Reelz Channel's JFK: The Smoking Gun

Cafe Society
1

If this belongs in a different forum, please feel free to move it.

So tonight I watched this 2 hour documentary / reenactment of the JFK assassination on the Reelz channel. The big theory espoused by the show was that the fatal head shot that killed JFK was fired by a Secret Service agent, George Hickey, that was in the trailing car behind JFK. Supposedly, Oswald fired the first 2 shots, and Hickey, upon hearing the shots, raised his AR rifle and it accidently went off and caused the fatal shot.

There was a book from back in 1992 that supposedly laid out this theory, but I was not familiar with it. Admittedly, I am not the biggest JFK assassination buff so maybe it is one of the more common theories out there and I was just unaware. The show laid out some good points that make it seem plausible, but would like to hear from anyone that is more informed about this in whether this is a crackpot theory or if it is feasible. The show seemed to place heavy weight on the supposed angle of the last shot, the smell of gun powder at ground level, and certain witnesses that claimed to see Secret Service agents raising their guns and/or actually “firing back”. They also went into a lot about the Secret Service agents actions at the autopsy that implied that they were confiscating evidence and altering autposy records to cover up that one of their own fired the fatal shot.

Anyone else watch this or have any input into the plausibility of this theory?

2

Then why didn’t Jack Ruby kill that secret service agent to stop him from talking?

3

Not sure if serious here, but the agent that supposedly accidentally fired the third shot never admitted to firing it. He sued the book author, which they covered in the documentary and he died in 2005. The first suit was thrown out of court, because he waited too long to file it, and the 2nd suit got settled, supposedly to save lawyer costs according to author. From what I remember about Ruby, wasn’t he just determined to just be some dope nightclub owner that was so enraged on behalf of Jackie Kennedy that he decided to kill Oswald out of revenge?

4

The fact that nobody notices or hears a rifle as loud as an AR-15 going off right in front of them puts that theory in the ground. At that range everyone who was in the limo would have their ears ringing, and people watching the motorcade would have doubtless noticed as well.

The book was printed and never had a reprint. The idea that someone made a movie on this is about as silly as Oliver Stone lionizing Garrison screwups.

5

And the gunshot would have shown up on audiotape, which it didn’t.

6

Weren’t there seven other agents in the trailing car? Did any of them notice someone in the car was shooting?

The theory is cartoonish bullshit. May as well speculate that JFK had an explosive brain aneurysm.

7

Ooooooooh! Cha-ching!

8

This nails the problem with most conspiracy theories: right from the moment of occurrence, the number of people who would have to create a convincing lie and maintain it for 50 years is far beyond any number that could be realistically expected. On the spot, under pressure, not knowing what evidence might exist (such as a little guy with a home movie camera), they have to spin up a perfect web of falsehood and make it stand up. Some theories literally require thousands of people to be “in the know.” Ain’t gonna happen.

Well, maybe you’re on to something there. Maybe Jackie chose just that moment to lean over and say, “You know, I fucked Marilyn, too.”

9

That is ridiculous. A comment like that would have caused an explosive erection.

10

Ha, almost gave me an EBA there.

11

I watched the show and it does make a good case. (So did Oliver Stone’s JFK.)

The point wasn’t that no one *heard *the third shot-- in fact eleven witnesses told the police that they *did *hear it *and *smelled gunpowder at street level. The POINT was that the Warren Commission did not call these people as witnesses.

Also the procedures for handling the body and the evidence were a mess. Too many people in the ER in Dallas, and too many in the room in DC when the autopsy was done.

I’d really like some of the skeptics who posted to watch the WHOLE program (it’s on again tonight) instead of just dismissing the idea out of hand without having seen the case presented.

It’s pretty compelling. I’m not saying it’s obviously true… but it’s a compelling story.

12

If you simply make up a goodly number of issues and distort the rest, anything can be made “believable” and “compelling.” That’s how about 50% of the pseudo-reality programming on TV is done - if you quote nothing but believers and unsupported facts, you can make compelling/believable cases for UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, truthers, 9/11 conspiracies…

The real events are exhaustively and unarguably documented and need no further “explanation.” The CT nuts have made a 50-year career out of misstating that very basic fact. “It’s a huge mystery how…” they begin, and weave their pathetic scrim of bullshit… but there was no mystery in the first place.

13

Only if you ignore all the evidence that directly contradicts it.

14

Did both of you watch the whole program? I’m particuarly interested in the opinions of people who watched it.

I’m not saying I buy it, by any means. Not at all. And I agree about pseudo-documentaries. But it is an interesting program.

15

Its always easy to make a good case when your don’t present the other side.

“Smelling gunpowder” isn’t very compelling evidence.

See above.

Not really. A lot of people claimed to be in the ER, but were not. Later they blabbed to CTers that they were there and saw ‘X’. It reminds me of Reggie Jackson saying that the number of people who told him they were at his signature World Series game would fill a small city.

Like who?

‘Compelling’ is not evidence. And no, I will not likely watch this program since I do have a life. Don’t feel bad I didn’t watch all those 9/11 youtube movies that Truthers insisted were compelling.

Better idea is bring something that is actual evidence and we can discuss it. ‘Smelling gunpowder’ isn’t very much to go on.

16

I watched it. In my adult years, I’ve always firmly believed that Oswald alone took the 3 shots. Lone nut. Same with Ruby.

The show was interesting, but does a lot of the same things that the other CTers have done through the years: it relies on “why did XXX act this way?” Why did the agent, Hickey, not sue the publisher for 2 years after the book came out? Why did the Warren Commission call or not call so-and-so? And it relies quite a bit on picking a few witnesses who claim to have seen/heard/smelled something, while ignoring the others who either claim the opposite or are neutral.

Remember, a significant portion of ear-witnesses claim to have heard more than 3 shots, and even the Reelz show conceded that there were, in fact, only 3.

The thing that bothers me the most about the theory about the Secret Service agent accidentally shooting JFK is that it relies on ‘evidence’ from the autopsy–the same autopsy that they seem to discredit with their claims of manufactured X-rays, too many cooks in the kitchen, etc.

The guy who first came up with the idea did so because, partly, the doctors stated that the entry wound in the back of Kennedy’s skull was 6mm; Oswald’s ammunition was 6.5mm, and doesn’t fit into a hole that small.

But we know that the wound locations were never perfectly established because of the rushed autopsy (again, oddly, this program casts much doubt on the autopsy while simultaneously supporting the 6mm entry wound.) Some people in the room claimed the non-fatal entry wound was around Kennedy’s shoulder blade, which doesn’t work in the single-bullet theory–and the Reelz program supports the single-bullet theory from Oswald, through JFK, and into Connoly.

So it seems to me that if you question the veracity of SOME of the autopsy, then you need to question the veracity of ALL of the autopsy, and conclude that the entry would was probably larger than 6mm, or that it was noted in the wrong location, etc. I mean, we’re talking about a downward angle of like 16 degrees from the TSBD and a left angle of like 5 degrees towards the centerline of the limo; VERY subtle turns of the head change the ballistics trajectory immensely. Place your index finger on the back of your skull; leave it there and begin moving your head. A half-inch turn or nod in any direction changes the origin of the shot.

Just my .02

17

Your comments are based on the sketchy account I gave-- do NOT go by the few things I said, as I am an exceptionally BAD reporter-- and therefore worthless as far as THIS particular program is concerned. <shrug>

I’d like some critical comments from someone who actually doesn’t have a life and therefore watched the program. *INFORMED *comments, please?

18

Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ 'bout.

19

Partly because the book at the time was not a ‘bestseller’, but ore likely it was because Hickey was practically on his deathbed at the time. That kind of interferes.

The WC already had most witness statements from the FBI investigation and local police. They really only called people up if they had things about their testimony that needed clarifying or the people. Overall they got a pretty good picture.

The vast majority heard three, with a significant portion hearing less than three.

20

The book came out in 1992. Hickey did not die until 2005, so i doubt he was on his deathbed for 13 years. Further, the author sent certified mail, which was returned signed by Hickey indicating he received it, explaining what was going to be in the book and asking for an interview or comments. He never responded to multiple requests and then waited years to file suit even though he knew what was going to be in the book, which is a litte odd. Not that this proves anything of course, but just wanted to correct any misconception that Hickey was not aware of the book before and when it came out.