|Index||6 reviews in total|
Major points off for biased approach and conclusion-selective delivery.
For example; using a known propagandist like Priscilla McMillian
without revealing her connections to US intelligence organizations is a
dishonest trick to play on an uneducated viewer.
The film indeed raises more questions about how or why Oswald would have committed the crime for which he has been accused than it ever answers. Indeed, it seems to be leading clearly to the conclusion that he could not have done it, and then, seeming to have realized their "error", they pitch in the unsubstantiated Walker accusation, the fake backyard photographs, and all join together to reach a conclusion entirely unsupported by the evidence they have presented. This is especially low yellow-journalism for a show with Frontline's prestige.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
CIA pilot David Ferrie denied knowing Oswald, but in the 1990's
photographs of Ferrie and Oswald surfaced. The photos showed Oswald and
Ferrie at Civil Air Patrol meetings in Louisiana. So, Ferrie lied. But
the important thing is, there was a connection.
The FBI had talked to Oswald (or at least Marina) in the months prior to the assassination. FBI Agent James Hosty admitted that after the assassination he literally flushed evidence down a toilet- it was a handwritten note from Oswald to the FBI. He said his supervisor told him to do it.
Oswald received some sort of expedited passport or papers to travel to Helsinki, Finland, then on to Russia when he defected. No one has ever explained how Oswald was able to travel so easily at the height of the Cold War.
Oswald once again left the United States and returned, very easily, in 1963. He traveled to the largest CIA headquarters in the world at that time- in Mexico City.
There are no pictures of Oswald himself shooting at anything. There is neither film nor any other photograph of Oswald in or around Dealy Plaza, shooting or otherwise.
No witness identified Oswald as shooting in Dealy Plaza. This despite hundreds of witnesses in the area and Oswald's appearance in at least three (3) police lineups before he died. Only one witness saw anyone shoot- but he couldn't ID who, even though this witness attended one of the lineups.
No witness put Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at the time of the shooting. Not even any of his co-workers. Someone was on sixth floor- but who was it?
Oswald was never tried for any crimes committed on November 22, 1963.
Oswald was himself murdered. He was assassinated.
I fully agree with mrsastor on this one. The film provided powerful
evidence that Oswald was working for US intelligence at Atsugi, in
Minsk and in New Orleans and put the lie to several CIA denials as well
as Warren pitbull, Gerald Posner.
It then somehow, made a 180 degree turn, concluding that Oswald acted alone. In fact, I used pieces of WWLHO in my Youtube videos on Oswald, which are linked at jfkhistory.com
But the research in this film was superb, and up to the point where it reversed itself, probably the most unbiased presentation on the case that I have ever seen.
The first time I saw this program was on PBS, I thought it was wonderful. Seeing what may have driven Lee Harvey Oswald to murder, seeing life through his eyes. By the end of this program i felt like they should make a movie of Oswald, not saying that he did or didn't killed the president. Letting you decide the outcome. By not growing up with is family, ether because they moved away or were at work, Oswald would go to the zoo. The outcome, Lee Oswald raised him self to what he became later in life. I also think that it was a nice touch that they used Gary Oldman as the voice of Oswald, seeing he played him in the movie "JFK". I'v tried everywhere to see if i can find it. I just hope that it will come on again so i can record it.
This documentary tried to be objective but its bias shows, especially in its choice of three "experts" for the forum. Warren Report-defender Gerald Posner is called an "investigative writer," even though Posner's background is as a lawyer. Epstein hasn't done any significant work on the case in decades. And DeLillo's knowledge about the case is shallow, to put it kindly. Frontline should have had someone like Jim Marrs, David Talbot, or James Douglass, who have all done recent books, to represent the pro-conspiracy side. There is growing thought that Oswald was either an asset for the CIA or military intelligence or used unknowingly by same as a patsy in the plot.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS*** When first broadcast in 1993, this documentary
was 3 hours long and filled with first-hand interviews with those who
knew Oswald throughout his lifetime. It was a full-fleshed story of a
troubled childhood and frustrating adulthood, all leading to his
destiny in Dallas.
However, for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, this episode was cut down to only one hour, removing key information that leads builds the case that Oswald was the lone assassin (which he most certainly was).
With all of these details removed, this documentary now plays like every other retelling of the assassination and leaves the viewer with the impression that there is actual doubt about Oswald's guilt.
The original version gets 10 out of 10, but the re-cut version gets 4, and I'm being generous. Shame on Frontline for falling into the conspiracy hole and removing all of the facts that condemn Oswald and show him as the murderer he is/was.
|Ratings||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|