Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

I just finished watching "JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick" a fairly new film by Francis Richard Conolly. This 3.5 hour film is available on Youtube.

Overall, this is the best overview of the JFK assassination that I have seen. The film covers everything from the historical underpinnings of the assassination to the details of the shooting and the following coverup. The film is great in many ways. I found the general overview to be mostly accurate and nicely presented. The summary of the shooting in Dealey Plaza was really great. I didn't agree with every detail of what was presented, but overall it was right on. I also found his presentation of the idea that Officer Tippet's dead body was used as part of the autopsy cover-up to be reasonably compelling.

I liked so much about this film that I found the use of unnecessary hyperbole saddening. Rockefeller wasn't just extraordinarily rich, he was "the richest man who ever lived". JFK was not just a great politician, but "the greatest politician in the history of the world", etc. A viewer can easily see through these misstatements, but it got a bit confusing when he was discussing the role of the Skull and Bones network in funding Hitler's rise to power. Was he just overstating or was he confused?

He also gets a bunch of small facts wrong. Given the amount of material presented in this film, it is not too much, but given how much I would like to have a film like this that I could recommend without reservation, these small mistakes are bothersome. He also has a tendency to use the world Nazi when he means fascist. And he calls people "evil". He does such a good job showing the horrible actions of many men that these statements are unnecessary and take away from the very strong points he is making. The last 5 minutes of the film are the worst. He loses it a bit at the end.

But I don't want to dwell on the bad points, overall, I would say that this film a very well worth watching for anyone interested in the Coup of '63. Francis Conolly does a really nice job presenting the material. His understanding of the Coup of '63 is profound, and his use of clips from old movies really helps him illustrate a lot of points.

It would not take too much for Francis Conolly to go back and fix the mistakes in his film. For example, his misidentifies the Browns of Brown and Root as being the Browns of Brown Brothers Harriman. I hope that members of this forum can help fact check this film and put in their comments in this thread so that Mr. Conolly can fix these small mistakes in another release.

Posted

I saw this a few weeks ago, friend sent it to me. This background stuff is fantastic, the people who backed Hitler and all. The stuff on the shooters almost ruined it for me, he needed to keep away from total conjecture, but overall a great video for the uninformed.

Posted

I agree with Dawn that the background information, dealing with American financiers and the Nazis, is good.

The part about Kennedy's many enemies is OK but not enlightening.

I give the whole thing a B for entertainment value, a C for substance, and a D for shading, omissions, stretching, and speculation.

Posted

My remark was in regard to 16 shots by 8 shooters - in regard to Hank's question. As to American financial connections to Germany, the German financial and industrial complex and the Nazi regime, that is well documented history that has been written about by reputable historians for many years..

Posted (edited)

When I see one-man shows like this, full of cartoons, effects, and copyright-heedless pilfering of feature films, newsreels, and images, I wonder who funded them and who encourages their tolerance.

I wonder if in these YouTube offerings we are not being fed a counterhistory of doom, designed to provoke agitation in some and despair in others, much in the way it is said that banking interests sponsored both the fascist and communist systems.

Edited by David Andrews
  • 3 months later...
Posted

I saw this a few weeks ago, friend sent it to me. This background stuff is fantastic, the people who backed Hitler and all. The stuff on the shooters almost ruined it for me, he needed to keep away from total conjecture, but overall a great video for the uninformed.

". . a great video for the uninformed. . "?

Did you watch the same video as I did recently?

What about all that stuff about Tippit being shot because he was a body-double for JFK, and his body supposedly being placed in a coffin and brought to Bethesda Naval Hospital?

How does that promote understanding of the basic facts and issues of the Kennedy assassination?

And how about the graphic that shows Air Force Two passing Air Force One in flight, and--supposedly --landing at Andrews AFB ahead of Air Force One; when it is a matter of fact that AF-2 arrived at Andrews some 30 minutes after AF-1?

And, oh yes, how about the fact that Tippit's body was (supposedly, according to this film) was brought to Bethesda Naval Hospital?

And (all this notwithstanding) you say that "this is a great video for the uninformed. . "?

Could you please name some people and groups that meet your criteria of being "uninformed" and who would benefit from watching and imbibing in this historical malarky?

DSL

5/3/15 - 10:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Posted (edited)

SPEER//

Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rackley)(11-25-63 FBI report, CD5 p.66-67) “She was standing across the street immediately in front of the building…She observed President Kennedy’s car pass…and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions spaced at intervals which she at first thought were firecrackers. It sounded as though these sounds were coming from the direction of the Triple Underpass and looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement.” (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H635) “I recall that moments after the Presidential car passed I heard three loud reports, which I first thought to be a prankster throwing firecrackers.” (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H507-515) “well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement…I thought there were some boys standing down there where he was—where the President’s car was…close to the underpass.” (When asked if she could see the Stemmons Freeway Sign) “No, I couldn’t see the sign because it was angled—we were stepping out into the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign.” (When asked if it was near the first sign) “As I can remember, it was…I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign” (When asked if it would have been near the underpass or the sign) “It was near the signs” (When asked how close to the opposite curb it was) “It was approximately in the middle of the lane” (When asked where it hit compared to the car) “I thought it was—well—behind it.” (When asked how many shots she heard) “three” (When asked where she believed they came from) “it sounded like it was coming from—there was a railroad track…so I guess it would be by the underpass.” Analysis: Mrs. Baker is another one of those witnesses that LPM theorists and conspiracy theorists alike love to use to demonstrate that there was a first shot miss. A close look at her statements should lead one to question this, however. In the FBI report she merely mentioned seeing something hit the street in front of the limousine. When re-questioned in March, and given a statement to sign, she doesn’t mention a bullet striking the street, only hearing firecrackers. It isn’t until July—eight months after the shooting, that she begins to state she saw sparks or something hit the street behind the limousine. Since she thought the people throwing the firecrackers were in front of the limo, moreover, it's possible she didn't mean behind the limousine on the street, but behind the limousine from her perspective, i.e., in front of the limousine, as she'd previously told the FBI. In any event, even if she saw a first shot miss, and a bullet strike the street behind the limousine, her statements do not support the LPM scenario. She placed the limo down near the first sign—the Thornton Freeway sign--when the first shot rang out. This is past Kennedy's location at frame 160. She also said the bullet or whatever struck the middle of the lane beside the car, behind the car, and that she thought the shots were coming from the underpass. This would indicate that the sparks or whatever she saw exploded along the asphalt in the opposite direction of a shot coming from the sniper’s nest, right in front of Officers Martin and Hargis. Well, why didn’t they or anyone else nearby see this? Not coincidentally, Mrs. Baker was asked during her testimony to put a mark on a photo of Dealey Plaza to indicate where she saw these "sparks" hit the street. This is exhibit 354. Not surprisingly, her mark is a good 70 feet or so further down the road than Kennedy at frame 160. This undoubtedly suggests she did not see the first shot miss proposed by far too many. First shot hit 190-224.

===============================

more than one shooter

Edited by Steven Gaal

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...