JFK: What the Doctors Saw

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.

I have always been intrigued by events of 11/22/63 and even though I was only less than a month from my sixth birthday, I can remember walking into our family kitchen and telling my mother that the president had been shot.

A perfect companion to the documentary is David Lifton's massive book, "Best Evidence," which provides in-depth details as to the strange happenings involving the body of JFK and the cursory autopsy done by military doctors in Washington, D. C. rather than in Dallas.

Eight emergency room physicians who were present when Kennedy was brought in all agreed that the wound to the throat was an entrance wound were astounded with the conclusions of the Warren Report. As Lifton's book speculated, the wounds were altered in order to verify the conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunmen.

The Zapruder clip is shown and it is quite obvious that Kennedy was shot from the front.

The film is a very good one and should be of interest to anyone seeking the truth.

I've watched countless documentaries on the JFK assassination but this one stands unique among them all.

I've never really chosen between the single shooter and second shooter theories because I've always felt that each argument was plausible. I've also never considered the Parkland doctors or how they assessed Kennedy when he arrived at the hospital. This has made me believe that there were two shooters and it has made me wonder why the handling of the body seems so shady.

If you have an interest in President Kennedy's assassination, you should check this out. It's mindful, well-made and will have you asking why the government made the decision to handle certain things the way they did. It's worth the watch.

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.