Today on Blogcritics
Home » Film » DVD Review: Dark Legacy – George Bush and the Murder of John F. Kennedy

DVD Review: Dark Legacy – George Bush and the Murder of John F. Kennedy

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook8Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

If Boudreaux van Winkle awakened after 20 years and heard that the New Orleans Saints had won the Super Bowl, it would be easy to see how he wouldn't believe it. If a history buff is convinced that the conspiracy theorists are correct and is presented with the evidence in this movie, it's easy to see how he wouldn't believe it — at first. What a tangled web is woven by writer/producer/director John Hankey. With layer upon layer of documented facts, circumstantial evidence, "reliable information," rumors, and thought-provoking questions he leads viewers through a labyrinth of deeds and misdeeds committed by the famous, infamous, well known and unknown players in a passion play of political intrigue that all adds up to one unmistakable conclusion.

Drawing upon the logic of Gary Allen's (author of None Dare Call It Conspiracy) reason to believe in conspiracy theories, Hankey seems to say, "Suspend you disbelief for 73 minutes and I'll tell you a story you won't forget!" Allen says there are really only two theories of history: conspiracy (everything is planned) or accidental (neither planned nor caused). He says, "If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an 'intellectual' who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past 40 years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook." So, let's be kookie for a few minutes and not say "no" until we've heard the whole story.

In part one, Hankey takes a cue from Napoleon's quote that "History is written by the winners," and says, "Killers write the history — the victims are the ones that get written about." This segment focuses on a pawn surgeon performing a scripted autopsy (his first ever), lost brains, notes lost to fire, and dissent from the emergency room doctors at Parkland Hospital back in Dallas. This movie is full of questions and mysteries — like Laura Palmer was in Twin Peaks.

Part two opens with another question: "What does it look like when real power kills?" and begins to implicate a long list of suspects and co-conspirators by their own actions and comments. We are presented with questions that beg for answers; some we know are only rhetorical. Why two different caskets? Were caskets changed in the flight from Dallas to Washington? Why was Texas state law broken and evidence of a murder removed from the state? Why didn't experienced doctors perform the autopsy in Texas? What happened to the body in flight? Where did the President's brain get off to? Hmmm…

Part three begins to dig into the answer to its title, "Who Had the Power?" The narrator (uncredited and unnamed) tells us in a smooth, friendly, conversational tone that President Eisenhower had warned us that the greatest threat to American security was "…the military industrial complex." This section draws attention to a defamation suit brought against The Spotlight weekly newspaper by E. Howard Hunt (CIA). The newspaper was exonerated. So, does that mean their claims that Hunt was personally involved in JFK's murder were true? Now where was it that I've heard Hunt's name before — oh! Watergate! Nixon! Didn't Nixon order the FBI to stop investigating Hunt? Hoover got fired over that deal. Wow, the dots are starting to connect. Who was Nixon's vice president?

Now we are shown hard evidence that all three were in Dallas on November 22, 1963. What in the world would Nixon be doing in Dallas?
Remember the advice that "Deep Throat" gave Woodward and Bernstein in All the President's Men? In the next chapter, Hankey begins to connect the people with the money beginning with Prescott Bush's service on the board of directors of the Union Bank in New York, in 1942. That's the bank that J. Edgar Hoover shut down for laundering Nazi money. Nazis? The 41st President's father? All the names read like a Who's Who of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers! The lines connecting all these people become so numerous, suddenly there's no negative space between them on the chart. Can you believe this?

My brother-in-law once met Michael Jackson. I'm a pharmacist. Did I have anything to do with MJ's death? Nah, I was in Dallas that day.
Go back to sleep Boudreaux, the Indianapolis Colts won.

Would I buy Dark Legacy: George Bush and the Murder of John F. Kennedy? Of course! I love conspiracy theories!

Powered by

About FCEtier

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/a-geek-girl a geek girl

    See? That’s why you have to follow the money trail. You’ll get all of the answers–or not. But… I do love watching the way everything connects together–or not.

    Hmmmm
    I really like a good cospiracy theory. It’s just fun. Loved this one. And this review is awesome!

    • Roakley

      Hey Girl, I’d much rather these conspiracy theories were presented in book form with notes and sources so claims could be checked. No way to do that in a movie without getting the producer’s script and notes and sources, so you have to take his word as to his veracity.

  • http://etierphotography.blogspot.com/ FCEtier

    Thank you both for your comments!
    An interesting tidbit from the DVD: Nixon, Bush, and Hunt all gave several different accounts (at different times) to the media on their whereabouts on 11-22-63. They must have been the only three people in America who couldn’t remember where they were at 12:30 PM that day.

  • S,Coogan

    JFK II is a real mess. Trust me.

    See our review of Hankey’s works and disastrous interviews at CTKA.

  • Trevor

    He makes some very good points, I have read about Zapata Oil, which was started in 1953 and it was indeed part of a CIA operation, but Bush denies being part of the intelligence community until 1975.

  • Mike S.

    Wow, Mr FCEtier should have been on OJ’s defense team. He really tried hard to bash the hell out of this documentary, perhaps a little too hard. Any person that doesnt believe there are sociopaths in very powerful positions doing “bad” things, is clueless.

  • ronald w.

    a little more than just a theory. i remember exactly where and the exact spot where i was standing when i heard of the assassination. and i believe the cleveland browns may win a superbowl one day even if it takes twenty years. my only consulation is i know God knows.

  • Chris

    I watched this documentary and it was extremely compelling. I started sharing these types of documentaries with family members and was told to try and disprove what I saw before accepting it as fact. Well, a lot of the evidence is circumstantial but logical. I’m having a hard to disproving some of the facts from the documentary though. If you can establish that the credibility of the government is in question just once (Iraq and WMDs), then I don’t have to prove it twice. Everything they say should come in to question. That’s logic.

    • Roakley

      Well Chris, I wouldn’t use Iraq and WMD’s to support your thesis. WMD’s include chemical and biological weapons and Iraq not only had them but used them, notably against the Kurds. The evidence for nuclear weapons was minimal.

  • jefdov

    Your essay here suggests that you are one of those who reject “conspiracy” theories out of hand and would use the term “conspiracy theorist” as a pejorative.
    Silly and wishful.
    As a pharmacist, you perhaps were more inclined to things technical than social and maybe don’t know enough of the details of the world’s history. The history of power in this world is one of — guess what? — Conspiracy! Forgetting the USA, a look at only British History reveals a history of conspiracies. Then the Roman Empire. Then, much closer to home in terms of time, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and…it’s almost endless.
    We have had for years, certainly the majority of years following the Kennedy assassination, a monolithic mainstream media which has proven to be increasingly malleable by those in power in Washington. Often now — as then — the explanations for events coming from power simply make no sense but the media dutifully report them without question or serious investigation. Watergate would have been the last that I remember where there was real digging by media or maybe Iran-Contra. Benghazi appears to be totally out of the question for this media as does the IRS and Fast & Furious to name a couple of others. However, that’s when those paying attention begin to seek scenarios which would adequately explain the events because the given reasons do not. That’s also when those with much to hide marginalize those people and generally do whatever it takes to get them off the trail and shut them up. Using political correctness is a proven method of telling people, in effect, “don’t look at that man behind the curtains”. Those who comply, view those who do not as weird and “not one of us”.
    It’s really a very, very old game. Unfortunately, those infatuated with prompter-reading media actor personalities they do not personally know, fall into the herd mentality which says “don’t think. just believe what we tell you”. It’s really easier that way, isn’t it? It lets you go on. And that’s okay with some things, I suppose. If Bush and these others had been outed all those years ago, the political outfall may have been horrendous at a time when, given the world power situation, we could least have afforded that as a nation. Just have some respect for those who, without well-known journalist pedigree, put forward ideas and documentation for your consideration.

    • Jacob Davis

      Why can’t more people read this stuff..

  • Wes

    The fact that John Hankey is still alive completely disproves his whole theory…if for some reason he mysteriously died then maybe he had something but men that powerful would not let someone like him go around spreading the truth especially letting him make a documentary about it….

  • Chico

    Hankey is off the wall and will make up any theory. With a flip of a coin, he will chose which direction he wants the story to go in. Forget about facts. He will make those up also.

%d bloggers like this: