I have a photograph taken at the time JFK was shot in the throat. The photo shows Hickey without a rifle in his hand, meaning he had no more than 2 seconds to reach for the gun, take off the safety, aim the gun, and hit a moving target with precision. In short, Hickey couldn't have shot the president accidentally or otherwise. However, the theory that shots came from Hickey's direction are reasonable if you look behind him. An open window, hidden behind a fire escape that no longer exists, on the 2nd floor of the DalTex building was directly behind and above Hickey's head. One of the several spots the assassination team probably used.
31 Reviews
A ridiculous parody that is sheer schlocky entertainment
Robert_duder19 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I am a JFK historian, relatively respected in the field and I LOVE a great JFK/Assassination film. Do I have opinions on the assassination? Of course. I wouldn't be much of a historian if I didn't. However, I consider myself incredibly open minded and am not opposed to any new information that may change my ideas or theories because the truth is none of us know what happened that day and sadly/most likely never will. However, this latest documentary will do NOTHING to further that investigation. This is ridiculous. I have read Mortal Error, the book that this is based on, and as silly as I thought the concept was I actually thought the book made some valid points and interesting ideas. The documentary though is quite simply silly. It is slapped together, is 99% recreations that are B-Movie quality at best. The actors are unintentionally parodying the entire situation with terrible representations and Warren Commission testimonies that are laughable. The dramatic music, the horn rimmed villain, the melodramatic pleas for justice...its silly and if they meant this to be taken seriously, they fail miserable.
Interestingly enough most of the cast in the film aren't listed on IMDb meaning they were probably friends and family which explain a lot. This is a grievous error if they were trying to be taken seriously. The woman who portrayed Jackie Kennedy briefly should be barred from every performing again and she never even speaks. Alex Ivanovici is a decent narrator to the story. He certainly has the right voice and his raspy melodramatic tone fits the documentary if you can call it that. Our lead investigator in the film is interesting enough and seems to have a decent personality and actually feels like he is taking this seriously. Fortunately for the film he is the one aspect of the film that doesn't feel schlocky but they don't use him very often considering he's the focus of the entire investigation. The first part of the documentary is far more interesting as they cover familiar ground for most JFK historians but they do it will with diagrams and computer recreations. I actually quite enjoyed the first half of the film considering it was all rehashed material.
I also thought the directing of the film was pretty solid too. Malcolm McDonald has had a fair amount of experience doing documentaries and it does show. He turns a really awful idea and some terrible recreations into a reasonably watchable joke. The beautiful scenes of Dealy Plaza and the melodramatic investigation scenes fit the film and make it at least mostly entertaining. It's the last 1/4 of the film when they suddenly spring on you where this concept is going and what they think happening that it becomes laughable. Most of what they say makes no sense at all even at the most rudimentary level. Some, if not all, of the Warren Commission testimony is paraphrased or completely made up. Some of it I literally can't find a single piece of documentation on and yet they are spouting it as fact. I don't believe there was a single actual interview with any real person but rather terrible recreation after terrible recreation. I hate to be insulting to anyone that enjoyed this but I felt like this was severely dumbed down and by far one of the least intelligent JFK documentaries I have ever seen and I've seen dozens. This one is barely passable as morbid entertainment and that's about it. 6/10
Interestingly enough most of the cast in the film aren't listed on IMDb meaning they were probably friends and family which explain a lot. This is a grievous error if they were trying to be taken seriously. The woman who portrayed Jackie Kennedy briefly should be barred from every performing again and she never even speaks. Alex Ivanovici is a decent narrator to the story. He certainly has the right voice and his raspy melodramatic tone fits the documentary if you can call it that. Our lead investigator in the film is interesting enough and seems to have a decent personality and actually feels like he is taking this seriously. Fortunately for the film he is the one aspect of the film that doesn't feel schlocky but they don't use him very often considering he's the focus of the entire investigation. The first part of the documentary is far more interesting as they cover familiar ground for most JFK historians but they do it will with diagrams and computer recreations. I actually quite enjoyed the first half of the film considering it was all rehashed material.
I also thought the directing of the film was pretty solid too. Malcolm McDonald has had a fair amount of experience doing documentaries and it does show. He turns a really awful idea and some terrible recreations into a reasonably watchable joke. The beautiful scenes of Dealy Plaza and the melodramatic investigation scenes fit the film and make it at least mostly entertaining. It's the last 1/4 of the film when they suddenly spring on you where this concept is going and what they think happening that it becomes laughable. Most of what they say makes no sense at all even at the most rudimentary level. Some, if not all, of the Warren Commission testimony is paraphrased or completely made up. Some of it I literally can't find a single piece of documentation on and yet they are spouting it as fact. I don't believe there was a single actual interview with any real person but rather terrible recreation after terrible recreation. I hate to be insulting to anyone that enjoyed this but I felt like this was severely dumbed down and by far one of the least intelligent JFK documentaries I have ever seen and I've seen dozens. This one is barely passable as morbid entertainment and that's about it. 6/10
We'll never know but boy, do people like to speculate
blanche-225 October 2014
This documentary explores another theory of the JFK assassination.
In this theory, there were two shooters, Lee Harvey Oswald and a Secret Security agent named George Hickey in the other car.
I can't say whether or not it's any truer than anything else, but I'll say this. These documentaries always make compelling stories. Why? Because they take a moment, a statement, a situation, and make a decision about it, usually that it has an ulterior motive, and build a conspiracy theory around it.
For instance, at the hospital in Dallas, the Secret Service would not allow the doctor there to perform the autopsy. They demanded the body be returned to Washington. EVIL COVER-UP. Give me a break. This is the President of the United States, and they're going to let a local doctor do the autopsy?
Here's another one -- There were all these photographs taken by various people who were there that day, and the Secret Service took the photos and never returned them. HELLO. This was the assassination of a U.S. President, not May Day photos of children dancing around a pole with flowers. OF COURSE they took the photos, every single photo had to be examined.
My favorite - eyewitness accounts that fly in the face of what was said by other witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission hearings. Ever asked a bunch of witnesses of a crime what the culprit looked like? You're telling me that shots were fired, people hit the ground, screamed, and then are able to give reliable testimony? They counted the shots? They watched someone stand up in a car?
Here's another and it was mentioned constantly. All the chaos in the room at the hospital, all the yelling, all the people, the jostling. RIGHT. THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST BEEN SHOT. You're expecting total silence while people are trying to find out if he's alive or dead, make arrangements to swear in Johnson, get some sort of announcement together for reporters, keep news from getting out before there are definitive answers, keep people who don't belong there away from the body? Chaos. Gee, wouldn't have expected that with the President's body there.
So did the Secret Service guy fire a third shot? The theory here is that it was friendly fire and they wanted to cover up that fact. Others on this board think it wasn't an accident, he was aiming at the President.
Now, if he was aiming at the President, they really needed to terminate him and put him in prison. Why wouldn't they have done that? All the Secret Service hated JFK and wanted to see him dead? What is the point of covering up what this guy did, if he did it?
Covering it up to the public -- okay, yes, I can see that. We pay their salaries. But why close ranks to help a traitor? Also, do we honestly think this was the fatal shot? I'm sorry, the poor man was hit in the back and the head before this third shot. Not sure if he would have survived and if he had, I doubt he would have been able to hold the office of President.
I go into this type of thing skeptical because there are so many conspiracy theories about absolutely everything, and it seems like someone can go through the literature and come up with an alternate idea of what happened.
It's always the same thing: Elvis is alive and living over a bowling alley; JFK survived and is probably living with him; Hitler survived; Princess Diana was murdered; we didn't get the real story of 9/11; etc. Meanwhile, try to get your doctor's office to fax something, or ask an office to find the fax you've sent five times, or have someone read your email correctly and give you the info you asked for -- how can you have a conspiracy when everybody is always screwing up?
Do I think the Warren Commission gave us the real story? No, of course not. We are much more savvy today and we know that the government lies, and whatever the commission couldn't explain, it pretended it didn't happen. Eighty witnesses say 65 different things, you go with the fifteen who said the same thing.
Do I believe that the Dallas police really cared if anyone shot Oswald? Obviously they were hoping someone would come along and kill him while they were meandering through a parking space on the way to a truck that was obviously not close to where they came from.
This theory is just as viable or ridiculous as any other one. We won't ever know what happened. It's a tragic time in history, people find the different investigations compelling, I loved the movie JFK, but in the end, we're all just spinning our wheels. See Four Days in November, have yourself a good cry, and watch these documentaries with a skepticism and detachment.
In this theory, there were two shooters, Lee Harvey Oswald and a Secret Security agent named George Hickey in the other car.
I can't say whether or not it's any truer than anything else, but I'll say this. These documentaries always make compelling stories. Why? Because they take a moment, a statement, a situation, and make a decision about it, usually that it has an ulterior motive, and build a conspiracy theory around it.
For instance, at the hospital in Dallas, the Secret Service would not allow the doctor there to perform the autopsy. They demanded the body be returned to Washington. EVIL COVER-UP. Give me a break. This is the President of the United States, and they're going to let a local doctor do the autopsy?
Here's another one -- There were all these photographs taken by various people who were there that day, and the Secret Service took the photos and never returned them. HELLO. This was the assassination of a U.S. President, not May Day photos of children dancing around a pole with flowers. OF COURSE they took the photos, every single photo had to be examined.
My favorite - eyewitness accounts that fly in the face of what was said by other witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission hearings. Ever asked a bunch of witnesses of a crime what the culprit looked like? You're telling me that shots were fired, people hit the ground, screamed, and then are able to give reliable testimony? They counted the shots? They watched someone stand up in a car?
Here's another and it was mentioned constantly. All the chaos in the room at the hospital, all the yelling, all the people, the jostling. RIGHT. THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST BEEN SHOT. You're expecting total silence while people are trying to find out if he's alive or dead, make arrangements to swear in Johnson, get some sort of announcement together for reporters, keep news from getting out before there are definitive answers, keep people who don't belong there away from the body? Chaos. Gee, wouldn't have expected that with the President's body there.
So did the Secret Service guy fire a third shot? The theory here is that it was friendly fire and they wanted to cover up that fact. Others on this board think it wasn't an accident, he was aiming at the President.
Now, if he was aiming at the President, they really needed to terminate him and put him in prison. Why wouldn't they have done that? All the Secret Service hated JFK and wanted to see him dead? What is the point of covering up what this guy did, if he did it?
Covering it up to the public -- okay, yes, I can see that. We pay their salaries. But why close ranks to help a traitor? Also, do we honestly think this was the fatal shot? I'm sorry, the poor man was hit in the back and the head before this third shot. Not sure if he would have survived and if he had, I doubt he would have been able to hold the office of President.
I go into this type of thing skeptical because there are so many conspiracy theories about absolutely everything, and it seems like someone can go through the literature and come up with an alternate idea of what happened.
It's always the same thing: Elvis is alive and living over a bowling alley; JFK survived and is probably living with him; Hitler survived; Princess Diana was murdered; we didn't get the real story of 9/11; etc. Meanwhile, try to get your doctor's office to fax something, or ask an office to find the fax you've sent five times, or have someone read your email correctly and give you the info you asked for -- how can you have a conspiracy when everybody is always screwing up?
Do I think the Warren Commission gave us the real story? No, of course not. We are much more savvy today and we know that the government lies, and whatever the commission couldn't explain, it pretended it didn't happen. Eighty witnesses say 65 different things, you go with the fifteen who said the same thing.
Do I believe that the Dallas police really cared if anyone shot Oswald? Obviously they were hoping someone would come along and kill him while they were meandering through a parking space on the way to a truck that was obviously not close to where they came from.
This theory is just as viable or ridiculous as any other one. We won't ever know what happened. It's a tragic time in history, people find the different investigations compelling, I loved the movie JFK, but in the end, we're all just spinning our wheels. See Four Days in November, have yourself a good cry, and watch these documentaries with a skepticism and detachment.
The awful truth is staring you in the face. 10/10
dfle34 November 2013
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.
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.
Accidental? Don't buy it for a moment!
jpenera18 November 2013
I watched the documentary JFK: THE SMOKING GUN and it was very disturbing. Yes, it was compelling and convincing that the bullet that explored JFK's head was from a different weapon other than the rifle LHO supposedly used. It was also very compelling that one of the secret agents in the car immediately following JFK fired that lethal shot. But to further say and conclude that the agent, George Hickey, did so "accidentally" is silly and an insult to normal intelligence. In that same show it was revealed that Robert Kennedy asked the agents, "Did you kill my brother?" Even RFK himself sensed this was an "inside" job.
McLaren's teary eyed and choking statement at the end that this really was a "tragic accident" was, to me, contrived and phony.
What was the premise and goal of this documentary? It only raised more questions than to put "closure" on the matter. If it attempted to shut out all conspiracy theories it failed. In fact it opened it up all the more.
One thing is obvious. If the project or action to assassinate JFK was to "kill" him, it blatantly failed. JFK is much more alive now than ever. That bullet in Dallas did not terminate him, on the contrary, it immortalized him, made him "eternal".
McLaren's teary eyed and choking statement at the end that this really was a "tragic accident" was, to me, contrived and phony.
What was the premise and goal of this documentary? It only raised more questions than to put "closure" on the matter. If it attempted to shut out all conspiracy theories it failed. In fact it opened it up all the more.
One thing is obvious. If the project or action to assassinate JFK was to "kill" him, it blatantly failed. JFK is much more alive now than ever. That bullet in Dallas did not terminate him, on the contrary, it immortalized him, made him "eternal".
An excellent documentary !
francoislanoue8927 November 2013
At first i thought, here we go again with another story of why Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. But this documentary is well put together with facts & testimonies of the Warren commission. Colin Mclaren spent four years analyzing and studying these facts. And as a former detective, he looked at the facts and evidence in a non biased way. Howard Donohue's report of his ballistics analysis is very telling about a cover-up by the Secret Service by destroying documents that would implicate one of their own. The fatal shot came from behind from the ballistic expert, and probably was accidental, or may be worst, intentional by SS in the confusion of the moment.
Was it a conspiracy against JFK by SS , or the MOB wanting him dead with LHO being the shooter? We will probably never know but, you can't argue with forensics and ballistics specialists which prove that the third shot came from behind, with a hollow point round bullet like an AR-15 which the Secret Service had in their possession.
To bad it took many years for Donohue's report to come out, by that time people had already made up there minds about the shooting. I'm surprised that other ballistics experts have not come forward to support his claim.
There are two things that still bother me thought:
1- Mclaren says that the first shot missed and hit the pavement. So why not investigate the bullet shot, to see if there is a mark of the bullet that hit the pavement ?
2- When you watch the Zapruder film, you can clearly hear the first gunshots came from afar in the background, but the deadly shot to JFK's head, you can hear a much louder gunshot which mean it must have come from the agent's car from the back. I'm sure that a ballistic sound expert would agree.
Nonetheless, I recommend this documentary very highly for his accurate recount of that tragedy. M. Mclaren's findings are very well presented. His theory of the shooting merits consideration and it unveils hidden facts from the public. To this day it still divides a country about what happened. The truth is there, if we want to see it.
Was it a conspiracy against JFK by SS , or the MOB wanting him dead with LHO being the shooter? We will probably never know but, you can't argue with forensics and ballistics specialists which prove that the third shot came from behind, with a hollow point round bullet like an AR-15 which the Secret Service had in their possession.
To bad it took many years for Donohue's report to come out, by that time people had already made up there minds about the shooting. I'm surprised that other ballistics experts have not come forward to support his claim.
There are two things that still bother me thought:
1- Mclaren says that the first shot missed and hit the pavement. So why not investigate the bullet shot, to see if there is a mark of the bullet that hit the pavement ?
2- When you watch the Zapruder film, you can clearly hear the first gunshots came from afar in the background, but the deadly shot to JFK's head, you can hear a much louder gunshot which mean it must have come from the agent's car from the back. I'm sure that a ballistic sound expert would agree.
Nonetheless, I recommend this documentary very highly for his accurate recount of that tragedy. M. Mclaren's findings are very well presented. His theory of the shooting merits consideration and it unveils hidden facts from the public. To this day it still divides a country about what happened. The truth is there, if we want to see it.
Interesting, Albeit Over My Head
gavin694222 May 2014
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.
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.
The most believable to date!
cekadah14 May 2014
This came to mind at end - Occam's razor!
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
What a fine and technical presentation of detective Colin McLaren 25 year quest into the JFK Dallas incident. I suggest to anyone who decides to watch this film to pay close attention to the details put before you. The trajectory math and eyewitness accounts of that day bring forth (in my opinion) the most believable recreation of what actually happened.
I've read many other JFK assassination theories and this one is the biggest eye opener.
Please watch this movie!
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
What a fine and technical presentation of detective Colin McLaren 25 year quest into the JFK Dallas incident. I suggest to anyone who decides to watch this film to pay close attention to the details put before you. The trajectory math and eyewitness accounts of that day bring forth (in my opinion) the most believable recreation of what actually happened.
I've read many other JFK assassination theories and this one is the biggest eye opener.
Please watch this movie!
His death was inevitable , the family is cursed.
121mcv30 May 2022
While I think this was an OK documentary, I think his death was inevitable , the family is cursed.
Family incidents led Senator Ted Kennedy to wonder, in a televised statement about the Chappaquiddick incident in 1969, whether there really was a "Kennedy curse." Some of the events endured by the Kennedy clan include: in 1941, Rosemary underwent a non-consensual lobotomy intended to prevent her from embarrassing the family with her violent mood swings, convulsions, and intellectual disability. The operation left her incapacitated for the rest of her life. Joseph Jr. Died in 1944 when the Navy bomber he was piloting exploded in mid-flight. Kathleen died in a plane crash in France in 1948. John and Robert were assassinated, in 1963 and 1968 respectively. In 1964, Ted was nearly killed when his plane crashed in an apple orchard near Southampton, Massachusetts. Legislative aide Edward Moss and the pilot were killed in the crash.) Ted was seriously injured and spent months in a hospital recovering from a severe back injury, a punctured lung, broken ribs and internal bleeding.
In later generations, Robert's son David died of a drug overdose in 1984; and son Michael died from injuries sustained in a skiing accident in 1997; John's son John Jr. Died in a plane crash (along with his wife Carolyn and sister-in-law Lauren) off the coast of Martha's Vineyard in 1999; Kara Kennedy and Christopher Kennedy Lawford died of heart attacks, in 2011 and 2018 respectively; and Saoirse Kennedy Hill died of a drug overdose in 2019.
In April 2020, Robert's granddaughter Maeve Kennedy McKean, a former official in the Obama Administration, and her eight-year-old son, Gideon Joseph Kennedy McKean, disappeared in Chesapeake Bay after embarking in a canoe to retrieve a ball. Maeve McKean's body was recovered the following week, and her son's two days later, about 2.5 miles from her mother's home on the Chesapeake Bay.
Family incidents led Senator Ted Kennedy to wonder, in a televised statement about the Chappaquiddick incident in 1969, whether there really was a "Kennedy curse." Some of the events endured by the Kennedy clan include: in 1941, Rosemary underwent a non-consensual lobotomy intended to prevent her from embarrassing the family with her violent mood swings, convulsions, and intellectual disability. The operation left her incapacitated for the rest of her life. Joseph Jr. Died in 1944 when the Navy bomber he was piloting exploded in mid-flight. Kathleen died in a plane crash in France in 1948. John and Robert were assassinated, in 1963 and 1968 respectively. In 1964, Ted was nearly killed when his plane crashed in an apple orchard near Southampton, Massachusetts. Legislative aide Edward Moss and the pilot were killed in the crash.) Ted was seriously injured and spent months in a hospital recovering from a severe back injury, a punctured lung, broken ribs and internal bleeding.
In later generations, Robert's son David died of a drug overdose in 1984; and son Michael died from injuries sustained in a skiing accident in 1997; John's son John Jr. Died in a plane crash (along with his wife Carolyn and sister-in-law Lauren) off the coast of Martha's Vineyard in 1999; Kara Kennedy and Christopher Kennedy Lawford died of heart attacks, in 2011 and 2018 respectively; and Saoirse Kennedy Hill died of a drug overdose in 2019.
In April 2020, Robert's granddaughter Maeve Kennedy McKean, a former official in the Obama Administration, and her eight-year-old son, Gideon Joseph Kennedy McKean, disappeared in Chesapeake Bay after embarking in a canoe to retrieve a ball. Maeve McKean's body was recovered the following week, and her son's two days later, about 2.5 miles from her mother's home on the Chesapeake Bay.
Think its by accident the Government won't release all documents on this ?
agregorich-0726624 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Heads would have rolled. The Secret Service might have been completely over hauled. If this got out.
1) JFK fatal head shot came from behind - 3 pathologists working on the autopsy for 8 hours find.
2) The trajectory from the 6th floor sniper nest do not come close. The entry is about middle of the rear skull BUT EXITS 2 INCHES ABOVE JFK's Right Ear ! Impossible for Oswald to do that.
3) The 6.5 mm Full Metal Jacket Bullets Oswald fired would go straight thru JFK's skull. Probably EXITING his Left Cheek area lining up to Oswald's 6th floor sniper nest.
4) The Bullet was a Hollow Point that virtually exploded soon after it impacted the rear skull. Completely different from what the 6.5 mm FMJ Bullet would do.
5) Why did so many witnesses smell Gun Powder around the JFK Limo when the wind was blowing from the SW @ 15 mph directly in Oswald's face ?
6) Why did multiple witnesses see the Secret Service agent in the follow up car with the rifle stand up after the 2 shots & turn toward the back exactly at the time of the 3rd shot ?
7) Why did the Secret Service confiscate all notes / all pictures / all rolls of film from that autopsy room NEVER to be seen ever again ?
Colin McClaren does a great job of uncovering the evidence that leads to only one conclusion ! Oswald did NOT fire that Fatal Head Shot killing JFK !
1) JFK fatal head shot came from behind - 3 pathologists working on the autopsy for 8 hours find.
2) The trajectory from the 6th floor sniper nest do not come close. The entry is about middle of the rear skull BUT EXITS 2 INCHES ABOVE JFK's Right Ear ! Impossible for Oswald to do that.
3) The 6.5 mm Full Metal Jacket Bullets Oswald fired would go straight thru JFK's skull. Probably EXITING his Left Cheek area lining up to Oswald's 6th floor sniper nest.
4) The Bullet was a Hollow Point that virtually exploded soon after it impacted the rear skull. Completely different from what the 6.5 mm FMJ Bullet would do.
5) Why did so many witnesses smell Gun Powder around the JFK Limo when the wind was blowing from the SW @ 15 mph directly in Oswald's face ?
6) Why did multiple witnesses see the Secret Service agent in the follow up car with the rifle stand up after the 2 shots & turn toward the back exactly at the time of the 3rd shot ?
7) Why did the Secret Service confiscate all notes / all pictures / all rolls of film from that autopsy room NEVER to be seen ever again ?
Colin McClaren does a great job of uncovering the evidence that leads to only one conclusion ! Oswald did NOT fire that Fatal Head Shot killing JFK !
Very believable
dbrayshaw17 May 2014
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.
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.
Totally Bogus Disinformation Designed to Mislead the Public
jamesfeldmancpa22 November 2019
First off, I must disclose that I'm an expert in the JFK murder and I'm fully conversant in all of the facts, evidence, and theories about what happened. So, if anything is presented that contradicts the facts or is inconsistent with the evidence, it's going to stand out for me. This documentary called "JFK: The Smoking Gun," is loaded with disinformation.
Let's take a simple example. This film purports to show a "demonstration" of expert marksmen "proving" that JFK's murder could be accomplished exactly the way the Warren Commission said it did. But the purported demonstration is no replication at all. The film concludes that three shots could be fired at a moving target within 5.6 seconds and on that basis concluded that the Warren Commission could be right.
But the film totally ignores the Zapruder film which establishes the timeline of at least three shots that were fired, and, critically, the interval between the shots. The undisputed interval between the first and second shot is only 1.6 seconds. But the weapon the Warren Commission says was used, a Mannlicher-Carcano, required a minimum of 2.3 seconds to fire twice, regardless of the accuracy of the shooter. This means that it was physically impossible for the first two shots to have been fired from that rifle.
Further, even putting aside the impossibility of getting off the first two shots in 1.6 seconds, the film's demonstration fails to remotely replicate the physical conditions a shooter would have faced from the 6th floor Depository window on November 22, 1963. During that time, the vision of the shooter's line of sight would have been obstructed by the leaves on the trees. Had the phony demonstration included just that additional point of reality, no marksmen would have been able to get off all three shots in 5.6 seconds, even ignoring the interval issue. The truth is that no marksman has ever remotely replicated the feat that the Warren Commission alleges that Lee Oswald did before he was conveniently silenced on November 24, two days after JFK's murder.
Let's take a simple example. This film purports to show a "demonstration" of expert marksmen "proving" that JFK's murder could be accomplished exactly the way the Warren Commission said it did. But the purported demonstration is no replication at all. The film concludes that three shots could be fired at a moving target within 5.6 seconds and on that basis concluded that the Warren Commission could be right.
But the film totally ignores the Zapruder film which establishes the timeline of at least three shots that were fired, and, critically, the interval between the shots. The undisputed interval between the first and second shot is only 1.6 seconds. But the weapon the Warren Commission says was used, a Mannlicher-Carcano, required a minimum of 2.3 seconds to fire twice, regardless of the accuracy of the shooter. This means that it was physically impossible for the first two shots to have been fired from that rifle.
Further, even putting aside the impossibility of getting off the first two shots in 1.6 seconds, the film's demonstration fails to remotely replicate the physical conditions a shooter would have faced from the 6th floor Depository window on November 22, 1963. During that time, the vision of the shooter's line of sight would have been obstructed by the leaves on the trees. Had the phony demonstration included just that additional point of reality, no marksmen would have been able to get off all three shots in 5.6 seconds, even ignoring the interval issue. The truth is that no marksman has ever remotely replicated the feat that the Warren Commission alleges that Lee Oswald did before he was conveniently silenced on November 24, two days after JFK's murder.
Intentional Disinformation
bdh-1027617 December 2021
The theory posited by this film can only be one of 2 things, either a drug enduced trip down The Rabbit Hole or an intentional effort to obscure the truth of a conspiracy by positing some ridiculous theory about a Secret Service man accidentally shooting JFK. The effect, as intended, is to paint everyone who takes a critical view of the Warren Report as a moron. This is on par with the cult classic "The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot" except, unlike that movie, this isn't worth watching twice.
At last the truth comes forth
mr-strix-116 September 2018
I have seen a lot of documentaries on the subject, but this one definitely gives the most likely explanation for the "murder". Everything that is presented in the this documentary can be checked against facts and the balistic reports is spotless. The conclusion marks is likely what happen on that day more than 50 years ago.
Seems the truth has stirred up a hornets nest
rubygirl-726365 November 2020
I started with doubt and really believe this was another JFK ride to fame
BUT
After watching this I did some study myself
As an Australian it was easy to pull public records of this detective.
He's outstanding, he's a hard worker, a respected member of his community, helps everyone he meets.
Simple put, why would he lie about anything.
His hard work and investigation time proves to me he did his homework, and I believe his is the only story so far that makes sense. It might not be accurate 100 percent, but it's well in the 90 percent range for me.
Fact over fiction is always hard to swallow
Food for thought
His hard work and investigation time proves to me he did his homework, and I believe his is the only story so far that makes sense. It might not be accurate 100 percent, but it's well in the 90 percent range for me.
Fact over fiction is always hard to swallow
Food for thought
It's plausible and possible
vjioia13 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I've read many of the nay-sayers of this movie and I disagree with all of them.
For decades, there has been a systematic censoring of so many pieces of evidence and witness testimony. Why? Ever since that day, no one could explain the rapid fire between the second and third shots. JFK's assassination was not the act of a lone gunman, plain and simple. There was more the three shots fired. That's been accounted for in the bullet that hit the curb and struck James Tague in the cheek. That's been also accounted for by a bullet that struck the limonsine's windshield chrome, cracked the windshield and left a mark. People smelling gunfire on the streets? How'd that happen if the shots only came from the 6th floor. The people represented in this movie... these are their statements that are on the record. Sure it's a movie. But these are their recorded statements.
The Secret Service collecting all the evidence, never letting it come out or even being catalogued and preserved... that smells. The Secret Service removing the body from Dallas when they knew very definitely that an autopsy in Dallas was the law... that's illegal. Senator Yarborough, on tape, said he smelt gun smoke as his car, fourth in the motorcade went through the space just behind the Secret Service car.
For decades, people all over this country believe that there was a conspiracy to murder the President. Was Lee Oswald one of the shooters? I seriously doubt it but we will never know. He was murdered. Was there more than one shooter. Well yes. If one rifle was that Italian rifle that shot a full metal jacket bullet, by definition there was a second rifle involved because the doctors that performed the autopsy said there was a spray of fragments within the President's cranium. Only frangibile bullets perform like that. Guess what kind of gun Agent Hickey raised up from his back seat in the follow up limousine? Yep, an AR-15 that fired frangibile bullets. Yes, it's plausible, even possible that our President was assassinated by a group of people who wanted him dead and a terrible accident by an untrained secret service agent who shouldn't have been in the limousine in the first place. And this would definitely explain ALL the coverup for all these years.
For decades, there has been a systematic censoring of so many pieces of evidence and witness testimony. Why? Ever since that day, no one could explain the rapid fire between the second and third shots. JFK's assassination was not the act of a lone gunman, plain and simple. There was more the three shots fired. That's been accounted for in the bullet that hit the curb and struck James Tague in the cheek. That's been also accounted for by a bullet that struck the limonsine's windshield chrome, cracked the windshield and left a mark. People smelling gunfire on the streets? How'd that happen if the shots only came from the 6th floor. The people represented in this movie... these are their statements that are on the record. Sure it's a movie. But these are their recorded statements.
The Secret Service collecting all the evidence, never letting it come out or even being catalogued and preserved... that smells. The Secret Service removing the body from Dallas when they knew very definitely that an autopsy in Dallas was the law... that's illegal. Senator Yarborough, on tape, said he smelt gun smoke as his car, fourth in the motorcade went through the space just behind the Secret Service car.
For decades, people all over this country believe that there was a conspiracy to murder the President. Was Lee Oswald one of the shooters? I seriously doubt it but we will never know. He was murdered. Was there more than one shooter. Well yes. If one rifle was that Italian rifle that shot a full metal jacket bullet, by definition there was a second rifle involved because the doctors that performed the autopsy said there was a spray of fragments within the President's cranium. Only frangibile bullets perform like that. Guess what kind of gun Agent Hickey raised up from his back seat in the follow up limousine? Yep, an AR-15 that fired frangibile bullets. Yes, it's plausible, even possible that our President was assassinated by a group of people who wanted him dead and a terrible accident by an untrained secret service agent who shouldn't have been in the limousine in the first place. And this would definitely explain ALL the coverup for all these years.
Theory Has Obvious Major Flaw
p-frame14 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
A complete farce, from the charlatans who brought you "The Monster Shark Lives" and "Amish Mafia"...
the_cyberpunk10 December 2014
This "documentary" is another travesty perpetrated by the Discovery Channel, and should be taken about as seriously as their farces such as "Eaten Alive" and that balderdash about a prehistoric shark.
In one hand they'll tell you the primary author of this cockamamie theory is a firearms expert, with impeccable credentials, and then in the next they'll show him trying to recreate the trajectory of a bullet by feeding a dowel through a smashed up fake skull. What kind of science is this? Is this a joke? A five year old should be able to figure out that there is no way to tell precisely at what angle JFK's head was during the precise moment the bullet impacted it, and there is no way that you could trace exactly where the round (or what was left of it) exited when half of the man's head was missing! Under that criteria he could draw a line tracing the path of the bullet to Jackie Kennedy (who besides, had motive to murder Jack for all of his infidelity)! The size of the entrance wound being used as evidence that the 6.5mm round from Oswald's gun couldn't have entered the President's head is another fallacy. First off, the documentary makes the case that the whole autopsy was slapdash and botched, so how can any evidence from it suddenly be useful? Secondly, the entrance wound recorded was not measured from Kennedy's bare skull, it was measured as being the hole in his scalp, and assuming it was "too small" as the documentary claims, what the documentary completely misses is the elasticity of skin. Skin stretches and contracts, there's no reason the entrance wound in the skin had to be exactly the same size, or larger than the bullet.
Lastly, eye witness testimony is used to corroborate claims of a cover-up, it's taken at absolute face value, yet every eye witness that corroborated the report of three shots coming from the book depository is outright ignored? On top of this, all of these stories about skullduggery in the operating theatre, shifty Secret Service agents - and yet - not one eye witness came forward claiming they saw the secret service car fire a shot into the president? Come on...
Presenting this nonsense as a documentary, or anything resembling a factual investigation is an insult to anyone capable of critical thought.
In one hand they'll tell you the primary author of this cockamamie theory is a firearms expert, with impeccable credentials, and then in the next they'll show him trying to recreate the trajectory of a bullet by feeding a dowel through a smashed up fake skull. What kind of science is this? Is this a joke? A five year old should be able to figure out that there is no way to tell precisely at what angle JFK's head was during the precise moment the bullet impacted it, and there is no way that you could trace exactly where the round (or what was left of it) exited when half of the man's head was missing! Under that criteria he could draw a line tracing the path of the bullet to Jackie Kennedy (who besides, had motive to murder Jack for all of his infidelity)! The size of the entrance wound being used as evidence that the 6.5mm round from Oswald's gun couldn't have entered the President's head is another fallacy. First off, the documentary makes the case that the whole autopsy was slapdash and botched, so how can any evidence from it suddenly be useful? Secondly, the entrance wound recorded was not measured from Kennedy's bare skull, it was measured as being the hole in his scalp, and assuming it was "too small" as the documentary claims, what the documentary completely misses is the elasticity of skin. Skin stretches and contracts, there's no reason the entrance wound in the skin had to be exactly the same size, or larger than the bullet.
Lastly, eye witness testimony is used to corroborate claims of a cover-up, it's taken at absolute face value, yet every eye witness that corroborated the report of three shots coming from the book depository is outright ignored? On top of this, all of these stories about skullduggery in the operating theatre, shifty Secret Service agents - and yet - not one eye witness came forward claiming they saw the secret service car fire a shot into the president? Come on...
Presenting this nonsense as a documentary, or anything resembling a factual investigation is an insult to anyone capable of critical thought.
Absolute rubbish
wondercritic29 November 2017
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.
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.
Amateur hour, watch JFK instead.
ian_watts13 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is a TV grade documentary that sensationalises an old theory which had been forgotten about, and probably for good reason.
Problems with this theory:
1. Warren Report
The theory relies on the autopsy as hard evidence for entry wounds and trajectory. The film basically confirms the highly contentious 'single bullet' theory and also that a lone shooter made the first two shots (not to mention it just seems to be assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had to have done it) based on this evidence. However, it is well known (and even mentioned in the film) that the Warren Report and autopsy are both unreliable and were both compromised.
2. JFK (film)
There is only one mention of the film JFK and absolutely no mention of the work of Jim Garrison (on which the film JFK is focused). The work of Jim Garrison is much more thorough and answers a lot more questions than this theory.
3. The grassy knoll
The film conveniently does not mention that MANY people heard shots and saw smoke from the grassy knoll. This theory dismisses the grassy knoll because there is not entry wound from that direction. But the theory relies on the botched autopsy. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK move back and to the left from impact (as pointed out in the film JFK) locating the shooter at the grassy knoll (where the best shot is). Something this film does bring to light that Oliver Stone's JFK does not is that people smelt gunpowder on the street. But if you consider the wind blowing back towards the book depository (which is mentioned in this film), then the grassy knoll becomes the prime location for the smell to be coming from.
4. Colin McClaren (useless Australian detective)
Colin McClaren is nothing more than a film making device to try and reinforce the theory and make it more believable. Basically a case of: insert expert who agrees with everything we want to say. He may have read many documents about the case, but they would not be any documents that you or I couldn't get a hold of, definitely not the calibre of the evidence that Jim Garrison was working with (same applies to Donahue). He didn't meet any of the suspects or associates involved, didn't conduct interviews or have the kind of authority you need to investigate this properly. The film even shows this guy visiting tourist attractions about the assassination. The only 'new' evidence he presents is information that the film hadn't presented to us yet. Most importantly, for a detective, he doesn't ask why! He never discusses motive or what people could be involved, he just simply mirrors what Donahue has already said.
5. Accidental shooter
Just when the film gets to its most believable stage and suggests that the secret serviceman Hickey in the car behind may have fired the last shot (which is not all that believable) it makes the bizarre conclusion that Hickey most likely accidentally fired. It is particularly frustrating for someone like myself (I am from Australia) to see many Americans not look at the shooting with a free thinking mind, almost as if it is totally impossible for a US agency to take out its own president, even though it is one of the most logical explanations.
... On a side note, this film talks about how the secret service were out late the night before and attributes this as to why Hickey was able to get the shot off. But doesn't it make more sense that they had been enticed to go out in order to lower the guard for the next day?
Ultimately this film not only makes a mess of its argument but also fails to explain the important side of the JFK assassination, which is WHY it happened. Look at what was happening at the time, JFK's relationships with government bodies and other groups in the American public, the explanation requires much more than a ballistics analysis. Oliver Stone's JFK gives the best picture so far, watch that instead of this.
Problems with this theory:
1. Warren Report
The theory relies on the autopsy as hard evidence for entry wounds and trajectory. The film basically confirms the highly contentious 'single bullet' theory and also that a lone shooter made the first two shots (not to mention it just seems to be assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had to have done it) based on this evidence. However, it is well known (and even mentioned in the film) that the Warren Report and autopsy are both unreliable and were both compromised.
2. JFK (film)
There is only one mention of the film JFK and absolutely no mention of the work of Jim Garrison (on which the film JFK is focused). The work of Jim Garrison is much more thorough and answers a lot more questions than this theory.
3. The grassy knoll
The film conveniently does not mention that MANY people heard shots and saw smoke from the grassy knoll. This theory dismisses the grassy knoll because there is not entry wound from that direction. But the theory relies on the botched autopsy. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK move back and to the left from impact (as pointed out in the film JFK) locating the shooter at the grassy knoll (where the best shot is). Something this film does bring to light that Oliver Stone's JFK does not is that people smelt gunpowder on the street. But if you consider the wind blowing back towards the book depository (which is mentioned in this film), then the grassy knoll becomes the prime location for the smell to be coming from.
4. Colin McClaren (useless Australian detective)
Colin McClaren is nothing more than a film making device to try and reinforce the theory and make it more believable. Basically a case of: insert expert who agrees with everything we want to say. He may have read many documents about the case, but they would not be any documents that you or I couldn't get a hold of, definitely not the calibre of the evidence that Jim Garrison was working with (same applies to Donahue). He didn't meet any of the suspects or associates involved, didn't conduct interviews or have the kind of authority you need to investigate this properly. The film even shows this guy visiting tourist attractions about the assassination. The only 'new' evidence he presents is information that the film hadn't presented to us yet. Most importantly, for a detective, he doesn't ask why! He never discusses motive or what people could be involved, he just simply mirrors what Donahue has already said.
5. Accidental shooter
Just when the film gets to its most believable stage and suggests that the secret serviceman Hickey in the car behind may have fired the last shot (which is not all that believable) it makes the bizarre conclusion that Hickey most likely accidentally fired. It is particularly frustrating for someone like myself (I am from Australia) to see many Americans not look at the shooting with a free thinking mind, almost as if it is totally impossible for a US agency to take out its own president, even though it is one of the most logical explanations.
... On a side note, this film talks about how the secret service were out late the night before and attributes this as to why Hickey was able to get the shot off. But doesn't it make more sense that they had been enticed to go out in order to lower the guard for the next day?
Ultimately this film not only makes a mess of its argument but also fails to explain the important side of the JFK assassination, which is WHY it happened. Look at what was happening at the time, JFK's relationships with government bodies and other groups in the American public, the explanation requires much more than a ballistics analysis. Oliver Stone's JFK gives the best picture so far, watch that instead of this.
Hokiest notion I've seen on what happened in Dallas in '63
FlushingCaps10 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's impossible to only review this as a film and ignore the story--the theory about the assassination presented.
As a film, the "actors" doing the re-created scenes were miserable. There was way too much repetition, making the film seem padded--to fill out the 2 hours including commercials.
As to the theory--there are two reactions I had--chortling and shaking my head in amazement.
We are supposed to believe that the third shot did not come from Oswald's gun, but from a rifle fired by accident by a Secret Serviceman sitting, rather, standing in the car right behind the president's car. Presented in the film is the notion that on hearing the first shot, this agent reached down and picked up a rifle on the floor, then when the car sped up after the second shot, the agent fell backwards and his rifle just happened to be fired by accident right during the portion of a second it was pointed right at the president's head.
The unlikelihood of that happening is close to 100%. First of all, the agent would most likely have not had his finger on the trigger while he was holding the rifle up and looking around to see if he could spot a shooter. If he fell back and lowered the rifle, there would have been less than a second when it really was pointed toward the president at all.
More significantly, IF this had all happened, there is no way in the world none of the other 9 people aboard (including agents on the running boards) that vehicle would not have reported hearing a gunshot from a couple of feet away. Certainly some of the hundreds in Dealey Plaza would have reported seeing and/or hearing a gunshot from the area of the car behind the president. Someone with a still camera would surely have photographed something to support this film's preposterous claim. The only photo showing him with a rifle was taken after leaving the scene of the shooting-which is when the agent says he picked up the rifle in the first place.
The film makes a big deal about the autopsy claiming the entry wound on the final shot was reported as 6 millimeters, when the bullets from Oswald's gun were 6.5 mm. It never mentions that skin can contract after a hole is poked. It doesn't mention that the hole in JFK's neck wound--the one they agree came from Oswald's rifle--was measured as 4 mm. So much for that notion.
They never mention that ballistic tests on actual human skulls found bullets of the type Oswald used often did shatter on impact and explode like the final bullet in the JFK shooting. Instead, they waste time shooting bullets into melons to demonstrate how some bullets will explode on impact more easily than others.
Presenting only evidence that advances your claims and excluding facts known that contradict those claims is dishonest.
The best part of this film is when they show how the shot that hit both the president and Governor Connelly could definitely have done so, because of the fact that the governor's seat was more toward the middle of the car than the president's--that there was nothing magic about that bullet hitting both men...it did not change course in mid-air as the conspiracy people have claimed.
That comes early in the film. I advise anyone to switch channels after that portion and not waste their time (like I did) with the rest of this nonsense.
As a film, the "actors" doing the re-created scenes were miserable. There was way too much repetition, making the film seem padded--to fill out the 2 hours including commercials.
As to the theory--there are two reactions I had--chortling and shaking my head in amazement.
We are supposed to believe that the third shot did not come from Oswald's gun, but from a rifle fired by accident by a Secret Serviceman sitting, rather, standing in the car right behind the president's car. Presented in the film is the notion that on hearing the first shot, this agent reached down and picked up a rifle on the floor, then when the car sped up after the second shot, the agent fell backwards and his rifle just happened to be fired by accident right during the portion of a second it was pointed right at the president's head.
The unlikelihood of that happening is close to 100%. First of all, the agent would most likely have not had his finger on the trigger while he was holding the rifle up and looking around to see if he could spot a shooter. If he fell back and lowered the rifle, there would have been less than a second when it really was pointed toward the president at all.
More significantly, IF this had all happened, there is no way in the world none of the other 9 people aboard (including agents on the running boards) that vehicle would not have reported hearing a gunshot from a couple of feet away. Certainly some of the hundreds in Dealey Plaza would have reported seeing and/or hearing a gunshot from the area of the car behind the president. Someone with a still camera would surely have photographed something to support this film's preposterous claim. The only photo showing him with a rifle was taken after leaving the scene of the shooting-which is when the agent says he picked up the rifle in the first place.
The film makes a big deal about the autopsy claiming the entry wound on the final shot was reported as 6 millimeters, when the bullets from Oswald's gun were 6.5 mm. It never mentions that skin can contract after a hole is poked. It doesn't mention that the hole in JFK's neck wound--the one they agree came from Oswald's rifle--was measured as 4 mm. So much for that notion.
They never mention that ballistic tests on actual human skulls found bullets of the type Oswald used often did shatter on impact and explode like the final bullet in the JFK shooting. Instead, they waste time shooting bullets into melons to demonstrate how some bullets will explode on impact more easily than others.
Presenting only evidence that advances your claims and excluding facts known that contradict those claims is dishonest.
The best part of this film is when they show how the shot that hit both the president and Governor Connelly could definitely have done so, because of the fact that the governor's seat was more toward the middle of the car than the president's--that there was nothing magic about that bullet hitting both men...it did not change course in mid-air as the conspiracy people have claimed.
That comes early in the film. I advise anyone to switch channels after that portion and not waste their time (like I did) with the rest of this nonsense.
The Conclusion is Ridiculous
morganmckinley6 March 2021
I have watched everything available on film ever made about the JFK Assassination and his conclusion that a Secret Service Agent accidentally whacked JFK with the famous fatal head shot is pathetic.
It's just part of the campaign to coverup what a lie CE399 is as the Internet has allowed more people to realize what a joke that is along with so many other things.
Sprinkle in an Aussie detective with the Crocodile Dundee accent, with a simplistic recreations of the events, and their best method - deliberately ignoring important contrary evidence - and it's another attempt to avoid a reopening of the Murder of JFK and releasing of ALL files and subpoena power to find out what really happened.
The most intelligent researchers haven't reached a conclusion. Not possible without that.
This gets 3 because it addresses the ballistics and other areas in at least but the conclusion is laughable.
It's just part of the campaign to coverup what a lie CE399 is as the Internet has allowed more people to realize what a joke that is along with so many other things.
Sprinkle in an Aussie detective with the Crocodile Dundee accent, with a simplistic recreations of the events, and their best method - deliberately ignoring important contrary evidence - and it's another attempt to avoid a reopening of the Murder of JFK and releasing of ALL files and subpoena power to find out what really happened.
The most intelligent researchers haven't reached a conclusion. Not possible without that.
This gets 3 because it addresses the ballistics and other areas in at least but the conclusion is laughable.
Not really much better than the Warren Report, if you think about it
bob_meg10 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Watch The History Channel's 'Smoking Gun', if you can find it.
lomaran-111 July 2016
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.
Ridiculous Theory
dspear-624-49876625 December 2017
So after Oswald fired his first shot, Hickey identified that JFK was shot, looked up at the 6th floor, reached down for the AR-15, lifted it from his car floor, released the safety, turned the rifle toward JFK rather than the 6th floor, and accidentally shoots JFK.
And he does all this in under 6 seconds! Yeah, right.
The movie also doesn't talk about the type of bullet the AR-15 fires and if there is any indication of that bullet entering the back of JFK's head at the proper angle. This theory is so bad that I suspect it is a deliberate fake that can be proven wrong. I'm sure the assassination was a conspiracy, but not this.
And he does all this in under 6 seconds! Yeah, right.
The movie also doesn't talk about the type of bullet the AR-15 fires and if there is any indication of that bullet entering the back of JFK's head at the proper angle. This theory is so bad that I suspect it is a deliberate fake that can be proven wrong. I'm sure the assassination was a conspiracy, but not this.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
