10-10-2010, 04:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2010, 04:21 AM by Peter Dawson.)
Last week I watched Oliver Stone's JFK for the first time in 15 years. The glaring issue for me is that Stone has eliminated the forward thrust of JFK's head from his movie - the forward thrust of his head that is the central topic of this thread.
Stone focuses in minute detail on the "back and to the left" movement of Kennedy's head, going to the lengths of replaying the Zapruder footage 4 or 5 times, slowing and zooming in on it also - see from 3:20 in this clip. When I look at the z film, zoomed in and slowed down, I see an initial forward movement before the dramatic back-and-to-the-left movement, yet when Stone zooms in and slows down the Z footage for his movie, the forward movement is almost completely absent. Stone zoomed and slowed, so the forward movement should have become more obvious, yet instead it became all but absent.
Stone was working on the premise that the Z film is authentic, yet he seems to have edited out a crucial feature of the footage in order to make the facts fit his thesis.
What gives, Oliver Stone?
* *
Also, Dan Rather has copped a lot of flack over the years over the "moved violently forward" comment he made about JFK in the Z film, but there is the chance that he may have been talking about the movement I have focused on in this thread - the violent forward movement - in which case he would seem to have copped a bad wrap over this issue.
Stone focuses in minute detail on the "back and to the left" movement of Kennedy's head, going to the lengths of replaying the Zapruder footage 4 or 5 times, slowing and zooming in on it also - see from 3:20 in this clip. When I look at the z film, zoomed in and slowed down, I see an initial forward movement before the dramatic back-and-to-the-left movement, yet when Stone zooms in and slows down the Z footage for his movie, the forward movement is almost completely absent. Stone zoomed and slowed, so the forward movement should have become more obvious, yet instead it became all but absent.
Stone was working on the premise that the Z film is authentic, yet he seems to have edited out a crucial feature of the footage in order to make the facts fit his thesis.
What gives, Oliver Stone?
* *
Also, Dan Rather has copped a lot of flack over the years over the "moved violently forward" comment he made about JFK in the Z film, but there is the chance that he may have been talking about the movement I have focused on in this thread - the violent forward movement - in which case he would seem to have copped a bad wrap over this issue.