ShangLuda Admirable film.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Ian Watts 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.

p-frame Although the film brought up some interesting and valid points, McLaren's theory that a Secret Service agent in the car behind Kennedy's accidentally fatally shot the president is very hard to believe.If his theory is true, how come out of the hundreds of people that were on site, nobody saw the agent fire? I realize that the crowd's attention was focused on Kennedy, but if the agent in the motorcade fired on the president in the middle of the day in front all those witnesses, surely at least one, and probably several people would have seen it.Since no one did, his theory falls apart.

Mike Gabriel Raphael I watched the documentary JFK: THE SMOKING GUN and it was very disturbing. Yes, it was compelling and convincing that the bullet that explored JFK's head was from a different weapon other than the rifle LHO supposedly used. It was also very compelling that one of the secret agents in the car immediately following JFK fired that lethal shot. But to further say and conclude that the agent, George Hickey, did so "accidentally" is silly and an insult to normal intelligence. In that same show it was revealed that Robert Kennedy asked the agents, "Did you kill my brother?" Even RFK himself sensed this was an "inside" job.McLaren's teary eyed and choking statement at the end that this really was a "tragic accident" was, to me, contrived and phony. What was the premise and goal of this documentary? It only raised more questions than to put "closure" on the matter. If it attempted to shut out all conspiracy theories it failed. In fact it opened it up all the more.One thing is obvious. If the project or action to assassinate JFK was to "kill" him, it blatantly failed. JFK is much more alive now than ever. That bullet in Dallas did not terminate him, on the contrary, it immortalized him, made him "eternal".

dfle3 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.