The greatest movie ever made..!

That was an excellent one.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

No, I don't believe it for a second. The Zapruder film shows the final shot hitting JFK on the front right. His right. His head went back. He could not have been shot from behind and Oswald, when he was found in the book depository, was in the employee's meal room - seated very calmly. He fired zero bullets. A great book to read is 'Me and Lee', if you want (what I believe to be) the truth regarding Oswald. If you can find it, watch The History Channel's 'Smoking Gun'. It only aired once and was immediately pulled after complaints from LBJ's family. It is VERY compelling. Interesting too how 'the powers that be' have tried to kill it. Sometimes you can find it on YouTube.

Of all the theories that have come and gone through the years, this film is the most believable. In fact, I think it is as accurate an account as one will find. Surely, if Oswald's first shot had not gained the notice of George Hickey and set him to retrieve the AR15 on the back floor inside the car where he sat behind JFK's limo; had he not taken the safety off, and was not forced backwards by the movement of the vehicle, Oswald would have surely sent another bullet into JFK that may or may not have killed him; but, unfortunately, it was Hickey's truly hapless accident that blew out the skull of the President with an explosive round of ammo, not the sort of bullet that penetrates through the target as Oswald used.Plus, with all the loss of evidence by the huge number of Secret Servicemen around the autopsy process, with numerous of them making demands for photographic film, the President's brain, and even insisting that a piece of metal be attached to an xray, the weight of evidence against the SS in conspiring to cover-up their involvement is abundantly staggering. Why would the SS not want the real truth to be known? First of all, they had a suspect, Oswald, that could be held as the culprit in all three shots; and secondly, they feared for their jobs. A huge investigation regarding the competency of that service would have taken decades to complete. After all, there weren't any computers in those days to help sort out all that information, as the Warren Commission discovered when they tried to assimilate what they could of all the testimonies into their half-baked conclusion. Stacks of information were never touched, especially that which indicated by bystanders the smell of gunpowder at street level.Finally, I know the truth. I recall the day it happened, and the week following. The entire nation was in mourning. My grandmother, who was staying at our house while Mom was in the hospital, had all four of us kids sit quietly in front of the TV as if we were in a funeral parlor, while she sobbed. It was like losing a member of the family to us. I did grow to greatly respect JFK over the next couple decades after I read his book, watched PT109, and learned about the Cuban missile crisis. He was a good man who suffered terribly with Addison's disease and did the best he could for our country. What a solemn spot his grave site is, in dedication to an American, who, despite his challenges, faced them well.

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.

I have had a casual interest in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy since I was a small child and saw the great (as I remember it) documentary/'trial' of Lee Harvey Oswald in "On trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (I'll call him "LHO" from now on). Even though the details of that documentary now escape me, I do recall my disbelief that that jury for the trial of Oswald found that he was solely responsible for the assassination. It would be interesting to revisit that documentary in the wake of this definitive documentary. Lastly, I also remember seeing Oliver Stone's "JFK" but the details of that escape me too. Yet again, it would be interesting to revisit that drama in the wake of the puzzle being solved by this current documentary.So, as a casual observer of this conspiracy theory laden event par excellence, I have to say that "JFK: The smoking gun" is either the starting point or the end point for anyone who wants answers to the mystery of "Who shot JFK?". For some, definitive proof will never be enough, so this documentary should start as a jumping off point for them...as in they MUST heed the findings here, lest they seem obstinate. For example, I think it was in "On trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" where I first heard of "the magic bullet theory". The effect of this theory is to lead one to suppose that any scenario where LHO's bullet is supposed to have hit the targets it was meant to is so ludicrous as to be ruled out of hand. "JFK: The smoking gun" proves that the bullet DID in fact do what it was supposed to have done and it only seems "magic" if the assumptions that you make about the layout of the car are false. So, assuming that the layout presented in "JFK:TSG" is correct, there's just no way in the world you can credibly dismiss that bullet as having "magic" properties. It's just ludicrous to assert that it is anymore."JFK:TSG" is presented by an Australian former detective Colin McLaren. He treats the assassination as a 'cold case' and goes through The Warren Commission's report, in the wake of reading a theory by Howard Donahue (a ballistics expert) documented in Bonar Menninger's book "Mortal error: The shot that killed JFK". In the wake of JFK's assassination, Donahue was involved in a TV network's recreation of the assassination to ascertain whether LHO could indeed have fired off three shots in under six seconds. Donahue could...but after three attempts...suggesting that LHO is unlikely to have done so, seeing as he only had one attempt to do this. So, in essence, McLaren's documentary is basically overkill for those for whom ballistics science is inadequate...for whatever reason. McLaren presents testimony to support Donahue's theory.The basic findings of this documentary are as follow: 01) LHO fired two shots at JFK. His first missed the target BUT, via a ricochet, JFK was hit by debris, which prompted his comment of "My God, I'm hit".02) LHO fires off his last shot. It hits his target and also injures Governor Connally. Due to the seating layout, the ballistics stack up such that there is nothing "magic" about the bullet's trajectory. It fits.03) In a car behind JFK, Secret Service agent George Hickey, arming himself with a rifle in the wake of the (potentially) non-lethal shot on JFK picks up an automatic rifle in order to respond to the would be assassin but is knocked back by his car accelerating away, accidentally firing off a shot...the shot which impacts with devastating results on JFK's head.04) The Secret Service, knowing full well that one of its own killed JFK, systematically covers up this truth at each and every opportunity.05) The Warren Commission also is a whitewash, with Assistant Counsel Arlen Spector actively derailing any opportunity for the truth to become known about the Secret Service's involvement.I would add here that what I outline here ties in neatly with LHO famously claiming "I'm just a patsy". He'd know full well that the lethal shot was not fired by him.Where there is scope for the conspiracy theorists, I'm sure, is the extent to which the Secret Service's killing of JFK was accidental, as well as the usual stuff about who LHO was involved with. This documentary does not answer those questions...it assumes - probably quite rightly - that the lethal shot was accidental and does not delve into who LHO was involved in...perhaps due to that being so murky as far as definitive answers go.I'm satisfied that the account presented here is accurate and best fits the facts...the ballistics evidence and the testimony of the time all reinforce the account...in ways which the Warren Commission's findings don't. It was staggering to see how unprofessional the Secret Service agents were on the morning/day of the assassination and it's an open question as to how justified their cover-up was in the wake of this tragedy. An implication that I would draw is that the Secret Service would in fact have reason/motive to want LHO dead before he could testify.Interestingly, George Hickey waited two years before suing Menninger over the contents of his book. It was dismissed due to the statute of limitations. When the book was later re-released in paperback, he sued again. The publisher etc. settled out of court...Hickey had ground out a 'win' for himself. I'm not sure that 'victory' is good for history. I hope that Jackie Kennedy knew the truth of what happened too and that it was 'only' the public who were 'protected' from this awful truth.