This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Correct..the brain what can ya do..Tippit, not Tibbit. Just saying.
"I was a pasty!"
What kind of pasty are we talking about?"I was a pasty!"
Stripper pasty. I tried putting it with the stripper banana but I guess it didn't work. Rats!What kind of pasty are we talking about?
Stripper pasty or some sort of doughy tart?
Now that I read your question over I once saw a stripper who was a doughy tart.What kind of pasty are we talking about?
Stripper pasty or some sort of doughy tart?
I agree with you 100% in that LH Oswald did not even fire a shot at JFK. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" absolutely shreds the case against Lee H Oswald..but on this forum you will not find many who do not support King and his belief that Oswald was guilty....in fact this forum in my experience has been somewhat hostile to advocating his innocence.I'm always a day late or a dollar short so it doesn't surprise me that only now have I become aware of the film. I know it's fiction. I know Steven King is a terrific writer with an exceptional sense of make believe, but I look on this book as something else, a perpetuation of deliberate falsehoods pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy. At the end of the book King felt the need to confirm his belief that Lee Oswald was guilty as sin. Seeing as how his book was written prior to Judyth Baker's "Lee and Me" I'd assumed (hoped) Mr. King had read her book by now and come to a different conclusion. It seems I assumed wrongly. Films are a powerful medium in explaining historical events, oft times incorrectly yet the moviegoers immediately take the film at face value with no critical thinking whatsoever. I'm certain this will be the case with this film, sad to say. The fact is Lee Oswald never shot our President. He was a patsy just as he declared prior to his murder. Truth. Honest truth.
Sorry about that - I don't think anyone wanted to come across as hostile - most try to be respectful of the other person's opinionsI agree with you 100% in that LH Oswald did not even fire a shot at JFK. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" absolutely shreds the case against Lee H Oswald..but on this forum you will not find many who do not support King and his belief that Oswald was guilty....in fact this forum in my experience has been somewhat hostile to advocating his innocence.
I think you took good natured teasing as hostile?I agree with you 100% in that LH Oswald did not even fire a shot at JFK. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" absolutely shreds the case against Lee H Oswald..but on this forum you will not find many who do not support King and his belief that Oswald was guilty....in fact this forum in my experience has been somewhat hostile to advocating his innocence.
I agree with you 100% in that LH Oswald did not even fire a shot at JFK. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" absolutely shreds the case against Lee H Oswald..but on this forum you will not find many who do not support King and his belief that Oswald was guilty....in fact this forum in my experience has been somewhat hostile to advocating his innocence.
I do think quite a few people are missing the point. Let me reiterate. The reason the Kennedy assassination was important for this book is BECAUSE we don't know and there is so much conjecture. King wrote about an ethical man granted access and thus profound power. The point of the book was never to convince you that Oswald did or didn't kill Kennedy. It was about the protagonist's journey. It was, in fact, just the "situation" and no more than that. Those fixated on arguing about the real world events clearly miss the forest for the trees. What is more, King writes about alternate realities all the time and this one is clearly no different. It even works into the text itself how altering the past is creating more realities based on what if in an endless cascade. So, before I belabor this beyond sanity, get over it.