Dark Legacy

I started watching this with an open mind, but quickly the one-sided bias became evident. I love documentaries but this is not a documentary. The makers have hand-picked facts and tried to fit them into what they want the story to be. The fact they digitally added a swastika armband on Nixon is an inflammatory image that shows the whole piece can't be taken seriously. I'm open to legitimate facts of a conspiracy and have watched many documentaries that provide facts and leave it to the viewer to form an opinion. This piece is far from legitimate, and it's scary that others have given it a higher rating.

The graphics in this documentary are unforgivably childish. I cannot explain the disconnect between the research and presentation of intriguing and challenging information with these goofy, immature visuals. George H. W. Bush certainly had a questionable past, and egregious political career. The facts that have come to light over the years are difficult to refute. Whether it was his involvement with the CIA in the early 1960s, something Bush denied under oath when appointed Director of CIA, and throughout his 1988 presidential campaign, or his bargaining with Iran behind the scenes in the lead-up to the 1980 presidential election, George H. W. Bush had a lot to answer for. The information conveyed in this documentary is good. I cannot understand why the filmmaker would undermine his research by presenting it in such a childish manner. Push past the sophomoric visuals and listen to the information.

I would love to see a detractor of this film go through the information provided, piece by piece, and explain how or why it should be dismissed - instead of just umbrella-dismissing anything and everything that's been labeled by WHOEVER as a a 'conspiracy theory.' Conspiracies actually exist, therefore it is an absolute fact that some 'conspiracy theories' are valid, & to dismiss an argument solely on the basis of it being labeled a 'conspiracy theory' is idiotic at best. Its truly odd that intelligent individuals can dismiss so many eye witness accounts & mounds of physical & circumstantial evidence, going so far as to vehemently attack anyone that doesn't agree with the Warren Report? If everyone thought like this we'd all still be the loyal subjects of a king, worshiping whatever gods we were told to...

However I digress, Dark Legacy is the most fleshed out, thought provoking JFK assassination theory I've encountered. Again, I would love to see a detractor of the film go through the information provided, piece by piece, and explain how or why it should be dismissed.

'Dark Legacy' is a film that everyone interested in the Kennedy assassination and its circumstances should watch. It's on Netflix instant streaming, which greatly increases its accessibility.

First of all, the film presented tons of pieces of evidence that prove JFK was probably murdered as the result of a conspiracy. It proves why the single-bullet theory is absolutely ridiculous. It uses government memos to prove the points it makes. Basically, it has more detail and convincing arguments than other works that try to do the same thing. The person who made the film claims that it proves the conspiracy's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe so.

Unfortunately though, even the most casual of viewers could tell that this is a low-budget film. There's nothing wrong with low-budget films, but this one had a couple of spelling mistakes (i.e. "Napoleon" being spelled "Napolean," and lack of punctuation in a crucial sentence (i.e. at one point it says, "Hoover knew that the Bushs were Nazis"). This is not good for a documentary, because it lowers the credibility.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that some of the facts presented were biased after doing some research. #1: Allen Dulles actually was not a Nazi sympathizer. #2: Saying that Bay of Pigs was done without any of JFK's approval or foreknowledge is kind of misleading. #3: JFK's head moves forward a little before going back and to the left.

Parts of this film are eye-opening, and much of it is good film-making. However, it's obviously low-budget and some of it is kind of biased. I guess I'd say the good kind of outweighs the bad.

I wasn't born yet when JFK was killed and knew nothing about the Warren Report or the conspiracies that surrounded it until Oliver Stone's movie. Since then I have watched several docs on the subject, all of which I found to be good but really just a rehashing of all the sane facts and continuation of the more questions than answers narrative.

Until now. John Hankey does a wonderful job presenting new, never seen before evidence that I didn't know and makes a compelling, albeit confusing, effort to tie in all the alleged players in the conspiracy.

Hankey could've done without the animated swastikas, I found his narration to be somewhat amateurish, glib and greatly opinionated - you're armed with the goods, present it as facts, not opinion - and the one thing that really irked me was when he said that everyone ran towards the Grassy Knoll to "catch the shooter". No, people run when they hear gun shots to SAVE THEIR LIVES.

And shame on IMDB for allowing a "J. C. Graham" - who the heck is he? - to write the childish Storyline complete with name calling. CHANGE THAT TO THE OTHER STORY LINE YOU HAVE LISTED.