mta7000-732-708008 I've learned from watching pivotal events unfold over the years, that initial testimony from people at the scene before an official narrative can be spun and all the messy details from initial accounts can be synthesized into corroborating official details can later prove invaluable for those interested later in revisiting the events of a given day and poking holes in said narrative. For example, when reporters on the scene on the morning of 9/11 got all these eyewitness accounts describing a series of explosions right before the twin towers came down OR when BBC reporter Jane Standley talked on the air later in the afternoon about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (Building 7) on BBC Worldwide a whole twenty minutes before it actually collapsed - a clip since removed on copyright grounds - such tidbits, I am sure, made people like Webster Tarpley, author of "George Bush: the unauthorized biography" and later "9/11: synthetic terror" go, "wait, WHAT?!" and delve further.The first part of this documentary has some great clips of just this kind of unfiltered initial testimony of people doing their jobs on the scene that day in Dallas and initial tidbits not adding up that similarly make anyone paying attention question the established official JFK narrative that's been put forth for over half a century. That George Bush can be plausibly linked to the JFK cover-up is all the more interesting because he can also be plausibly linked to the planning of 9/11 (Tarpley's "9/11: synthetic terror" makes a good case for a Bush/Cheney 9/11 connection) and the planning of the assassination attempt on Reagan (see below).Having said that, after the documentary presents people-on-the-scene testimony from the JFK era - many of which I hadn't seen before - it then goes into the chart-on-the-wall territory linking Bush Sr.'s portrait to E. Howard Hunt's portrait, etc, etc in the same way that made my eyes glaze over watching Glenn Beck on the Blaze back in the day discussing the nefarious deeds of and all the links between Bill Ayers, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, Saul Alinsky, George Soros, and the rest of Obama's crowd drawn from the Chicago machine, academia, and the global establishment.Despite that, this documentary did manage to present some interesting facts I wasn't aware of like Zapata Petroleum putting Bush Sr. right in the middle of the Caribean where he could have been involved in anti-Castro operations in the '60's like the Bay of Pigs invasion code-named - what else? - Operation Zapata or businessman George de Mohrenschildt turning up dead in '77 with a self-inflicted gunshot wound right before he was to meet with an investigator from the House Select Committee on Assassinations to discuss the JFK case. I didn't realize anyone (besides Lee Harvey Oswald of course) from the JFK era was silenced that way. This bore an interesting resemblance to Gary Webb's "suicide" by two shots in the head after going public about the CIA's alleged role in the cocaine trade during Iran-Contra era (Bush again?) and portends the "whistleblowers beware" era we're so familiar with today exemplified in the Michael Hastings case where his Mercedes C250 ran into a tree and blew up sending the engine block flying several hundred yards behind the car right before he was to go public with some dirt he had on the CIA. (Remember all those engine blocks ejected from cars crashing into walls shown in those "You could learn a lot from a dummy" TV ads in the 80's and 90's? I don't either but recreating Hastings' accident to see if an engine could be made to eject like that would've made a great Mythbusters series finale.)What I was hoping for from this documentary but didn't get was more time devoted to discussing Bush Sr.'s pre-9/11 connections - his business ties to the bin Laden family going back to the 1970's (Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founding Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas, In 1978 acc. to the Denver Post article, "Bush ties to bin Laden haunt grim anniversary") or the Bush's pre-Reagan assassination connection with would-be assassin John Hinckley, Jr.'s, family ("Bush's son was to dine tonight with suspect's brother" by Arthur Wiese and Margaret Downing, Houston Post ca. March 1981 which reads in part, "Scott Hinckley ... was to have been a dinner guest Tuesday night at the home of Neil Bush..." - is that why Nancy seemed to dislike the Bushes so much?) and other "weird Bush stuff" that could establish a pattern that if touched on here, after awhile, would make anyone stop and say, "wait, WHAT?!". It's like the whole "Clinton body count" phenomenon where suspicion unavoidably mounts with the sheer number of deaths of former Clinton associates that Snopes, Mother Jones, etc, have to explain away all the while their credibility with each new iteration of their broken-record narrative and also reducing the odds that all those freak accidents, suicides, and deadly burglaries were just random happenstances and that's what could've been shown here. I mean, if your neighbor's business name showed up in a failed government operation, you'd probably shrug your shoulders and think, "huh, that's random" but then if their son's friend's brother tried to kill a prominent public figure, you'd wrinkle your nose and think, "that's odd" and finally if your neighbor's business partner's brother blew up a building, at some point you'd probably begin to wonder about your neighbor and at least ask them about it especially if they were running for public office."JFK" is in this documentary's title so I shouldn't have expected this other "Weird Bush stuff" to be touched on but, still this documentary could've helped explain to the uninitiated why the Bush's family name is mud as far as those who are awake are concerned and why they likely won't be winning more races for prominent political office any time soon...

Kenneth Dunning For many, if not most, Americans the material John Hankey presents challenges some of our most deeply held cultural beliefs. That can make the video very hard to watch for many. But that in and of itself does not render Mr. Hankey's hypotheses as false. Can our deeply held, culturally instilled, predispositions prevent us from accepting information, facts, when this information is uncomfortable and threatening to what may be our preexisting world view? Having experienced the national trauma that accompanied the JFK assassination and, along with many others, having the lingering, inescapable impression that the official explanations were blatantly evasive and incomplete, I am glad there are scholars such as Mr. Hankey still working on the matter.

TahoeEast Dark Legacy had been in my Netflix queue for sometime. It was one of those films that looked interesting but I just never got around to it. I finally did and I am glad I did insomuch as now it can be out of my queue. Forever. Director/writer/producer/conspiracy theorist John Hankey deserves credit for taking the initiative to produce a feature length, low budget documentary on the JFK assassination. He correctly states that several polls have shown a large number of Americans doubt the government's story on what happened that fateful day in Dallas back in 1963. Hankey does a very good job of stepping the viewer through the events of the day and in particular, raises several good points about the chain of custody of the President's body and if it was somehow disturbed between Parkland and Bethesda hospitals. Had Hankey stopped there he would have had a good, 20-30 minute YouTube video. Instead, he spent the remainder of his time on this nonsensical attempt to link the assassination to George H.W. Bush. His favorite graphic being pictures of Bush's father, Prescott, Bush the father and George W. wearing swastika armbands. Everything Hankey touches goes back to a Republican conspiracy. Whether it is JFK, his son John F. Kennedy Jr.'s untimely death, or even Mitt Romney. Hankey has a built in conspiracy that involves the Bush family and assorted others in the so-called Illuminati. For me personally, it is a disappointing mess of a film because I do think there is some level of conspiracy in government and in particular, a concerted effort to create enemies and promote war for the sake of the military industrial complex. If Hankey could focus on those issues, he could be considered a serious filmmaker. Unfortunately, this first stab at a feature film discredits him as a documentary filmmaker and leaves him viewed by most as another misguided partisan.

#1 Movie Lover 'Dark Legacy' is a film that everyone interested in the Kennedy assassination and its circumstances should watch. It's on Netflix instant streaming, which greatly increases its accessibility.First of all, the film presented tons of pieces of evidence that prove JFK was probably murdered as the result of a conspiracy. It proves why the single-bullet theory is absolutely ridiculous. It uses government memos to prove the points it makes. Basically, it has more detail and convincing arguments than other works that try to do the same thing. The person who made the film claims that it proves the conspiracy's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe so.Unfortunately though, even the most casual of viewers could tell that this is a low-budget film. There's nothing wrong with low-budget films, but this one had a couple of spelling mistakes (i.e. "Napoleon" being spelled "Napolean," and lack of punctuation in a crucial sentence (i.e. at one point it says, "Hoover knew that the Bushs were Nazis"). This is not good for a documentary, because it lowers the credibility.Also, I couldn't help but notice that some of the facts presented were biased after doing some research. #1: Allen Dulles actually was not a Nazi sympathizer. #2: Saying that Bay of Pigs was done without any of JFK's approval or foreknowledge is kind of misleading. #3: JFK's head moves forward a little before going back and to the left.Parts of this film are eye-opening, and much of it is good film-making. However, it's obviously low-budget and some of it is kind of biased. I guess I'd say the good kind of outweighs the bad.