Did anyone see the BBC JFK documentary?

Did anyone see the BBC JFK documentary about the assassination?
I've got to admit I was shocked, I've always believed in the conspiracy but the program made a very strong case against it. However, just like they said that the movie JFK was fabricated to show one point of view, they could be doing exactly the same.

The BBc program was a typical 'British propoganda' programme.

There was a conspiracy and it stank.

The US public just doesn;t want to admit that their own ppl murdered their own president.

~messiah~

yes i saw it...

also saw some of the discovery channle's ones

there like trying to say:

if it walks like a duck, qaks like a duck and look like its a duck

its not a duck

Yeah it didn't make sense to me when they say that Oswald did it so that he could be a sombody, someone important, but then denies it right up to when he was shot.
If he was proud of what he did and believed it was the right thing then he would've owned up to it, but he didn't.

Yes I watched it - my analyses

Oswald did it - base premis
Heres How - Evidence
Conclusion - Oswald did it

It ignored any evidence to the contrary - notably the other computer reconstructions that have been done - and concentrated on the Z film frames and a rebuttal of any other evidence. It also didnt refer to the Kennedy autopsy with the exception of the "clean bullet".

Overall a little too "open and shut case" for a conspiracy that has raged so long. In facy to the extent that acording to the programme we (the conspiracy hunters) are obviously influenced by Oliver Stone's film "JFK". That got my ire up - as a friend of mine wrote his dissertation on the very points Stone makes 3 years prior to the film comeing out.

From PBS's Frontline.......
"Interview with Robert Oswald"
Link:
www.pbs.org...

"Oswald brother says there was no JFK plot"
Link:
seattlepi.nwsource.com...'s%20Brother


Hope these help.

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by John Nada
Yeah it didn't make sense to me when they say that Oswald did it so that he could be a sombody, someone important, but then denies it right up to when he was shot.

It makes complete sense. Think about it. If he'd immediately admitted to shooting the President there'd be a quick trial and a quick bus-ride to Jail. If he kept quiet, played 'the patsy' and toyed with his interrogators, the trial would be dragged out for God knows how long and he'd be under intense scrutiny by the worlds media for that extended period. That would make him feel a hell of a lot more like 'a somebody' than a fast-track admission of guilt before a lifetime in a Jail cell or 2 minutes in the Electric Chair. He knew he'd be found guilty in the end anyhow, so why bother speeding up the process? He was just enjoying the ride.

I watched the BBC programme and I've always bought into the conspiracy angle. However, now I'm not so sure. Our views of conspiracy have been so clouded by various theories, accounts and movies that the water gets a little muddy. Stripping it down to it's bare essentials and viewing it through clear eyes - which is a refreshing rarity in the JFK case - makes the reality a lot more obvious.

The media 'forget' to mention so many facts connected with Oswald. They often maek it seem that Oswald was a nobody who went to Russia, came back to the US a Commie and shot the President, totally overlooking the fact that he'd already attempted one previous assasination and didn't hesitate to kill a Police Officer for 'no reason whatsoever' on the day of the JFK shooting.

That latter incident should set alarm bells ringing immediately. Let us assume that Osawald didn't kill the President. He didn't commit any other crime on the day of the shooting, so don't you find it a tiny bit strange that when a Police Officer attempted to stop him he pulled out a gun shot and shot him? Truth is, if Oswald hadn't killed JFK he would have had no reason to do that. Especially as his past activity showed that he would no doubt have another assasination attempt on somebody lined up - so why be so stupid to jepordise that with a pointless murder of a cop?

I now believe it's a pretty cut and dried case, but the conspiray theory is now so accepted as 'normal' that the truth will just get pushed back under surface again...

Originally posted by John Nada
Yeah it didn't make sense to me when they say that Oswald did it so that he could be a sombody, someone important, but then denies it right up to when he was shot.
If he was proud of what he did and believed it was the right thing then he would've owned up to it, but he didn't.

Your last sentence sum's the whole thing up in one go john, doing something as big as that, he wouldnt have denied it and claimed the "star spot".

Originally posted by blackwidow666
Your last sentence sum's the whole thing up in one go john, doing something as big as that, he wouldnt have denied it and claimed the "star spot".

Oswald was a media whore. The longer he could have got away with denying it, the longer the spotlight would have been on him.

The programme was very good. Although I agree that it didn't take in the autopsy, it did cover other ground (the sound recordings) and seemed pretty convincing.
Some of the arguments put forward were pretty good too.

Some people theorise that the mafia were involved with Kennedy's assassination, but like one of the commentators said: since the shooting there have been literally dozens of high ranking Mafia figures going public and turning against the organisation. Yet not a single one has ever mentioned a whisper about JFK. Even though they sang like canaries about everything else. It would be logical that if the Mafia knew anything, their people would have talked.
This would seem to point to the fact that the Mafia angle is definitely out.

Ive seen the American documentaries. Same bull#.

I believe Oswald did shoot Kennedy. But he was not alone. The Kennedy assasination speaks of several people collaberating. Who else is anyones guess really, but the top suspects are mafia, CIA, NSA, members of his cabinet, ect.

Oslwald may have fired one shot, but there were others. oswald was just the easiest to take down.

And fo course, he was silenced by Jack Ruby.

Theres another angle too, of possible suspects and motives, perhaps, the British? My reasoning? The Kennedy family was funding a #LOAD of money to the IRA, who, back then, were a real active problem. In fact, I still think that certain Kennedys still do fund the IRA, whatever is left of it. But of course, there is no evidence to this, not even any real speculation, Im just pointing out another possible suspect to the whole thing, another motive.

Theres also the Bankers. Kennedy had plans to basically get rid of the Federal reserve. He had alot of plans that would really piss alot of big muckamucks off, so who was behind it is anyones guess.

But the offical line is pure grade A bull#. The Kennedy assasination file is still witheld from public view, and we probably never will know for sure.

But I dont expect the media to even really try to do some serious investigation. Its thier job to lie and spread disinformation, they are doing a wonderful job at it, and will continue to do so.

But I can read between the lines.

Originally posted by Silk
Yes I watched it - my analyses

Oswald did it - base premis
Heres How - Evidence
Conclusion - Oswald did it

It ignored any evidence to the contrary - notably the other computer reconstructions that have been done - and concentrated on the Z film frames and a rebuttal of any other evidence. It also didnt refer to the Kennedy autopsy with the exception of the "clean bullet".

Overall a little too "open and shut case" for a conspiracy that has raged so long. In facy to the extent that acording to the programme we (the conspiracy hunters) are obviously influenced by Oliver Stone's film "JFK". That got my ire up - as a friend of mine wrote his dissertation on the very points Stone makes 3 years prior to the film comeing out.

Couldnt agree more........the Three "d" imagaery was very conclusive...allied to the original fotage...very convincing...unless anyone else can make a more credible and lucid argument?

if it was only oswald that was in the plot to kill jfk...how lucky was he?? i would say very lucky that he just happened to work in a building that had a perfect place for him to shoot the president....he was sure lucky that the president's car past right by his place of employment.....how could he have been that lucky?? if he had previous thoughts of killing the president?

edit: nobody is that lucky..its a complete set up

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by sirCyco]

The one thing that was clear from this documentary was that Oswald was no "crap shot" as many (including the movie) would have him be.
In fact he was a marine sharpshooter, trained in speed shooting. Some of his scorecards showed 48/50 and 49/50 under test.
Bear in mind that Kennedy was shot from a distance of 88 yards (if Oswald did it) and the tests were at well over double that distance.
They also reckoned in the movie that the scope was faulty but this wasn't the case either as Oswald had only recently purchased the rifle mail order.
Finally, they had an 89 year old guy reload and fire the weapon in a quicker time than Oswald would have taken (8.1 seconds) - the guy even paused for the 3rd shot.

It would be interesting to know if there are any guys here who could fire a bolt action rifle 3 times in that space of time. Bear in mind that Oswald's first shot missed and his second didn't hit the target cleanly though.

Originally posted by SabbyJ

Originally posted by John Nada
Yeah it didn't make sense to me when they say that Oswald did it so that he could be a sombody, someone important, but then denies it right up to when he was shot.

It makes complete sense. Think about it. If he'd immediately admitted to shooting the President there'd be a quick trial and a quick bus-ride to Jail. If he kept quiet, played 'the patsy' and toyed with his interrogators, the trial would be dragged out for God knows how long and he'd be under intense scrutiny by the worlds media for that extended period. That would make him feel a hell of a lot more like 'a somebody' than a fast-track admission of guilt before a lifetime in a Jail cell or 2 minutes in the Electric Chair. He knew he'd be found guilty in the end anyhow, so why bother speeding up the process? He was just enjoying the ride.

I watched the BBC programme and I've always bought into the conspiracy angle. However, now I'm not so sure. Our views of conspiracy have been so clouded by various theories, accounts and movies that the water gets a little muddy. Stripping it down to it's bare essentials and viewing it through clear eyes - which is a refreshing rarity in the JFK case - makes the reality a lot more obvious.

The media 'forget' to mention so many facts connected with Oswald. They often maek it seem that Oswald was a nobody who went to Russia, came back to the US a Commie and shot the President, totally overlooking the fact that he'd already attempted one previous assasination and didn't hesitate to kill a Police Officer for 'no reason whatsoever' on the day of the JFK shooting.

That latter incident should set alarm bells ringing immediately. Let us assume that Osawald didn't kill the President. He didn't commit any other crime on the day of the shooting, so don't you find it a tiny bit strange that when a Police Officer attempted to stop him he pulled out a gun shot and shot him? Truth is, if Oswald hadn't killed JFK he would have had no reason to do that. Especially as his past activity showed that he would no doubt have another assasination attempt on somebody lined up - so why be so stupid to jepordise that with a pointless murder of a cop?

I now believe it's a pretty cut and dried case, but the conspiray theory is now so accepted as 'normal' that the truth will just get pushed back under surface again...

Oswald probably killed Tippit since he had become VERY paranoid that everyone was in on it. He was probably involved but did not know he was to be the patsy. He became angry and tried to run but didn't know if Tippit was with them.

yes oswald was a good shot....but that IMO just makes him an even better patsy....there are plenty of other people out there that are handy with a rifle.

There are conflicting eye witness accounts about who killed the police officer..

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by sirCyco]

yeah typical bbc #....they always try to back the official story still doesn't mean the conspiracy isn't true....bbc always makes those documentarys to debunk any conspiracy...there completely bias

also the bbc clearly trys to paint this picture of Oswald as this dude who wanted attention...BUT WAIT, IF OSWALD WANTED ATTENTION THEN HOW COME WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED HE CUDNT EVEN ADMIT TO IT AN VEHEMENTLY DENIED IT, IF OSWALD WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT HE WOULD HAVE ADMITTED JSUT LIKE OTHERS WHO WANTED TO MAKE A MARK FOR A MURDER LIKE TIMOTHY MCVEIGH(EVEN THOUGH OKC BONMBING CONSPIRACY), OSAMA BIN LADEN, ETC, I MEAN IT MAKES NO SENSE to me if he wanted to be known he would have admitted it cause deny it would have robbed him of that attention.... bbc= bias bastards chanel

reply to post by sirCyco


exactly, how in the holy blue hell could one guy outsmart the presidents staff, how would he know were the president would be, HE JUST RANDOMLY FOUND OUT....EVEN so don't they usually have people on the look out to protect the president I mean nowadays they do maybe they didn't back then but its just a joke to think one guy could kill someone in such high power as the president I don't buy it at all...even if he was a shooter there was another one an they weren't the plotters

Look at the film.

Kennedy's head flies backwards and the back of his head lands on the rear of the car. Jackie tries to retrieve it. Only a front shot can cause this.

If Oswald would have shot Kennedy from his position in the rear of Kennedy, then the opposite would have happened; Kennedy's head would have gone forward and his brains would have ended up in front of him.

What the film shows us to be 100% true is that Kennedy was shot from the front, and therefore, he could not have been shot by LHO.

I won't even mention any other evidence. There is no need.

What this sort of thing does highlight however, is how the UK and the US is connected. Why should the UK be lying about a US event? Look for the common denominators. Look for the master liars.

wwviews
The BBc program was a typical 'British propoganda' programme.

There was a conspiracy and it stank.

The US public just doesn;t want to admit that their own ppl murdered their own president.

~messiah~

Given the way the pentagon players behaved at JFK's autopsy, I'd say that the government does not want to admit they murdered a president. Possibly the last real president of the US.