JFK: The Lost Bullet (2011 TV Movie) User Reviews

Best Documentary with Real Facts

[marklouis-39600 · 10/10 · 30 May 2023]

I was amazed at some of the really bad reviews of this excellent documentary. Why is it excellent? Here is why:

1. They restored the many 8mm films of the assassination to pristine quality. For the first time, you can view the assassination from several different angles and draw your own conclusions.

2. They interviewed several eyewitnesses to the assassination who explain in great detail what they observed. In particular, there is one teenaged boy who shows you exactly where the Kennedy car was located when the first shot was fired.

3. For the first time, they show you the FBI film shot a few days after the assassination from JFK's point-of-view. In this film, you can observe the stoplight at the corner of Elm Street and North Houston Street. There is clearly a bullet hole in the metal frame around the stoplight that aligns straight between JFK and the 6th Floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. Furthermore, they show by the placement of the three bullet shell casings found at the sniper's nest that one of them aligns to Oswald attempting a first shot through the stoplight sign.

4. Lastly, they reenact the assassination in Dealy Plaza with the same Lincoln limousine and two stand-ins for Kennedy & Connally-same height and weight sitting in the same exact locations in the limousine seats. With a laser rifle pointing from the 6th floor window, they aim the laser at Kennedy's neck where he was shot. When they move the Kennedy stand-in aside, the laser points at the exact location where Connally was hit in the back. Bingo! They proved the single bullet theory in Dealy Plaza.

Thus, the JFK assassination was solved to any reasonable person who looks at the forensic evidence.

Not worth watching.

[lomaran-1 · 1/10 · 25 July 2018]

I've watched TONS of these JFK related documentaries and have many, many books on his assasination. This show was one of the worse. The assumption is made of Oswald's guilt and thus the bullets, all three, being fired from the book depository. Although, there is plenty of evidence to dispute both of these claims, none are adequately addressed. DC propaganda film.

Ignores The Testimony of One of It's Star Witnesses.

[jburtonprod-802-759029 · 1/10 · 11 November 2018]

Ignores The Testimony of One of It's Star Witnesses.

This is yet another Warren Commission apologist con job and I'm disappointed National Geographic gave this thing any credence. What you have is this Max Holland person bending over backwards and reverse engineering to 'prove' only three shots were fired and all shots came from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository building. In doing so he ignores the testimony of one of his star witnesses, Amos Euins who was a 15 year old, in Dealey Plaza and clearly saw Oswald in the window. Euins says in Holland's video the bullets came like this 'Bam... bam-bam' indicating bullets two and three came right on top of each other. This would've made it impossible for both shots to have come from Oswald's bolt action rifle. Holland doesn't take this into consideration AT ALL.

Doing a little research on Max Holland you find that he has been pushing theories that have been rendered bogus by declassified Assassination Records Review Board archives. Doing a little more research, on Amos Ueins initial Dallas Police Department affidavit you find Euins said he thought he heard FOUR shots, only saw Oswald shoot TWO and thought because of the rapidity of fire the gun was an automatic, not a bolt action rifle. He heard one shot then a delay and then three additional shots with the last two coming one right after the other. You can find a link to that affidavit by a search for 'Amos Euins i heard the shot history matters''.

Conveniently, Arlen Specter who deposed Euins for the Warren Commission never asked him about how many shots he heard or the timing between the shots. Yet another Warren Commission apologist put up job

At best, a 3rd grade show and tell. At worst, insidious propaganda

[bob_meg · 1/10 · 2 December 2013]

This NG doc is a farcical attempt to discredit and disgrace the many eyewitnesses that confirm the fatal shot did come from the Grassy Knoll. Whereas dozens of people came forward after the shooting to claim they heard shots and saw smoke from the knoll, only a handful claimed all shots came from the book depository. The film never even CONSIDERS any viewpoints other than those on the corner of Elm & Houston street!!

I don't doubt there was someone in the book depository firing shots, but Holland tries to convince you he has definitive proof it was Oswald. Do we get that proof? Uh, sorry, even with HD, there is nothing beyond his opinion. Sadly, most of this hacked together mess is like that.

It amounts to nothing more than one man (and a die-hard believer of the lone assassin theory since forever, hardly an objective researcher) structuring and cherry-picking choice testimony and footage (most from the CIA, for god's sake!) to "prove" what he wants to believe. Perhaps the truth is too painful. A valid point, indeed. But why wouldn't you want to do a thorough job if you want to posit a new theory? This film has all the credibility and forethought of a 3rd grade show and tell session. That's "at best"..."at worst" it's an insidious piece of propaganda.

Max Holland still wants us to believe the fatal shot came from a decrepit bolt-action rifle. He doesn't discuss the many corroborated testimonies (many in the Warren report) that state there were more than three shots fired. He easily dismisses any shots coming from the Grassy Knoll, even though there is ample testimony to the contrary --- eyewitnesses who saw men with guns behind the fence in back of the knoll by the railroad yard (Lee Bowers, for one). Of course most of these witnesses conveniently suffered fatal accidents in the years following the incident or were discredited by the Warren Commission and the CIA.

In perhaps the most laughable omission --- the one referred to in the doc's title --- Holland tries to convince us that the first bullet hit a traffic light and then miraculously wound up by the freeway overpass where it grazed Tague. Huh, given his prior liberties with the facts I am shocked he mentions Tague at all. Once more, Holland offers zero proof of this theory. No evidence...just his opinion. Makes you wonder why this was made doesn't it? It's the perfect brainwashing session for the JFK nubie.

This flimsy, glossed-over account and ludicrous "recreation" goes to ridiculous attempts to scavenger evidence to fit Holland's fairy-tale guessing from dozens of other, more poorly made amateur films, none of which approaches the clarity of the Zapruder film. Holland supposedly mastered the Zap film in HD, but then never gives us a close enough look at it to really disprove the head shot didn't come from the knoll. It's not what he wants you to believe, so why expose that evidence? We might get confused, I guess.

Read the Warren Report. Read tons of more knowledgeable books by open-minded people who want to consider all the possibilities. Conspiracies do occur. Just read your history. Read anything. But don't waste your time on this I Wish the World was a Happy Totally Logical Place bull-crap.

Neither fundamental nor comprehensive

[Panamint · 1/10 · 4 July 2019]

Basically just some views of computer enhanced scans that create a "High Res" version of the Zapruder film. At this point in time, any assassination documentary that does not really dig down and present its story comprehensively is unfortunately not satisfying. And this one is pretty superficial.

Its from a Zapruder copy out of the National Archives. The producers must know that skeptics instantly ask who made the copy? Was this copy edited before insertion into the Archive? When was it put into the Archive? There have been many legitimate questions about the origin of items that show up in that Archive over the decades related to the assassination.

The Zapruder film has always been limited in documenting gunshots by its total lack of sound. Agent Clint Hill (who jumped onto the Presidents's car as the shooting took place) initially said he heard both rifle shots and a pistol shot. It cannot document anything regarding who might have helped Oswald. In fact it doesn't even show Oswald at all. It is incapable of giving us anything regarding Officer Tippitt, events in the Dallas jail, nor any evidence for or aginst a coverup.

Undisputed events involving bullets are not shown: Can you see the impact of the bullet onto the President's throat area? No, he was behind a sign at the time. Can you see the wounding of bystander Tague? No. Can you see or hear the bullet putting a big dent in the limo's metal windshield frame? No. Can you see the bullet or fragment chipping the curb? No.

The Zapruder film is useful but limited. This documentary only purports to present some computer enhanced visual clarity and is itself severely limited in scope.