Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

wondercritic These documentaries are CIA-approved and thus worth very little. They use paid actors for reenactments and "experts" on ballistics and so forth, but they always operate within predefined limits. One sacrosanct principle that can NEVER be questioned in any of these productions is that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the gunmen and was on the 6th floor of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting. They refer to Warren Commission findings, as if by repeating them, the viewing public will never question them. But the Warren Commission is legally discredited, as any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you. The Warren Commission was not a court or even a proper investigative body. It was a stitch-up.There is no material evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor - no fingerprints, no eyewitnesses, no forensics of any kind. So a documentary like this that hypothesizes that Oswald "could not have fired the fatal head shot" isn't really that useful. A shot from behind and to the left, as this film asserts, seems "new," but it doesn't really matter, does it? The kill shot probably didn't come from that direction, considering the massive EXIT WOUND at the back of JFK's head on his right side. It most likely came from the right side, or from inside the sewer drain on Elm Street. Who cares? Thinking, informed people already know Oswald didn't fire that shot. This whole film is meant to divert and distract. It posits a conspiracy at cover-up by the Secret Service, a small agency, not the CIA? Give us a break. What rubbish.At the end of the day, thinking people know that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat by the national security state. Nothing this documentary says makes a whit of difference to that. So this film is just another addition to the garbage heap of mainstream media commentary on this tragic event.

gavin6942 After fifty years of the JFK assassination remaining officially solved but still debatable, how do you get new information? Apparently by bringing in a detective from Australia.Now, exactly how looking at the scene fifty years later tells you much about what happened in 1963 with all the changes that must have occurred is beyond me. And then, at this point, almost all evidence is second-hand and based on photos and whatnot. But there are inconsistencies to analyze.Indeed, the Warren Report made conclusions that contradict what a Secret Service agent reported. Is this unusual? Maybe, maybe not. In my time reading police and FBI reports, I know it is not unusual for witnesses to be mistaken. So is it likely that the agent was wrong and the report right, or the agent right and the report wrong? (This actually seems to be beside the point, since the film tends to support the single bullet theory an merely argues the order of shots was wrong -- this makes no difference.) Granted, I am not expert on the assassination, beyond the involvement of the Mafia (which was minimal), so it is hard for me to properly assess the theory put forward here.

p-frame Although the film brought up some interesting and valid points, McLaren's theory that a Secret Service agent in the car behind Kennedy's accidentally fatally shot the president is very hard to believe.If his theory is true, how come out of the hundreds of people that were on site, nobody saw the agent fire? I realize that the crowd's attention was focused on Kennedy, but if the agent in the motorcade fired on the president in the middle of the day in front all those witnesses, surely at least one, and probably several people would have seen it.Since no one did, his theory falls apart.

bob_meg One of the most maddening aspects of the JFK assassination is the staggering amount of conflicting evidence, testimony, and speculation that has accumulated over fifty years. Yet, if one is to seriously study what is the greatest murder mystery of all time, one has to take a holistic viewpoint before choosing one avenue and barreling down it, searching for evidence that corroborates one's theory. To make this mistake, one is in the end no better than the Warren Commission and their cronies (such as Arlen Spector and David Belin) who have repeatedly attempted to make the evidence suit their version of the crime, and often to justifiable derision.Sadly, this latest JFK doc rips recklessly down this same merry path. It does get a few broad assumptions correct: yes, there was obviously a second shooter; Oswald was not the lone gunman; yes, there was obviously a very deliberate effort to botch and alter the autopsy reports (read Dr. Cyril Wecht's many published articles --- he was THERE --- and sadly not mentioned once in this doc). But, then again, if I were Wecht, I probably would have sued to remove my name from this half-baked enchilada as well.However, the devil is in the details, and neither forensic expert Howard Donohue (despite doing a valiant amount of legwork) or Colin McLaren (whose involvement is not so evident) really scratch the surface of this data landfill. Instead, they choose to focus on one aspect of the case and one only: ballistics, which --- I'm sorry --- does not paint the entire story in a case this complex.The two biggest whoppers McLaren (and Donohue's daughter) are trying to sell are: 1) Lee Harvey Oswald fired two shots from the Book Depository. One was the Magic Bullet and the other was a misfire. Sorry, there is no *undisputed* evidence Oswald did ANY of the shooting. Yes, he was there at the time, but his behavior indicates he was engaged in anything but assassinating a president. And he was not marksman (see Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment) to have hit anything with the Carcano at that range and trajectory, unless he just faked being a complete disaster with firearms his entire military career (plenty of evidence to that exists). But everyone blames Oswald anyway, right? 2) The fatal head shot came from the left rear, not the right rear or anywhere else, and had to have come from a CIA agent who accidentally misfired, killing JFK. They know this because witnesses smelled gunpowder on the street level and many testified seeing the CIA agent swinging the rifle around at the time of the last shot (there are photographs with the rifle in plain sight). OK, unfortunately there are plenty of other witnesses who claim that shot came from the Grassy Knoll INCLUDING some of the same people that are offered up in this doc as claiming the shots came from the motorcade. In the case of SM Holland and Jean Hill this is especially interesting since their "testimonies" (since virtually all the actual witnesses are dead this is a convenient "recreation") IMPLY the truth that these filmmakers wish to prove... they do not state that the shots were fired from the motorcade or the agent. Kind of sleazy if you ask me. But then again, they're dead too, right? In all likelihood, there were WAY more than two or three shooters. People testified hearing shots from the knoll, the book depository window *and* the Dal-Tex building (coincidentally in a direct line of trajectory with the theory posited by this film AND in the same line of fire that hit James Teague, who AGAIN, is a key witness never mentioned here...and he's actually ALIVE. Hmmm.).The one piece of evidence I hadn't heard was the testimony of the X-ray tech at Parkland. Now THAT was compelling, especially the bit about being told to falsify the x-ray of the skull. I've never come across that in at least 10 books on the assassination. But it is believable and it fits.Look, this film is not garbage or a waste of your time. It is adequately made and contains a lot of interesting theories and also presents some indisputable facts. What is does not do is defend it's theory or refute any other contradictory theories. For instance, tell us WHY the shots could not have come from the front right as many people believe. The answer here is that "Ballistic evidence suggests..." but no detail is given. COME ON!But where it really falls on its face is when it tries to pin the fatal shot on a deceased CIA agent that NO ONE CAN PROVE DID THE SHOOTING. There is no evidence to trace that bullet back to the assault rifle held by this man. In insinuating this, McLaren and company are really no better than the WC when they tried to pin everything on Oswald (maybe not THAT ridiculous or poorly deduced...nothing else could match that).One of the "researchers" says at the end of the film that he feels very "sorry" for this agent (whom I won't name) but that he admired him very much. Interesting way to show your admiration...slandering a guy with no real evidence after he's dead. I really hope the lawsuits keep coming. It's irresponsible in print or on film, by anyone's standards, dead or alive.All you can really hope for in a JFK doc or feature film is a nice pile of facts that you yourself can sift through and draw a conclusion from. Go rent Stone's JFK. Go read Robert Sam Anson's "They've Killed the President!" Just don't accept anything as narrow-minded and short-sighted as "The Smoking Gun" as a kill shot of any kind.