He packed the move with over 80 demonstrable lies and despicably and falsely painted a lot of innocent people as being murderers and traitors, knowing full well it wasn't true. The man is beneath contempt.
@@aaronz7056 It's still a classic , and , very entertaining movie ! I know it's not a history book ( it's not really meant to be ... I don't think Anyone takes it to be Gospel truth )
@@johnhoward3271 Are you kidding? You know how many people on RU-vid alone comment along the lines of "you want to know the truth about how our government murdered our President, you need to check out this crusading director's kick-ass movie!"
@@of1300 So how could it best one of the best films taught in schools for critical thinking when it is chalked full of lies and tried to make a hero out of Jim Garrision.
@@of1300 I have studied this for 2 years talk about it everyday with administrators with 150 years collective experience. Believe me you're not even in the ballpark so your advice to me send it right back to you.
@@randyharris3175 One thing I'm sure of is he was the Oswald stand in for the back yard photos, that I have Zero doubt about. He was most likely the man who shot Tippit as well. The knoll and Tippit I'm like 70 to 80% sure. Oswald I'm 100% sure.
This is what we know and what is that Mr Stone.? That's the promblem every CTs theory that doesn't jive with the WC it becomes the whole story like Vincent Buglliosi said there has to be explanations for all your questions because we kmow Oswald is guilty not only by a reasonable doubt but beyond any doubt. 53 pieces of evidence that point toward his guilt I doubt Stone could rebutt even one of them and he talks about a fantasy land.
LMFAO there is not one piece of 'evidence' that could have survived cross examination of any competent defense lawyer. And citing the likes of Vince 'the nut job criminal stalker " Bugliosi, who lost not one but two elections for attorney general of California when the public got wind of his crimes and abuses, does not help your argument. Why don't we seek the opinion of a neutral and non nut job (and proven liar and criminal) lawyer who was the head of the legal section of the last government body that officially worked on the JFK Assassination and took dozens of witness depositions, some of them for the first time. Furthermore he saw all kinds of classified documents that few have seen. I think his opinion would could for a lot more than a completely discredited creep like Bugliosi. Lets see What this credible source has to say about all this "evidence". “I am convinced that Oswald would have been found ‘not guilty’. Beyond a reasonable doubt, to me there is no question, he is ‘not guilty’ beyond a reasonable doubt.” - Jeremy Gunn, Chief Council for the Assassination Records Review Board . Baseless assertions from criminal nut jobs is not "evidence", its dumb pills for the rubes to help themselves sleep.
