Nonureva Really Surprised!

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

blubb06 I read a few comments on this scattered across the web prior to viewing it, and the condemning ones clearly outweighed the positive reviews (I didn't take the time to read those). I had devoured Jim Garrison's book (after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK") and found it convincing. In any case with that much smoke around, there's usually some fire, and if only the - possible - premature demolition of a certain WTC building for a little insurance or stock market fraud.The BBC has a reputation for well-researched, non-sensationalist documentaries that generally go along with official lines, and this film is a good example. Watching it with an open mind, I must say it offers a persuasive account of the Kennedy shooting. At least Dale Myers's computer-based reconstruction regarding the "magic bullet" is very convincing. Computer graphics are nowadays an essential part of every major accident investigation - in reality, not just in "Mayday" episodes. They are only as good as the data they rely on, but unless inaccuracies are found, this is definitely the most reliable method available today.The film also debunks some of the serious errors made by Oliver Stone's "JFK": That Oswald was a bad shot (he was actually a sharpshooter), the Kennedy-Connally bullet (surgically recovered fragments prove it really caused the wounds, ballistics show it was fired from the Oswald rifle) and others. It doesn't bring up all the "evidence" for a conspiracy, particularly the witnesses and the allegedly negative nitrate test on Oswald. And - as others have pointed out - Oswald's killing of the policeman Tippet is not really a "rock-solid fact". There is no "rock-solid" evidence for a conspiracy either, but that doesn't rule it out completely - until the 1990's, there was not overwhelmingly much tangible evidence for Auschwitz (see D.D. Guttenberg's book on the David Irving trial).The filmmakers took the trouble to interview a lot of people who knew Oswald and his wife personally, and their memories paint quite a different picture of the "secret agent": most notably Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the Texas Book Depository), Oswald's brother (who describes him as a social dropout seeking attention) and people who met Oswald during his time in Russia. Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, seems to have been convinced that Fidel Castro was behind it - an allegation that Castro himself objected to because it would have created the perfect pretext for an invasion of Cuba. John Ruby, the alleged mafia hit-man, is portrayed as a hothead on the fringes of the mob, at most - yet another "trigger-happy American" stereotype.Because all the alleged ringleaders - Ferrie, Shaw/Bertrand and Oswald - of the "conspiracy gang" are dead, it's up to guess if that's really all there's to it. The filmmakers vindicate Clay Shaw, the businessman/alleged CIA agent Jim Garrison prosecuted unsuccessfully, of any involvement, without delving into any of Shaw's mysterious ways - based on a lie detector test on Garrison's main witness Perry Russo. Here some will cry "foul", at the latest. Garrison tells us there were other witnesses. As always, it's a question of credibility.In my opinion, the film doesn't deserve the vilification it has received from some people that called it "propaganda" intent on bending the truth to reach foregone conclusions. Some "evidence" you ignore, some you disbelieve - the other side does the same. It's well made, maybe too good for everybody's taste, but certainly worth to take the time and make up your own mind.

tepidohare If you are a believer in a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy and you have a scientific mind, you will no longer believe the conspiracy theories after viewing this special. The special supports all of its conclusions with compelling facts and evidence, directly disproving many of the fundamental assumptions of the conspiracists.You will see many opinions by people who refuse to let go. But you will also notice that not a single one of them supports their objections to this documentary with any fact-based arguments. When they do try to argue fact, they are usually mistaken (example: reviewer Gregg Wager's assertion that this documentary does not mention the bullet that hit Gov. Connolly's wrist: untrue). Don't let them dissuade you from watching an excellently (and moreover, responsibly) crafted special.

enrico-25 The 3d emulation which all this movie is based on is quite impressive and visually interesting and fascinating. But this documentary is too poor of important elements. No words from the many witnesses, no investigation on the many photographs and other elements and mostly, denies the last shoot to JFK's has been done from a different angle than the book deposit. Who would like to get a better idea about what happened i suggest everyone to look for the movies "the men who killed Kennedy" by Nigel Turner. Around 10 hrs of informations, evidences and witnesses interview that can really give you more clues about JFK's assassination.

guycorhuo I couldn't stop to seen this documentary till its end. I was stuck in my chair. Like once i couldn't stop to seen Oliver Stone's JFK (1991). Instead, there were moments that i have arrived to think that the original title of this one was Peter Jennings reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy of Oliver Stone. The last 30 minutes are entirely dedicated to dismount the Stone's movie theory. That's not bad, sure, but at least Mark Obenhaus does the same that tries to criticize. I miss more testimonies of people that believe in conspiracy theories I think it would done better this movie. In a state of democracy i think it's good to have both versions (Obenhaus-Stone) for make each one his own version. But we must remember that Obenhaus has done a documentary and Stone a fiction...with all the reserves that it means...for both of them.