NGC treatment of the Kennedy Assassination

I just finished watching the National Geographic Channel's presentation of the Kennedy assassination and was impressed. I had watched it for more than an hour before I realized that there was no narration other than the broadcasters at the time. No assinine comments by History Channel type "experts", just the true on-the-spot news professionals. They had some facts wrong, but they reported the news as they knew it at the time.
No Kennedy fan here, but I appreciate the professional manner in which the NGC presented material.

Maybe the History Channel idiots could learn something here? Naw, they're too far gone....

Your thoughts?

I think I watched the same one last night, didn't notice what the channel was though. What gets me is, it's "the story that won't die". Seems like there's ALWAYS something on, somewhere, about that assassination. Just watched one a couple days ago theorizing that it was a Mafia hit. That was what, 46 years ago?

I once was a believer in JFK conspiracy theories; I read a few books and actually it was a case of "the more I learn, the less I understand". About a year ago I started listening to interviews and speeches by Vincent Bugliosi (of "Helter Skelter" fame); Bugliosi was discussing the assassination in connection with his book "Reclaiming History" which debunks all of the silly theories. I was moved to buy the book, and am still reading it - it's 600 pages long with thousands of end notes.

As Bugliosi himself predicted to his readers, once I read his book I became deeply embarrassed that I, as a grown adult, ever bought into those conspiracy stories. I highly recommend "Reclaiming History". You can check out his interviews on YouTube as well.

Never really cared if there was a conspiracy or not, it was "mission accomplished", and no one ever fessed up otherwise. If some one really benefitted, it was short term, probably.

However, having messed around w/ an EXACT clone of the rifle, I believe it was entirely do-able by Oswald. Also, exit wounds tend to be more spectacular, and body movements often have nothing to do w/ the round's impact, more often its a reflexive reaction or actual nerve damage that throw the body about.

As examples that I can describe from first hand experience, and that won't be too socially unacceptable: Deer most often will turn away from the exit wound and run away from that side, if its not immediately fatal. Sometimes critters will bite at the exit wound in a reflexive defensive measure. Head shots often result in random, often violent, spasms. At any rate, all this analysis of the victims' movements after having been struck that I've seen fail to take physiological reactions into account. Bullet impact itself doesn't do much. Any input from what you've read?