[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendario delle usciteI migliori 250 filmI film più popolariEsplora film per genereCampione d’incassiOrari e bigliettiNotizie sui filmFilm indiani in evidenza
    Cosa c’è in TV e in streamingLe migliori 250 serieLe serie più popolariEsplora serie per genereNotizie TV
    Cosa guardareTrailer più recentiOriginali IMDbPreferiti IMDbIn evidenza su IMDbGuida all'intrattenimento per la famigliaPodcast IMDb
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralTutti gli eventi
    Nato oggiCelebrità più popolariNotizie sulle celebrità
    Centro assistenzaZona contributoriSondaggi
Per i professionisti del settore
  • Lingua
  • Completamente supportata
  • English (United States)
    Parzialmente supportata
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Lista Video
Accedi
  • Completamente supportata
  • English (United States)
    Parzialmente supportata
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Usa l'app
Indietro
  • Il Cast e la Troupe
  • Recensioni degli utenti
  • Quiz
IMDbPro
JFK: The Smoking Gun (2013)

Recensioni degli utenti

JFK: The Smoking Gun

31 recensioni
6/10

Why Hickey didn't shoot JFK

  • andrew_shaw-77003
  • 8 ago 2021
  • Permalink
6/10

A ridiculous parody that is sheer schlocky entertainment

  • Robert_duder
  • 18 feb 2014
  • Permalink
7/10

We'll never know but boy, do people like to speculate

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.
  • blanche-2
  • 24 ott 2014
  • Permalink

Accidental? Don't buy it for a moment!

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".
  • jpenera
  • 17 nov 2013
  • Permalink
10/10

The awful truth is staring you in the face. 10/10

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.
  • dfle3
  • 3 nov 2013
  • Permalink
10/10

An excellent documentary !

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.
  • francoislanoue89
  • 26 nov 2013
  • Permalink
6/10

Interesting, Albeit Over My Head

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.
  • gavin6942
  • 21 mag 2014
  • Permalink
10/10

The most believable to date!

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!
  • cekadah
  • 13 mag 2014
  • Permalink
6/10

His death was inevitable , the family is cursed.

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.
  • 121mcv
  • 29 mag 2022
  • Permalink
10/10

Think its by accident the Government won't release all documents on this ?

  • agregorich-07266
  • 23 set 2023
  • Permalink
10/10

Very believable

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.
  • dbrayshaw
  • 16 mag 2014
  • Permalink
1/10

A complete farce, from the charlatans who brought you "The Monster Shark Lives" and "Amish Mafia"...

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.
  • the_cyberpunk
  • 9 dic 2014
  • Permalink

Intentional Disinformation

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.
  • bdh-10276
  • 16 dic 2021
  • Permalink
10/10

At last the truth comes forth

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.
  • mr-strix-1
  • 15 set 2018
  • Permalink
10/10

It's plausible and possible

  • vjioia
  • 12 giu 2023
  • Permalink
10/10

Seems the truth has stirred up a hornets nest

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
  • rubygirl-72636
  • 4 nov 2020
  • Permalink
5/10

Theory Has Obvious Major Flaw

  • p-frame
  • 13 mag 2014
  • Permalink
2/10

Absolute rubbish

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.
  • wondercritic
  • 28 nov 2017
  • Permalink
1/10

Totally Bogus Disinformation Designed to Mislead the Public

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.
  • jamesfeldmancpa
  • 21 nov 2019
  • Permalink
1/10

Hokiest notion I've seen on what happened in Dallas in '63

  • FlushingCaps
  • 9 nov 2017
  • Permalink
2/10

Amateur hour, watch JFK instead.

  • ian_watts
  • 12 set 2014
  • Permalink
1/10

Read "The girl on the stairs" instead

This documentary is just mumbo jumbo.

A book that shows that Oswald didn't shoot, is "The girl on the stairs". A really interesting and exciting read.

"On November 22, 1963, a young Victoria Elizabeth Adams stood behind a fourth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas and watched as Pres. John F. Kennedy was murdered in the streets below. At that moment, her life changed forever. This book tells the story that the government covered up with fabricated evidence."
  • petercarlsson-92297
  • 23 mag 2021
  • Permalink
1/10

Watch The History Channel's 'Smoking Gun', if you can find it.

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.
  • lomaran-1
  • 10 lug 2016
  • Permalink
4/10

Ridiculous Theory

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.
  • dspear-624-498766
  • 24 dic 2017
  • Permalink
3/10

Not really much better than the Warren Report, if you think about it

  • bob_meg
  • 9 mag 2014
  • Permalink

Altro da questo titolo

Altre pagine da esplorare

Visti di recente

Abilita i cookie del browser per utilizzare questa funzione. Maggiori informazioni.
Scarica l'app IMDb
Accedi per avere maggiore accessoAccedi per avere maggiore accesso
Segui IMDb sui social
Scarica l'app IMDb
Per Android e iOS
Scarica l'app IMDb
  • Aiuto
  • Indice del sito
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • Prendi in licenza i dati di IMDb
  • Sala stampa
  • Pubblicità
  • Lavoro
  • Condizioni d'uso
  • Informativa sulla privacy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, una società Amazon

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.