JFK: What the Doctors Saw

One thing that I always disagree about concerning the assassination is that I've stood on the grassy knoll behind the fence and "lined up the shot". I am a hunter and avid shooter and know how bullets react. If a shot had been fired from behind the fence, and struck Kennedy where the "X" is marked on the street, it would have exited Kennedy and struck Jackie or blown out the LEFT-REAR of Kennedy's head. So the shot HAD to have come either from the front OR from the back. They always go through proving the shot from behind but not from the fence. This has always bothered me whenever I see documentaries on the subject.

Documentaries made in the year of 2023!!!

Where other fimmakers revives over ''facts'' that where established by the warren commision of 1963, and other reviews at high levels in the 70's and 1990's, mingling over and with the officials of the united states, this documentary , ''JFK: what the doctors saw'', really gives you some mind boggeling views and factual information that has been forever overseen/buried deep down in the archives by official ''u.s. Inc.''

so if youre not fascinated by the murder of president kennedy, this film will heave you in and may start a new wave of private and official research.

Barbra et co: youve done a decent job here. A big recommend from the grumpy old man.

First, I don't actually dispute this film's core contention -- even if it's not stated outright -- that Kennedy's body should have remained at Parkland Hospital, where a proper, complete autopsy could have been performed. Instead we got what could charitably be called an inept autopsy, at worst a deliberately manipulated one. It is not the fault of the Parkland doctors that JFK's body was removed (illegally confiscated would be a better word) by the Secret Service. But it is the fault of the creators of this film that they fail to differentiate legitimate avenues of inquiry from rank speculation.

I supposed after 60 years there are plenty of people who have no idea who Kennedy was, and who are fascinated by the b-roll background that makes up at least one-third of this film. But for someone like me who has lived with this stuff since he was a kid, much of this material felt redundant and unnecessary.

Still, with so many witnesses entering their golden years, it's good that they're getting on film at all.

I was 8 years old when JFK was killed so it would be ludicrous to pretend that I always suspected the treason. However, within just a few years I knew that that Warren Commission was pure nonsense. A few years after that I became versed in the why and how of assassinations (for instance, always kill the assassin). Over the years I have read or watched at least 4 exhaustive investigations. Strangely, US News & World Report, a respected conservative magazine, published a childishly amateur support of the Warren Report in the mid 90's, after it had already been discredited from both public and private sources. So I have been, for decades, aware of everything in this special: lies, fabrication, suppression, coverup, legal violations, planted evidence, Media cooperation, the entire inside job uniparty treason - except one thing - the accusation that the Russians did it. Wow....it seems like the News never actually changes. But there is a more important issue - whether you have absolute corroboration, like the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, or merely overwhelming evidence, like 9/11 stuff, the American people will never trust their government or media on any major issue again.

...sixty years after jfk assassination us government still refuses to reveal all documents that are under the "top secret" seal... ...could it be more obvious that there is a 60-year conspiracy on...???

...as far as I can remember, president obama promised to open what was remain of that document, and then president trump and - nothing...

"In October 2021, Mr. Biden released nearly 1,500 more documents while delaying the release of other sensitive records until Dec. 15, 2022, saying further review was necessary to "protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations."" (citation)

...who are they still protecting...???