks about a "long puff of steam"......NONSENSE!
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
Yes, but again... the powder may not smoke, that I do not doubt...
What I am saying/ask is, again I am no expert on guns (bloody hate them really!), but do rifles not need to be oiled? If so, could the heat from firing make any oil left over in the barrel etc smoke? Example: Smokeless coal does not smoke... but if you dipped it in oil first, it will smoke.
I'm no expert, but surely the powder is only one factor?
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
That's a good question, but the oil would't necessarily be placed in the chamber in a sufficient amount. Any "exhaust" from firing not only dissipates almost instantly, but you would practically have to be a few feet away focusing on it.
pajasa62 2 years ago 3
Ok, I am satisfied with that! :)
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
Consider the 2 sources of "smoke from the Knoll" Initially, SM Holland gave this a terribly inaccurate account of what took place (as seen on the Zapruder film) On CBS-TV in June of 1967 he said he saw a "long puff of steam", it's easy to visualize what he means and it's difficult to take it seriously.
Jean Hill gave laughable interviews on radio/TV on 11/22 saying "JFK was looking at a dog in the middle of the seat"! & there were 3 or 4 shots AFTER the head shot & NEVER mentioning ANY smoke.
pajasa62 2 years ago 5
"if Oswald's shitty gun didn't emit smoke"... Pardon my ignorance, but where is it claimed his gun (assuming it was fired) did not smoke?
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
uuhhh...it was test fired. Maybe watch a Discovery Channel show as recent as last year, showing a Mannlicher-Carcano being fired. The denial of "smokeless powder" doesn't cut it....sorry. Then to imagine that these "pro-hit men" (who according to Stone hit the target in only 1 of 6 shots) would use black powder is wrong.
Back to the 6 shots...know what the earwitness accounts in Dealey Plaza were? 136 hearing 3 shots and only SIX hearing 4 shots!...if you want details on this, let me know.
pajasa62 2 years ago 3
OK, and i assume that test firing was with the same type of ammo used at the assassination?
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
Yes, any recreations using the same (or more often) other Mannlicher-Carcano's had to use the same 6.5mm ammo.
pajasa62 2 years ago
Fair enough!
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
Regarding you "head shot" comment...
What happens at IMPACT? The spray from the head shot goes FORWARD. Again on impact. Take a fixed point of reference on Jackie's car door...look at JFK's shoulder's on IMPACT....where does it go ? Slightly forward.
Using the "logic "of 'the back to the left' ...does JFK get thrust into Connally from the upper back shot? Did Connally's wrist go flying from the bullet that past through it? Did Connally get thrown forward into the Roy Kellerman?
pajasa62 2 years ago 3
I'll look again at the film.
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
Gary knows the truth. The gun WAS a P.O.S. The whole foundation of the case against Oswald rests on this crock.
AgaMbadi 2 years ago 4
Another thing to consider is that even by 1963, firearms were smokeless, and on November 22, 1963, there was a strong wind that day, so I do not understand the claim of "smoke" on the grassy knoll. Can you explain that?
mindspring57 2 years ago 4
The Miranda case was not decided until 1966, so, obviously, there were no Miranda warnings in 1963. According to Posner's "Case Closed," Texas law in 1963 did not permit confessions to be admitted unless the defendant confirmed it in writing later (which they almost never did), and for that reason, there was no point to making a transcript, because nothing it contained could be used anyway.
mindspring57 2 years ago
People who think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy need to watch this movie and get the truth.Kennedy was killed by the United States Government so that we could go to war in Vietam.
lovethemovies3 3 years ago 4
and watch Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" & "Two Men in Dallas" & "The Men who Killed Kennedy" and research The 488th Military Intelligence Unit-Jack Crichton-George Lumpkin-Lt Col George Whitmeyer
themeaningoflife38 2 years ago
"People who think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy need to watch this movie and get the truth"
From distorting Ealene Roberts saying cops were signaling Oswald...to lieing about Oswald's record as a sharpshooter... to the number of shots fired...to ignoring the 6 people that ID'd Oswald at the Tippet scene...to not even seeing a "Perry Russo" (the real-life Garrison's star witness) in the movie, etc., etc....Oliver Stone's "JFK" was for suckers!
pajasa62 2 years ago 5
Why did this guy never win an Oscar? Why?
ReignBeauJo 3 years ago 25
@ReignBeauJo no doubt...he is a great actor.
level2statedept 1 year ago
@ReignBeauJo because he's too good for one.
zachedwards92 1 year ago
Do not rely on the defendant to tell you the details of what was or was not disclosed to him.
mindspring57 3 years ago
No that is true, but it does seem odd that the man who was getting blamed for the assassination was killed by Ruby, a mafia bagman!
I think had Oswald been allowed to go to trial, even if he really was the lone killer, it would have reduced the conspiracy theory(ies) surrounding the JFK assassination.
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
Yeah, we can only wonder what if.....
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
Common sense tells you he couldnt have done.I heard there are plans to exhume JFK's body to perform a real autopsy in 2009.Should be interesting.
themeaningoflife38 3 years ago 3
Personally I think had Oswald not been killed and gone to trial over the JFK assassination, a lot of important people would be investigated and possibly imprisoned...
arglwyddanfradwrus 3 years ago 3
"It was a piece of shit" LOL
LifeJuice90 3 years ago 9
Lol
EdNortonisMineLol 3 years ago
best actor ever.
marylynncleveland 3 years ago 5
Gary is the man. My favorite actor.
6Ott7 3 years ago 6
You can do it, and LHO DID do it. The weapon was NOT a piece of shit. Think about it people. If you were going to assassinate the President of the United States, and then frame some loser for it, would you try to frame him by using a weapon that was a piece of shit? So whether you believe it was Oswald acting alone, or a conspiracy, either way, the weapon was not a piece of shit. And for the record, the shot was not difficult at all, the scope was not mis-aligned.
bbrown222 3 years ago
Actually, the scope was defective. Thats a fact. However, critics often sight that the gun was mishandled or possibly dropped when they found it or that Oswald might have damaged it after the shooting. The point is that the scope was defective and nobody can explain why.
6Ott7 3 years ago 2
If the shot was not difficult, why could 15 marksmen not re-create it? Unless you're saying you're a better shot than 15 marksmen, which I seriously doubt would be true.
Carlisle3Leeds1 3 years ago
Merely postulating here, and may well be off target (no pun intended!)
Just assume for now he WAS working undercover for the CIA, ONI, et al.
Is it possible that his being a terrible marksman was part of the cover story and he was, in reality, a terrific shot? Could it be that even with a crappy weapon, he had sufficient accuracy to hit a target?
I hasten to add that this is just an idea I have; I'm not convinced he was the lone killer, or even if he was involved in the actual shooting
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
That's a misconception brought about by the movie "JFK"...Oswald reached ther level of sharpshooter (using a similar bolt action weapons consistently hitting 48/49 out of 50 in a rapid fire setting more than TWICE the distance (200 yards) than the head shot (88 yards) The scource for this is his marine training scorebook sold to Dr. Charles Lattimer by Oswald's MOTHER.
Oswald wasn't a great shot, but good enough...he really only hit 1 of 3 of his target (JFK's head).
pajasa62 2 years ago 2
Ok, that I can believe about a misconception... but :-
As I stated before, I figure the bullet that hit JFK's head came from the front (in the Zapruder film, JFK moves back and to his left).
If Oswald fired the kill shot from the depository, surely JFK would have lunged forwards?
To be honest, I don't think we will ever know what really happened. Even if Oswald was really the lone killer, the powers that be should have been more transparent, not indulge in so much cloak and dagger.
arglwyddanfradwrus 2 years ago
I'm not convinced either.
I mean, Oldman says it in the interview himself:
* The gun used was an old gun (made in 1945)
* The bullets were old, too.
* The bullets would have to have been loaded individually, because this wasn't a clip of ammo.
* The time factor: could Oswald fire, reload, fire, reload, and fire again at a moving target in the span of a few seconds?
ReplicantMan 2 years ago 2
So, what he's saying is you can do it?
ryantmurphy87 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dale Myers bullshit propaganda cartoon is as valid for scientific evidence as Elmer Fudd is valid for rabbit hunting, and Popeye is for the health benefits of spinach. He is exposed as the lying coward he is here:
watch?v=kSa3gO5h1ak
watch?v=eTZl1pqryBo
watch?v=IkXoAUTVbxE
The Single Bullet Myth is a fraud based upon drawings and conjecture, not X-Rays, photos, or the FBI's report. Arlen Specter is confronted with the facts here
watch?v=aS3zrdkoCdY
No SBT = No lone gunman = CONSPIRACY.
VinnyVoom444 3 years ago
god, gary oldman is a-mazing! he caould play anyone! i have yet to see and actor who can live up to that!
dobbydude93 3 years ago 2
yes the rifle was crap. It had a defective bolt and the scope was sighted for a lefthanded person, Oswald was righthanded....Hmmmm! The Warren Commission report makes a good doorstop that's all. Warren flunkies must enjoy being lied to, gluttons for punishment I'd say.
kcsunshine64 3 years ago 2
I believe Gary. I know hes an actor that does his reserch and everything he said, I myself have heard one way or another. I love how hes so passionate in the roles he plays.
viciousangel18 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
*Sigh* One of my favorite actors... But God... The gun was not a piece of shit... I know about six jarhead buddies who could shoot the same target with the same weapon :-/
Ravere69 4 years ago
D-Bags
6Ott7 3 years ago
He said the gun was a piece of shit because it was old
Sztriki86 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Garry you are one of the top five actors ever but you are seriously under informed about Oswald. 1)This gun was not "A piece of shit" it has been used for years by the italian army. 2) The ammunition can be purchased today. 3)My friend was able to hit a target 7 times in 6 seconds at 75 yards. I guess old Oliver got in your ear. Still loves your movies Gary. As an actor you rock it
Obelisk2290 4 years ago
Thanks for posting this clip. Gary's opinion is always interesting. :)
brooke127 4 years ago 8
Friggin' Gary Oldman. He can be made to look like anyone. Great actor. His Sid Vicious, Lee Oswald and other parts he's done are kickass.
petsounds75 4 years ago 12
who cares of what gary said!!!!! really hes gorgeous face is what matters...
jeez.
livinadream92 4 years ago 3
R.I.P JFK,u would definitely change this country
FmlyGy 4 years ago
he's incredible! he did such an amazing job acting as Lee Harvey Oswald. I like how he refers to the gun as a peice of s**t. lol! anyway thanx for posting this!!
dramask8rgrl 4 years ago
Gary Oldman is a fantastic actor, but he's wrong about this. Oswald was an excellent marksman even by Marine standards. The difficulty of the shot is also exaggerated in film footage. If you actually go the the sixth floor museum you will see that it's now a difficult shot.
Reggie1971 4 years ago
Sorry, NOT a difficult shot.
Reggie1971 4 years ago
Your an idiot REGGIE,88 YARDS ON A MOVING TARGET NOT DIFFICULT? 1ST THE SCOPE WAS DEFECTIVE, 2ND ELM STREET HAD A WEIRD ANGLE WHICH MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT,3RD CAN YOU IMAGINE THE NERVES YOU MUST HAVE TO DO THIS? OSWALD COMMITS A BRILLIANT ASSASSINATION COOL AND CALM THEN AFTER THAT HE BECOMES A BUMBLING IDIOT? I DONT BUY IT.
chubbychaser31 4 years ago
Your crudely worded post indicates you to be just a common conpiracy theory simpleton who is incapable of a serious discussion on this subject.
Reggie1971 4 years ago
Serious discussion REGGIE? Nice way to deflect the issue. Its idiots like who believe bogus-liosi,putz-ner who write these massive books,that are nonsense.When the testimony of baker&truly clearly show there was a conspiracy! Sure oswald could have gotten lucky,but you cant be in 2 places at the same time.You were saying?
chubbychaser31 4 years ago 3
Bogus-liosi? LOL Bugliosi could have written a book propogating some bogus conspiracy theory and made more money. What he did instead was write the truth.
Reggie1971 4 years ago
And he did not have to spend 21 years writing it long hand. The end notes just on acoustics runs dozens of pages on legal pads. Of course i doubt CT could stand to read thru 2800 pages of EVIDENCE and CITATIONS. No all they can do is call him names because they have nothing
Obelisk2290 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you're a moron
piscesgutt 4 years ago
The gun was in fact very much capable of shooting the President.
newenglandvideo 4 years ago
I love you Gary Oldman
GaryOldmanGirl 4 years ago 2
I think that has to be the best way anyone has ever said that phrase... "I mean a, a piece of shit!"
Seriously! Loved his conviction during this! Thanks for sharing!
Bearger 4 years ago
Yeah, I just love how much conviction he has. Not just in this video, but all the time.
Is anyone besides me in love with Gary's voice? I dunno what it is about it, but I can't get enough of it. Actually, I can't get enough of him in general. Haha.
RequiemForADream412 4 years ago 2
Requiem - I definitely second that! Love it all...
I've said it numerous times - I'll say it again:
The man can do no wrong!
Bearger 4 years ago
Mmhmm, Bearger! I've been obsessed with him for about a month and a half (which is a long time for me. I usually go through phases by the weeks. Ha), and I've yet to find a single thing wrong with him. He's just so perfect, isn't he? ^_^
RequiemForADream412 4 years ago
Gawd this is awesome!! i can't get enough of this fellow and he's young an yummy in this YAY!
TheGreatTyrant 4 years ago
Go Gary! Speak the truth brother!
D4Shawn 4 years ago
To bad Gary Oldman isn't as good a researcher as he is a actor . 100 provable lies from start to finish , JFK was the most worthless piece of shit movie every confabulated in hollywood and that's a fact ~!
cdddraftsman 4 years ago
Hasn't the JFK assassination basically stumped every researcher on Earth (not just Gary Oldman)?
Anyways, what was he incorrect about (most of that was about Oswald's gun)?
Correct the facts. I'm perfectly willing to accept your statement as true (especially since you can prove it, apparently).
As for the movie, I don't even remember it. I don't think it was anything special.
D4Shawn 4 years ago