The only ones I've watched are CourtTV and ABC.

I'll be darned. I'm gettin' them mixed. Sorry. :)

I guess the one I spoke of above must've been one of the Discovery Channel programs. (Which was misleadingly titled "JFK: The Conspiracies" in most TV Guides and on-screen DirectTV Guides....much to the dismay of the many, many people discussing and fighting it out over these TV documentaries at www.jfklancer.com. The actual title was: "JFK: The Conspiracy Myths".)

Movielib....Have you ever visited that Lancer site? It can be quite interesting to watch the CTers duke it out over the details of the case. I toss in an occasional "LN" view...but am usually flamed to a crisp! :)

You might be interested to know that two of the faces you've been seeing on the current batch of JFK documentaries all over TV this week are both participants in that JFK-Lancer Forum -- Josiah Thompson (author of "Six Seconds In Dallas"--1966) and James Fetzer (author of the current ludicrous volume, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"...where he claims the entire Z-Film has been "altered" by evil conspirators. :lol: ).

These two "respected" authors are constantly scratching each other's eyes out on that Forum. It's hysterical to watch (from some distance).

I've seen both Thompson and Fetzer pop up on these specials this week.

Just ordered it, as well as the new special edition of JFK, AND the ABC Special!:up:

Gonna get to the bottom of this once and for all;P

david: I'd like to see the Discovery Channel show you're talking about but I saw that it has had its last airing for this week. However, it will be shown again on December 20 and I will catch it then. :)

Am I the only one who thought this "experiment" was poorly done? They placed a replica of a human skull on a bench and shot at it from the same distance as the TSBD to the president's motorcade. Why wouldn't they weigh the skull down with what would be A BODY ATTACHED to the skull! Of course a skull all by itself would be subject to backspin when the bullet enters the skull. I'd like to find out the effect when a body is attached?

I enjoyed the CourtTV show (haven't seen the ABC one yet) but it seemed like there wasn't an independent view when they created the show. They wanted it to look like no conspiracy, and that's what they accomplished.

Great special, although it won't change the minds of the pro-conspiracy folks. Too many people would rather believe the most interesting explanation of an event rather than the most likely.

I'm no physics expert but it seems to me it would be less likely for the head or skull to move backwrds if it were not attached to a body than if it were (if it were indeed going to move backwards at all). I think what happens is that the tissue spewing forward from the great force of the bullet causes an "equal and opposite reaction" to the rest of the head or skull that drives it back. A less powerful shot that did not exit probably would drive the head forward.

It does seem counterintuitive but much of physics is. Also, you can't ignore the angle issue from a grassy knoll shot that could not have caused the particular wounds that were caused.

The best answer: Gerard Posner's "Case Closed."
 

I think THE book that finally puts most of the conspiracy theories to rest is Gerard Posner's groundbreaking book Case Closed.

Posner extensively footnoted his work with sources of information that could be researched by anyone to ally fears he was making up information. Also, Posner relied on the superb research done using Silicon Graphics computer workstations by Failure Analysis Associates (a company well-known for using computers to analyze crash and crime scenes) and FAA noted it was more than possible for Oswald to fire all three shots within 8.5 seconds and with good accuracy (the conspiracy crowd often conveniently forgets that Oswald was an excellent shooter when he was in the US Marine Corps at <i>200 yards</i> range). Given that the range of the shots was under 100 yards from the Texas School Book Depository, it's well within Oswald's capability for him to shoot JFK.

The show last night reveals information that conspiracy theorists missed: Texas Governor John Connally did NOT sit directly in front of JFK. The seat that Connally sat on was actually a temporary seat that was six inches to the left and was lower than the seat JFK sat on in the limousine. Using that basis, the single shot theory that showed the second fired bullet going through JFK and wounding Connally works perfectly.

We really only have one question to ask: what motivated Oswald to kill JFK? Was it a loner looking for attention? Or did he get motivation from people with a known vendetta against JFK? I subscribe to the possibility that organized crime may have set up Oswald to kill JFK, given the fact that JFK's brother Robert F. Kennedy (then US Attorney General) was aggressively going after organized crime, despite the fact it may have been organized crime that may have rigged votes to get JFK elected in 1960.

(getting off soapbox) :)

I definitely think that Oswald fired one of the shots. I don't buy that he acted alone or that he was doing it for himself. I am sure Oswald was working for or with someone.

What I didn't like about the show was Peter Jennings' "our word is final, and Oliver Stone is full of crap" attitude at the end of it. He always seems quite condescending of his audience and viewers in anything he does, which is why I didn't really like the program.

You're "sure" he didn't act alone? Why? I'm just curious.

I've noticed over the years that most people who are convinced that Oswald didn't act alone never have any evidence to support their opinion. If they do have any "evidence" half of them mention the film JFK and the other half just continue to say "it's obvious he didn't act alone" like I'm the one who's crazy for thinking that he did, and any evidence I mention is shot down as a coverup. In my opinion, those that think Oswald did act alone need to dig a little deeper into the evidence instead of relying on Oliver Stone and The Men Who Killed Kennedy for their information.

If these conspiracy people would actually do a little research on their own they would be convinced that Oswald did indeed kill the President of the United States on his own and without help from anyone. Get Posner's book, and use his footnotes to read and study the same information that he did. You'd be suprised what you'd find out.

Brett

Here's 3 new programs to add on to the Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD set. But for $39.95, I would wait and hopefully they go down in price.
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71255

If you don't have the original set, get that for $16 at DDD.

FWIW, all three are currently being shown on the History Channel, beginning with "The Guilty Men." They will be reshown at Midnight EST, I believe.

I thought the ABC piece was great, I'm going to watch these tonight, and TiVo's gonna catch the Court TV show while I'm on vacation.

A documentary isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Conspiracy theories are ultimately like religions. People believe (or, I suppose, disbelieve) them because something about the conspiracy validates their worldview. Doesn't matter if it's JFK, RFK, Vince Foster, Grays crashing in Roswell, Tupac vs. Biggie, the Trilateral Commision, Freemasons, OJ's bloody glove, or a combination of any of the above. And no amount of proof will do anything to change anyone's mind.

At this point in time, the JKF assassination has become a part of the American Mythology, right up there with George Washington's cherry tree.

Is ABC gonna reair the special? I planned on watching it but forgot about it.

I watched in disbelief as the computer reinactment showed a perfectly straight line trajectory of the bullet coming from the Texas School Book Depository building and entering JFK's head, exiting his throat and entering and exiting John Connelly's body.

Bullets change direction when they hit objects like human flesh and bone. And that's if a shot even came from that direction.

Dozens of doctors who were in the Dallas trauma room working on JFK were interviewed separately and all said he had a huge gaping wound in the back of his head which could only be an exit wound coming from in front of him. There are also autopsy photos showing a single small hole in the back. So, I guess those dozens of doctors were all lying seperately about the big hole in the back. Reverse conspiracy!

By definition of at least one shot from the front and one from the back there has to be two shooters and thus a conspiracy.

The new episodes of The Men who Killed Kennedy had some fascinating new info. Like the possibility the front kill shot came from below in the sewer drain opening. Or, Oswald's mistress claiming to have been on the phone with him just hours before the assassination and he saying that there were going to be two sets of shooters: one to kill him and one to save him. That's a little far-fetched and she has nothing to back it up with but it's still yet another interesting theory.

BTW, Amazon has a 40th anniversary edition of TMwKK A&E series that apparantly has all nine episodes but it's not yet available. Another site stated it's coming out next Tuesday. Amazon says it's 450 minutes compared to the old 300 minutes.

Huh? What show were you watching? Because it certainly wasn't the ABC Special.

Exited his head and entered Connally???? You're confused. The head shot didn't exit the throat. It was the other "hit" that hit both men.

As for the "back of the head" wound....look at this clip a dozen or so times and tell me WHERE you see any rear head damage. I see none. The bullet exited the right-front of the head. ......

Zapruder Film Clip.

One thing I notice when watching that clip a few times is that Kennedy's head kicks slightly FORWARD just before his brain explodes out the front/right of his head, pushing his head back, again indicating a shot from behind.

Brian

It sure does, bd.
There's a few inches of forward movement between Z-Frames 312 and 313, just before it snaps backward.

about the brain exiting causing the head to move back
this is different but somewhat related, but the times I've shot pumpkins and watermelons they have not moved towards me as the stuff exits the other side. granted the texture and density is different but the force of the bullet has always been greater than the force of the exiting material

On focusing on the motercycle cop who suppossedly had an open mic and picked up another gunshot. Their little animation put him at the end of the street instead of the pink circle based on two different videos. But what if as he rounded the street he sped up? Would that have put him in the pink circle? Dropped the ball on that one, ABC.

Not to start some shit, but it's interesting how many of these conspiracies seem to hinge on Oswald not being the shooter.

Would it not be possible for him to have been the shooter, and there to have been a conspiracy as well? Why does Oswald have to been a patsy for a conspiracy to exist?

ABC may have not done the best job on that but it has been conclusively proved that the recording was made a minute after the assassination, it was not made in Dealey Plaza and the sounds are not gunshots. (It's one of the many things the CourtTV program did much better than the ABC program.)

http://www.jfk-online.com/nas01.html

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_tra...k-dowling.html
This has been known for a long time and I can't see how there's any question at all about it now. It fooled researchers and the House Select Committee in 1978 (and was, as far as I know, about the only reason that committee found there was "probably" a conspiracy).

I don't think there is a shred of evidence that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald did any shooting in Dealey Plaza that day. As for whether Oswald was working for or with anyone else, I suppose it's possible in a vanishingly small probability sort of way. But again, I don't see that there has ever been any credible evidence for it.

It's not particularly surprising that in the case of the president, his head could have been thrown forward, reached its forward limit and then snapped back. But maybe it went backwards for another reason (or both factors contributed).

You really should see the CourtTV program which shows the experiments of skulls, not attached to anything, stuffed with animal tissue to simulate a real head that fly backwards when hit (under conditions simulating the assassination). And the experimenter said it happened every time. Apparently, the force of the tissue being forced out the front does cause an opposite reaction that forces the skull backwards, at least under certain circumstances.

I was making the point about the trajectory.

And why do I need to look at your clip a dozen times? You mean the footage I've seen a million times already? Tell me why autopsy photos were released specifically showing the back of the head with only a small single bullet hole entry wound when everyone saw a huge gaping hole in the back.