The greatest movie ever!

Good concept, poorly executed.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

This is a TV grade documentary that sensationalises an old theory which had been forgotten about, and probably for good reason. Problems with this theory:1. Warren ReportThe theory relies on the autopsy as hard evidence for entry wounds and trajectory. The film basically confirms the highly contentious 'single bullet' theory and also that a lone shooter made the first two shots (not to mention it just seems to be assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had to have done it) based on this evidence. However, it is well known (and even mentioned in the film) that the Warren Report and autopsy are both unreliable and were both compromised.2. JFK (film)There is only one mention of the film JFK and absolutely no mention of the work of Jim Garrison (on which the film JFK is focused). The work of Jim Garrison is much more thorough and answers a lot more questions than this theory.3. The grassy knollThe film conveniently does not mention that MANY people heard shots and saw smoke from the grassy knoll. This theory dismisses the grassy knoll because there is not entry wound from that direction. But the theory relies on the botched autopsy. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK move back and to the left from impact (as pointed out in the film JFK) locating the shooter at the grassy knoll (where the best shot is). Something this film does bring to light that Oliver Stone's JFK does not is that people smelt gunpowder on the street. But if you consider the wind blowing back towards the book depository (which is mentioned in this film), then the grassy knoll becomes the prime location for the smell to be coming from.4. Colin McClaren (useless Australian detective)Colin McClaren is nothing more than a film making device to try and reinforce the theory and make it more believable. Basically a case of: insert expert who agrees with everything we want to say. He may have read many documents about the case, but they would not be any documents that you or I couldn't get a hold of, definitely not the calibre of the evidence that Jim Garrison was working with (same applies to Donahue). He didn't meet any of the suspects or associates involved, didn't conduct interviews or have the kind of authority you need to investigate this properly. The film even shows this guy visiting tourist attractions about the assassination. The only 'new' evidence he presents is information that the film hadn't presented to us yet. Most importantly, for a detective, he doesn't ask why! He never discusses motive or what people could be involved, he just simply mirrors what Donahue has already said. 5. Accidental shooter Just when the film gets to its most believable stage and suggests that the secret serviceman Hickey in the car behind may have fired the last shot (which is not all that believable) it makes the bizarre conclusion that Hickey most likely accidentally fired. It is particularly frustrating for someone like myself (I am from Australia) to see many Americans not look at the shooting with a free thinking mind, almost as if it is totally impossible for a US agency to take out its own president, even though it is one of the most logical explanations.... On a side note, this film talks about how the secret service were out late the night before and attributes this as to why Hickey was able to get the shot off. But doesn't it make more sense that they had been enticed to go out in order to lower the guard for the next day? Ultimately this film not only makes a mess of its argument but also fails to explain the important side of the JFK assassination, which is WHY it happened. Look at what was happening at the time, JFK's relationships with government bodies and other groups in the American public, the explanation requires much more than a ballistics analysis. Oliver Stone's JFK gives the best picture so far, watch that instead of this.

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.

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.