MovieChat Forums > 11.22.63 (2016) Discussion > TOTAL GARBAGE!! Here are the facts:

TOTAL GARBAGE!! Here are the facts:

posted 9 years ago by mattfoley_motivational_s
78 replies | jump to latest

This show was worthless tripe that basically attempts to make the Warren Commission look right. I mean, if you're gonna take that route, at least stick to the facts. And they are:

FACT #1: Lee did not touch any of the boxes in the snipers nest because his fingerprints were not on any of them. There were also no gloves to be found but this idiotic show shows him touching and grabbing the boxes. The only fingerprint ever found was a fingerprint of a pinky. That fingerprint turned out to be Malcolm Wallace's. He was a henchmen of LBJ's and did his dirty work for him including killing for him.

FACT #2: There were no fingerprints or face-prints of Lee on the rifle until after the police and FBI visited the funeral home were Lee's body was being prepared. The funeral director stated in an interview that after the police left, there was fingerprinting ink on Lee's fingers. That was not there before the police got there.

FACT #3: That rifle was a piece of crap. When ballistics tried to use it, the scope was off and could not be aimed without shims. There was a crack in the glass of the scope as well. That rifle could not have been used as the murder weapon because it was so inaccurate.

FACT #4: George Mohrenschildt, Lee's handler, stated in an interview that Oswald had been the scapegoat in the assassination of President Kennedy.

FACT #5: Contrary to what this idiotic show displayed, Marina did not wash clothes at Lee's apartment. It would have been a ridiculous inconvenience to drag all those clothes from the house she was living in to the apartment.

FACT #6: After JFK is shot at, you see people running towards the TSBD. That did not happen. People ran to the grassy knoll from where they heard the shots.

FACT #7: After the shots rang out, the limo did not immediately take off. In fact, witnesses confirmed that the limo driver, William Greer (may he rot in Hell) slowed down and virtually stopped the car. You can see that happen in the Marie Muchmore film. Greer, ignored the direct order of his superior who was seated next to him to get the hell out of there, and only accelerated out of the area when he saw the fatal shot being made.

FACT #8: While the initial paraffin test indicated that Lee may have shot a gun that day, it totally absolves him of having used a rifle because no gunpowder was found on either cheek. When the paraffin was analyzed further, it showed that Lee had not used any gun or rifle that day. When confronted with that fact, what did the Warren Commission do? It threw out the results as being unreliable.

FACT #9: In this show, Zapruder was standing on the grassy knoll but in real life, he was standing on a concrete block and being held in place by his secretary because Zapruder had vertigo.

There's lots more but these are the ones that jump right out at me. Seriously, if Stephen King was gonna write a book going along with the Warren Commission, he really wasted an enormous opportunity to weave a great story out of a more complex conspiracy. If King were here in front of me now, I would spit in his face for his lies and betrayal of the facts. In fact, I hereby defecate upon this stupid miniseries, book, and on Stephen King himself.

[–] imhotep266 9 years ago

Well I'm sorry the show didn't showcase your particular theory. Who was the REAL shooter then?
Cubans? CIA? Mafia? Secret Service agent misfire?

If they had chosen one conspiracy theory, the board would be alive with the tin-foil hat brigade claiming the show was 'garbage' because 'their' theory was not portrayed correctly.

You should accept the fact that, despite a few anomalies, the most likely scenario was that Oswald shot Kennedy. The fact that so many alternative theories exist is proof in itself that there isn't solid evidence of an alternative scenario.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Did you not read what I wrote? If you're gonna respond, at least have the courtesy of actually reading the OP.

What I stated was FACT, not fiction or my, "particular theory". My complaint is that what we saw on the screen did not adhere to the FACTS. Can you comprehend that?

I don't know or care who did the real shooting as far as what this topic is concerned. I'm just pointing out things that we saw in this miniseries that DID NOT HAPPEN in real life. Is that better? Are we clear?

[–] imhotep266 9 years ago

Oh yes. I read what you wrote. Apparently the show was 'garbage' because it didn't include a few arcane 'facts' that you thought should have been included.

It is also a fact that time travel is impossible, but we suspend our knowledge of this fact because it's a story, not a documentary. It's purpose was to entertain, not precisely reenact every vent.

And I'll bet you do have a theory, which is why you're sore they didn't include your random facts. (Imagine if they had to include every conspiracy nutter's pet factoids.)

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Dude, what is wrong with you? "Arcane facts" and "random facts"? Are you for real? Oswald not touching any boxes and his rifle not having his fingerprints on it are "Arcane"?

Yeah, this conversation is over because you've thoroughly demonstrated an inability to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant. I mean, I don't want to be hard on you but you're digging your heels in just to avoid admitting I'm right.

I'll say it again, I don't care about conspiracy theory stuff or time travel. Time travel is merely the vehicle used to move this story forward. I'm only talking about relevant facts and the ones I posted are extremely relevant.

Let me give you an example: If this were a miniseries about the Korean War and they didn't include the invasion at Inchon, that would be absurd. The same is true here. Very important facts were not left out, they were completely distorted.

Maybe I didn't explain this well enough in my first two posts so I'm hoping I was able to clear it up now.

[–] imhotep266 9 years ago

I'll say it again, I don't care about conspiracy theory stuff or time travel. Time travel is merely the vehicle used to move this story forward. I'm only talking about relevant facts and the ones I posted are extremely relevant.

So, where Oswald's wife did the washing should have been explicitly clear in the show? And the fact that it wasn't is a big deal? Have a listen to yourself.

You're personally interested in whether Oswald was the 'real' killer, obviously. Claiming you've 'no interest' in the conspiracy aspect is ludicrous given your attention to the minutiae of JFK's murder.

You don't seem to understand that the JFK conspiracy was not what the show was about. It was the hook to hang the drama on - the whole 'will he save the president/get the girl/ etc' thing. That was the story. Not the minor details that you're on about.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Just because you think those are minor details does not make them so. Again, all I was asking for was for them to portray the actual "event" using the facts as we know them to be. That's all. I mean, why not make Oswald a black guy if those kinds of details are not important?

And I'm not even talking about "minutiae" details. If you want minutiae, give me a minute and I'll list 10 more facts for you. Saying that the JFK conspiracy was not what this show was about is like saying the WTC is not what 9/11 was about. Come on, your discounting of relevant facts is absurd.

I understand that it's a backdrop (that's the word you're looking for) to the drama about Jake, saving JFK, and the girl. I get that. And I agree. But where we disagree is what facts should be shown in this story and what shouldn't. It's like saying that it's OK to make a movie with 9/11 as the backdrop yet use a Cessna instead of a 747 to fly into the WTC. That's a relevant fact just like showing Oswald building the snipers' nest without leaving fingerprints is relevant. The issue is that you and I disagree on what is important and what is not.

Nevertheless, I get what you're saying.

[–] paul_tachian 9 years ago

Well, regarding your original list of the show's failings...

FACT #4: George Mohrenschildt, Lee's handler, stated in an interview that Oswald had been the scapegoat in the assassination of President Kennedy.

The show practically confirms that.
When they're rushing up the TSBD stairs, one of the landing walls has "YOUR THE PATSY" (sic) scrawled in red.
The suggestion being, the past took a break from "fighting back" and chose to forewarn Jake.

Which very nearly eventuated but for the miraculously lucid memories of a recently comatose amnesiac.

[–] mculham 9 years ago

If they used a 747 in a 9/11 show it would be no more accurate than a Cessna. FACT.

[–] ambeck22 9 years ago

Dude, what's your problem? It's a book, and then a mini-series. Calm down and get over yourself.

-Dad, who's that?
-Oh, that? One of my patients. He's...sick.
-Will he live?
-It's looking grim.

[–] Isee-stupid-people 8 years ago

imhotep266...in response to facts u choose to pretend they do not affect the conclusion or provide that time travel is a null...therefore facts for the Kennedy shooting must be null too...

OP is correct you are not capable of comprehending complex toughts

[–] joemdec35 9 years ago

You should accept the fact that, despite a few anomalies, the most likely scenario was that Oswald shot Kennedy.

Sheeple like you are everything thats wrong with America.

[–] imhotep266 9 years ago

Sheeple like you are everything thats wrong with America.

Thanks Joe. Perhaps you can lead me to the light then.
From reading some of the comments here, the way non 'sheeple' approach an historical event is:

- Never believe the official version. Hell, you don't even have to believe the versions of other conspiracy theorists. It's pretty much a free-for-all. The main thing is never believe the official version
- Pick your bad guy. Doesn't matter who, but Jews, Bushes, Foreigners, NeoCons and Klingons are popular
- Work up at least a vaguely plausible version of events - plausible in the way that, say, Die Hard movies were plausible
- Pick a few random unexplained anomalies and claim them as proof that your theory is correct
- Give yourself a pat on the back. You've proved nothing, achieved nothing, convinced no-one, but now at least you have someone to blame for your crappy life.

[–] joemdec35 9 years ago

Step out of your fairytale land. The muslims weren't behind 9/11, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, Iraq and Vietnam posed zero threats to the US, the mars rover is really in Nevada, scientists do have a cure for cancer.

Sorry for exposing you to the harsh truth.

[–] imhotep266 9 years ago

Sorry Joe, I didn't realise you were taking the p*ss too!

But we really should stop. It's like standing on the corner laughing at the stupid people.

[–] Maximus-8 9 years ago

People who use the term "sheeple" are, in general, not to be taken seriously at all.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

Everything you are saying is working perfectly and no one thinks you are stupid.

[–] tom_42 9 years ago

Who was the REAL shooter then?
Cubans? CIA? Mafia? Secret Service agent misfire?

George H.W. Bush

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Bush was there but he wasn't a shooter. According to Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis and Malcolm Wallace were shooters.

[–] philoj 9 years ago

My personal favorite conspiracy theory is that one of the Secret Service agents in the car behind Kennedy's was so panicky pulling his weapon up that he accidentally discharged it in the direction of the President's car, leaving the distinct possibility that the Secret Service accidentally killed the President.

So all the inconsistencies and appearances of cover-up were simply to ensure that if that's what happened, it was never discovered. Maybe a handful of people trying to protect the image of the Secret Service.

No other conspiracy - Oswald was the lone gunman.

I'm not emotionally invested in this theory, and it's probably just a fairy tale, but it would certainly make far more sense than "a bunch of very powerful men coordinated an assassination of a popular President and in the fifty years since not a single person has said a word and zero additional clues have surfaced supporting that theory"

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] lwio1960 9 years ago

Yea, but Sadie was very pretty.

[–] CuriousDan 9 years ago

Oh yes, she was.

[–] Hopper10 9 years ago

Have you read the book? The series strays from it quite a bit. In the book, half of the details you are whining about aren't even described as the majority of the story is seen through Jakes eyes.

Dear Warden, You were right. Salvation lies within.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I don't care about the book. This is about the miniseries. At the very least of what we should have gotten is adherence to the facts. And the facts I listed demonstrate that this miniseries went out of its' way to be ignorant of those facts.

[–] Hopper10 9 years ago

"Seriously, if Stephen King was gonna write a book going along with the Warren Commission, he really wasted an enormous opportunity to weave a great story out of a more complex conspiracy. If King were here in front of me now, I would spit in his face for his lies and betrayal of the facts. In fact, I hereby defecate upon this stupid miniseries, book, and on Stephen King himself."

Then what the fvck is this sh!t ^ you wrote if you don't care about the book? Don't slander King if you haven't read the book. Like I said the FACTS that you are crying about are not issues in the book as the miniseries is quite different when it comes to that fateful assassination scene because of the way they show Oswald's perspective. Before you freak out and starting throwing harsh words around maybe you should also check the FACTS. King was not ignorant of the FACTS so give your fvckin head a shake you god damn idiot.

Dear Warden, You were right. Salvation lies within.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I think you need to get checked out and perhaps receive some therapy because your insane outburst demonstrates a need for either medications or some kind of restraints. The rules of this forum prohibit me from using the choice words I have for you and your inability to understand what I'm saying.

Like I said, I don't care about the book. The book has even more absurdity in it but my main focus was the show. Does King go into any detail about how Oswald built the snipers' nest without leaving fingerprints? You tell me. Did Marina wash her children's clothing at the apartment? No, but what does the book say? You seem to be an expert on the book so feel free to address all the facts I posted and how they are handled in the book.

Lastly, and most importantly, Jonathan Demme, the first Director on the project quit because Stephen King, the Executive Producer, was adamant about what should be in the film and how it should be shown. So, in the end, this was Stephen King's production and what we saw was what and how Stephen King wanted us to see this miniseries. Feel free to beg my forgiveness for your personal insults.

[–] Hopper10 9 years ago

How old are you? Checking your history and it seems as though you can't express an opinion without being condescending, or flat our over dramatic with extreme insults. You must be incredibly insecure. Looks as if you're just on here to pick fights. You must lead a very entertaining life if that's the case. Anyways I wont be begging forgiveness because there is no point in arguing with someone so close minded and volatile. You seem to already have made up your mind about King and the very small silly problems youve found with this series and the book and therefore there is no point in discussing any further because i have better things to do with my time. Have fun!

Dear Warden, You were right. Salvation lies within.

[–] Makarov-324 9 years ago

There's lots more but these are the ones that jump right out at me. Seriously, if Stephen King was gonna write a book going along with the Warren Commission, he really wasted an enormous opportunity to weave a great story out of a more complex conspiracy. If King were here in front of me now, I would spit in his face for his lies and betrayal of the facts. In fact, I hereby defecate upon this stupid miniseries, book, and on Stephen King himself.

Whoa... I didn't like it either but that's a little bit much.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Maybe that is a bit much but I would at the very least berate him and anyone else involved for lying about what really happened. I don't think it's too much to ask for historical accuracy when re-creating a historical event. I mean, I'm not asking for him to delve into every little conspiracy angle. Not at all, but the viewers deserve to be given the facts and not fantasy when recounting the dramatic events of 11/22/63. Don't you agree?

[–] moisey-80897 9 years ago

Here's another fact. It's a fictional story about time travel and the JFK assassination. I think we can all give it the benefit of doubt when it comes to, "who dun it".

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I completely agree. But that wasn't my point. Did you have a chance to read the OP? The JFK assassination is a backdrop to the story about Jake, JFK, and Sadie. The only thing that bothered me was that certain facts were completely lied about in this show. Not left out, but falsified. Don't you think that a factual event should be portrayed factually? I mean, let's make Oswald a black guy if facts don't matter.

[–] Makarov-324 9 years ago

They can make Oswald a talking cat if they want, it's fiction. If this was a documentary or anything claiming to be factual then you might be on to something.

[–] LAtoSEA 9 years ago

Where is the law that real events have to be portrayed completely factually in a work of fiction? No, they don't have to include anything you said to create a compelling story. Yes, they could make Oswald a black guy. It's a work of fiction. I don't understand how you accept that for the time traveling storyline, but expect everything else to be a documentary. Writers change things to suit their needs, and the needs of the story. It's YOU who are the missing the point in this thread, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

[–] gregbizkit2001 9 years ago

Stephen King actually did a lot of research going into the process of writing the book. If you "don't care about the book" (that's a direct quote from you), then you shouldn't be so harsh on the author. You watched the show and didn't like it, and that's great, especially because you provided an explanation and have done your own research to back up your points. But it's extremely ignorant of you to assume that the same sins of the show are also sins of the book, because if you're familiar with the relationship between adaptations and source material, especially when it comes to book-to-film projects, you should understand that the source material and the film/television adaptations are rarely one in the same and sometimes completely different. Plenty of people who loved the BOOK The Shining by King absolutely HATED Stanely Kubrick's FILM adaptation, for example, because it took so many liberties.

The disappointing thing is that I actually agree with a lot of what you said, I just think that you're being overly harsh on the author of a book that you haven't even read which brings your credibility into question, and ultimately hurts the rest of us who might actually agree with you otherwise.

[–] nilbog777 9 years ago

But the part about a time traveling closet in a diner was acceptable to you?

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Yeah, why wouldn't it be? The whole time travel aspect was great. I loved it. But this was a fantasy miniseries about FACTUAL EVENTS. Do you understand that very important point?

All I was asking was that if you are trying to portray FACTUAL EVENTS then go ahead and portray the FACTUAL EVENTS. Was Oswald a real person? Yes. That's a fact. Did Oswald work at the TSBD building? Yes. That's a fact. Did Oswald have an apartment? Yes. That's fact. These are facts just like the ones I mentioned in my OP.

Was that more clear? Please let me know if it wasn't and I'm happy to try explaining it in a different way.

[–] syncopatedrhythm 9 years ago

It is called fiction, lighten up Francis.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

The JFK assassination was fiction? Wow, I really thought that happened. Silly me.

I would really have liked to end this post with a line from "Stripes" but I couldn't think of one. Maybe you could help me with that? 😁

[–] paul_tachian 9 years ago

I would really have liked to end this post with a line from "Stripes" but I couldn't think of one. Maybe you could help me with that?

I can.

Son of bìtch. Shìt.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I will as soon as I can strap you to the front bumper then, yes, we're gonna go for a swim.

Have you no shame telling someone to kill themselves? What kind of wrap mind tells another person that he should die simply because you weren't able to understand the OP? I bet you enjoy kicking small animals and hurting children. Why? What kind of person are you. Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?

I'm gonna say a prayer for you.

[–] duckofprey 9 years ago

Matt, I was just joking, having fun with your chosen username which I think others may not have fully gotten the gist of.

I sincerely and whole heartedly did NOT mean it literally. I was just trying to work your username into a funny. I should have at leasted used a ;-) and perhaps come up with something altogether different while using "Matt Foley Motivational Speaker".

Please do Live Long and Prosper! :-)

Mike

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Lol. Hey Mike, I know you were messing with me. It's all good, bro, no worries. I was just keeping a straight-face and throwing some crazy crap back at it to see how you would respond.

Honestly, I'm like that in real-life. I literally have to tell my friends when I'm joking because I kid around so much and keep a straight-face when I'm doing it.

God bless, bro. :)

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

What kind of wrap mind tells another person that he should die simply because you weren't able to understand the OP?

Didn't you want to spit on someone b/c you didn't like their book?

LOL @ you for having people's posts deleted. The sign of a true warrior. 

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Hey, bro, Mike and I were joking around. And no, I didn't want his post deleted because now my comment looks stupid all by itself. And thank you about the "true warrior" thing. I really do pride myself on being a Paladin. God bless you and the horse you rode in on. 😍

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

I literally have to tell my friends when I'm joking

I get why you have to explain your sense of humor to people. Maybe you should get some canned laughter so your friends will know when they are supposed to laugh.

[–] denisflanagan 9 years ago

Great post buddy but you're forgetting one important issue:

Since jake comes from the future he's altering the timeline. You're facts are based on the original timeline and a lot of facts you have stated might as well been altered by jake's doing.

And this show is not about the killing of JFK and all the conspiracytheories surrounding it. It's so much more...

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I agree completely. And yes, the JFK assassination is merely a backdrop to the much larger story. Totally agree. But as for the facts, please review them and think of how they might have changed with Jake being involved. Would Zapruder be standing elsewhere? Would Oswald have left fingerprints? I mean, test what you're saying to the facts I posted and please let me know what you think might have happened differently because of Jake being involved. I would appreciate it.

[–] denisflanagan 9 years ago

I know too little about the assassination of JFK to give you a full answer.
I did saw a documentary on discovery 2 weeks ago but they only focussed on Lee Harvey Oswald and that he did it all by his self. No CIA or second gunman, just Lee and his gun.

Any good viewing material you recommend on this subject? Can't deny I'm a little intrigued by the conspiracytheories surrounding JFK.

[–] LAtoSEA 9 years ago

Oliver Stone's "JFK" is what you're looking for.

[–] denisflanagan 9 years ago

I thought so. I will watch it tonight.

thanx!

[–] TheGoodMan19 9 years ago

Oh, I'll regret this, but...

FACT #9: Why in the blue hell did Oswald shoot JD Tippet? Oswald, innocent of everything, leaves work early and shoots a Dallas PD officer in cold blood. And don't give any crap that he didn't. Too many witnesses and the gun he had in the theater matched the bullets from Tippet.

In fact, I hereby defecate upon this stupid miniseries, book, and on Stephen King himself.

I'm sure King is losing sleep over this setback

It is my intention to rid the ground of your shadow

[–] liketoknowwhy 9 years ago

Ahhh...

But conspiracy theorists will say that the witness testimony was wrong or that other people/conspirators deliberately targeted Tippet because he was part of the conspiracy as well - meaning, you guessed it, another conspiracy.

I've seen and heard every conspiracy out there. I used to be a believer as well. But if you read the actual facts of what happened, you would see that Oswald acted alone.

I do suggest reading about the entry points of Kennedy's gunshot wounds. But conspiracy theorists will say that analysts, doctors and surgeons were wrong and (fill in the blank) really happened - meaning, you guessed it, another conspiracy.

[–] TheGoodMan19 9 years ago

I'm not willing to discount a second shooter. The Zapruder film certainly seem to show Kennedy's head snapping back in a different direction than the Book Depository. But that's the only shred of evidence. But anyone who thinks that Oswald wasn't shooting is dead wrong.

I hate the smug attitude of every CT follower I've run into. That "I know something who don't" smugness and the obligatory use of the term "sheeple" makes me want to vomit.

It is my intention to rid the ground of your shadow

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Gentlemen, I give you Marita Lorenz, Frank Sturgis, Malcom Wallace, and E. Howard Hunt. Oswald was involved but to what extent, I have no idea. Some say he was working for the FBI and that he delivered a note to FBI Agent Hosty shortly before the event warning him of the assassination. That note as we saw in the show, was burned in violation of federal and state law. That's what they call a cover-up.

But, hell, maybe he was a shooter as well. I don't know but not being able to find his fingerprints on the rifle or on the boxes or that the rifle was in such bad condition that experts determined it could not have been fired using that bad scope or that no test was conducted to see if that rifle had even been fired that day raises some serious questions.

[–] TheGoodMan19 9 years ago

Oswald wrote a note to Hosty asking him to have the FBI surveillance on Marina halted. They were separated and there was no reason to watch Marina. The note was destroyed because the questioning/surveillance of Marina was against orders. Its that simple.

Here's a hypothetical question. If you were hatching a conspiracy to assassinate the President, would you want an ignorant, mean-spirited, wife beating redneck like Oswald within 500 miles of it? Or a blabbermouth like Jack Ruby? And Howard Hunt is not what I would call "credible" in anything.

I don't know but not being able to find his fingerprints on the rifle or on the boxes

Couldn't Oswald have wiped the rifle? And does cardboard leave fingerprints?

experts determined it could not have been fired using that bad scope

Scope wasn't bad, just misaligned. Just like if you were to drop it.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg

It is my intention to rid the ground of your shadow

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I hope King isn't losing any sleep over my comment. He needs to get all the sleep he can so next time when he writes a book based on factual events, he'll actually use the factual issues related to the event.

As for the "fact" you posted, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to clear Oswald of any wrongdoing, I'm just concerned with the proper representation of factual events in a factually based show. That's all. And yeah, he may have shot Tippet but the paraffin test indicated otherwise. Also, one witness said there were 2 people there. So, I don't know and I really don't care as far as this topic is concerned. That's an issue for another place and time.