This is strictly my opinion but your right... you don't kill the sitting president of the United States and cover it it up unless several entities in the government are helping. It's just not realistic to think otherwise.
In RFK'S case the investigation was botched so bad concerning just the ballistic part it's truly unbelievable ... if Sirhan Sirhan had any kind of a half way decent lawyer at all they could have proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was more than one shooter...I don't even think they looked at ballistics...
I mean when you have JFK jr and other family members going to bat for Sirhan Sirhan because the evidence doesn't make since that's a sure sign that things in that initial investigation were not right and I'm not even going into the evidence about MK Ultra... EDIT: ok yes I am going to get into mk ultra just not now LMAO!!!
this was a great perspective on the RFK murder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSxVHk5IqX4
I've read some reviews on the Stone documentary and it seems that it's just a regurgitation of his original JFK movie, long on possible motives and short on reconciling them with known facts . Here's one quote:But, exasperatingly, and despite speculation being the order of the day, the film never attempts to name any supposed second or third shooter, to say exactly where these gunmen would have been positioned, and how the inevitable witnesses to their activity would have been suppressed.
A lot of Stone’s cui bono material here frankly isn’t new and doesn’t prove anything (Kennedy was arguably as reactionary and hawkish on Vietnam as anyone else in government) and surely the oddest omission in this film is something that itself points most clearly to something fishy; namely, the assassination of Oswald by Jack Ruby. Why isn’t Stone spending at least some of the 115 minutes of this documentary analysing Ruby and his motives and background? (Unsettlingly, the one film-maker who did touch on this was Martin Scorsese in The Irishman, about the assassination of Jimmy Hoffa and organised crime’s rage against the Kennedy family, which made it clear it that killing the killer afterwards as a precautionary measure was a settled mob habit.)
Did the whole nation and its governing class go into denial after the Kennedy assassination as a way of managing their shock and grief? Perhaps. But this documentary, for all its factual material, is frustrating.https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/n ... assy-knoll
In order for Stone to sell me on a CIA plot, he would have to explain to me why they would have selected WWI style $8 rifle to arm Oswald with and Ruby's casual visit to Western Union minutes before he shot Oswald. Why wasn't he set up well in advance? Ruby was armed and close enough to Oswald to shoot him aprox. 24 hours earlier. Why didn't he take him out then? And why didn't someone take out Ruby? Wouldn't he be just as much of a risk as Oswald? It's these same facts that defeats the Mafia theory.
And yes, I know all about the problems with the autopsy. It was the lead examiner's first autopsy involving gunshot wounds. They did not dissect the brain to track the path of the fatal bullet. They didn't have Kennedy's clothing so they couldn't match the holes in the clothing with the wounds on the body. He didn't speak with the IR doctors until later the next day and didn't realize that there was a wound in the front of Kennedy's throat (the wound had been obliterated in the IR by tracheostomy). He burned his original notes (they were blood stained and he feared them being acquired by some goolish individuals seeking to make a buck off them).
But in order for it to have been part of a pre-determined plan, it would have required the cooperation of the First Lady or involved hundreds of individuals to account for multiple possible autopsy sites. On the return trip to Washington, Jackie was given a choice, and due to security concerns, they limited it to two military hospitals in the DC area, either Bethesda or Walter Reed, so now you'd have to include both the Army and Navy in the cover-up. Initially she couldn't decide until one of JFK's close friends and aides pointed out that Jack was a Navy man, to which Jackie responded "of course"
, so they selected Bethesda.
Not only that, but the law at the time required that the autopsy be performed in Dallas. In 1963, there was no federal law against killing the President unless he was on government property so the Secret Service had no legal authority to remove the body, and indeed, the coroner, a man by the name of Earl Rose, attempted to prevent them from taking the body out of Dallas, which he was completely within his legal right, and obligation, to do so. Would not the plot to undermine the autopsy had to account for the possibility of it being done in Texas? Now you have a bunch of Texans a thousand miles away from Washington in on the caper. Can you see the absurdity of these theories?
If Stone is going to sell me on an advance plot prior to the assassination to alter the results of the autopsy, he's going to have to show me their plan to account for the 3 possible locations. The further you dive into the conspiracy theories and try to match them up with the facts like I have, the more extensive and complicated it gets.
If you can tell me that the Stone documentary attempts to reconcile these questions, then I'll find a way to watch it.