MovieChat Forums > JFK: The Smoking Gun (2013) Discussion > If you suspect conspiracy, this is the w...

If you suspect conspiracy, this is the wrong documentary to watch!

posted 11 years ago by DlarryB
9 replies | jump to latest

It is laughable that this is even going to be presented. All this is designed to do is to make a mockery of serious conspiracy research and researchers.

My advice is to do your own research and form your own conclusion regarding the assassination of JFK. You will be subjected to much ridicule should you decide to adopt the theory presented in this film. There is absolutely no evidence that even suggests that SS Agent George Hickey accidentally discharged his weapon causing the fatal blow to JFK.

With that said, while submitted evidence may suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. There is a ton of evidence that equally suggests that Oswald never even fired a weapon on that fateful day (11/22/63).

Like I said, do your own research.

[–] Kariann1964 11 years ago

Could Oswald have been a part of the plan to kill JFK, and changed his mind at the last minute? I am trying to be open-minded about this, but I still don't come to the conclusion that LHO was the lone shooter.

[–] DlarryB 11 years ago

Quite frankly, I don't think LHO fired a single shot on 11/22/63. I believe he was involved at an intelligence level and became quickly aware following the event that he was being set up as "a patsy".

There is evidence that LHO was seen on the 1st floor in the lunchroom at 12:15 pm. While this, by itself, does not rule LHO out as the assassin, there is additional evidence that a sniper was spotted on the 6th floor at the exact same time.

Furthermore, the paraffin tests that were taken on Oswald conclude that he never fired a weapon that day. Of additional interest is the rifle evidence. I have concluded (for myself) that LHO never owned the murder weapon.

[–] jdwilliams75007 11 years ago

I would hope you'd do the same. The film is the best explanation of events I've ever seen since the day of the Assassination itself. And I've done the research. Science is hard to beat, I suggest you view the film again, and then make a trip here to Dallas to actually view the scene.

[–] DlarryB 11 years ago

I have been to Dealy Plaza on multiple occasions. I also have been to the sixth floor museum. After watching the documentary, I am definitely convinced of a second shooter. As for the single bullet theory, it is evident that the trajectory was contrived. While Connelly's seat was in board (3 to six inches), 8 to 11 inches were required to line up the shot. The same problem arises with the height. Connelly was seated 3 inches lower and not the 6.

Regarding Oswald, there is no evidence that he was on the sixth floor and evidence suggests he was having lunch on the first floor (as he claimed).

[–] jdwilliams75007 11 years ago

First off, the lunchroom was on the 5th not 1st floor, and that is where he was encountered by law enforcement, cleared as an employee and released. Secondly, as the film demonstrated, the line of fire and bullet type perfectly coordinate with the film. It's fun to explore conspiracy, and as you know from visiting Dallas there are many anxious to sell their material on the street here. But, scientifically speaking, the film at least for me, answers most of the important questions,

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 10 years ago

Actually, Jd, the break room that Oswald claimed to be in was on the 2nd floor, not the fifth. Marion baker's testimony in the Warren Commission even helps to confirm the location.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] chairfootboot-16-173776 10 years ago

It is laughable that this is even going to be presented.

That's what everybody says about theories they don't subscribe to.

All this is designed to do is to make a mockery of serious conspiracy research and researchers.

Since the documentary itself is based on serious conspiracy research, that would be a self-defeating contradiction if true. SS Agent Hickey even sued over it [http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971208978FSupp230_11189].
Any time there is a cover-up, there's a conspiracy.

My advice is to do your own research and form your own conclusion regarding the assassination of JFK.

Good advice. People should always do their own research and subject it to outside scrutiny.

You will be subjected to much ridicule should you decide to adopt the theory presented in this film.

It would be more accurate to say, "You will be subjected to much ridicule should you decide to adopt any theory regarding the JFK assassination." For those who subscribe to the official report of the Warren Commission, anything else is laughable. To those who think the Warren Report is a sham, it is laughable. In fact, if you are researching the JFK assassination and haven't been laughed at or ridiculed, then you aren't really doing much research!

There is absolutely no evidence that even suggests that SS Agent George Hickey accidentally discharged his weapon causing the fatal blow to JFK.

Were there not evidence, then SS Agent Hickey wouldn't have sued St. Martin's Press, there would be no documentary, and you wouldn't have a reason to comment here.
It was your comment here about "absolutely no evidence" that set off warning signals in my BS barometer and made me want to watch the documentary more. In fact, it is the main reason why I watched the film. Now I'm going to read the books, starting with Mortal Error, all because of your warning.

Like I said, do your own research.

Absolutely. Let others read and research, then come to their own conclusions on the matter.

[–] DlarryB 10 years ago

Good for you and glad I could help.

Since the documentary itself is based on serious conspiracy research, that would be a self-defeating contradiction if true. SS Agent Hickey even sued over it [http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971208978FSupp230_11189].
Any time there is a cover-up, there's a conspiracy.

A lot of the information presented in the documentary was very well researched and significantly suggests conspiracy. However, the evidence used to suggest that Hickey fired the fatal head shot is pure speculation. While it argues the case extremely well, there are other factors that, IMO, rule out the possibility.

Were there not evidence, then SS Agent Hickey wouldn't have sued St. Martin's Press

Huh? If there were evidence, Hickey would not have a case.

I would address all of your comments but arguing your pontification would be a futile effort.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 10 years ago

All this is designed to do is to make a mockery of serious conspiracy research and researchers.

Exactly. It is simply a distraction.

So we are to believe that the "brotherhood" of SS agents somehow magically knew that no pics or video of the "accidental" firing was taken? Or pics/video of the agents own shocked reactions to having a rifle go off right next to them? Or no shocked reactions due to the shocked reaction of the agent that just killed the POTUS by "accident"? They just immediately went into improvised, unplanned coverup mode as if they were all a confident well-oiled coverup machine of one mind?...somehow magically knowing that all were willing to risk everything to coverup the "accident" of another? Somehow magically knowing it was an accident and that the agent an assassin?

On top of all that, the actual content was around 15 minutes worth at most, and the rest was filler, repetition, and bad acting. Obvious questions one has by watching this were obviously avoided. No depth whatsoever.