The movie was played recently on TCM and even though I'd seen it before, it had been a while so I decided to watch it again. There was a significant flaw in the film that I either hadn't noticed before or had forgotten about. Early in the planning stages, Burt Lancaster's character was giving his co-conspirators a slide show about previous presidential assassinations. He stated that during the first three presidential assassinations, the Secret Service was ineffective. Apparently, the writers were unaware of the fact that presidential protection was not made an official duty of the Secret Service until 1913. Beginning with the Grover Cleveland administration, the Secret Service would occasionally provide unofficial security for the President when situations called for it and did so for McKinley during the Spanish-American War, but they were not providing protection when McKinley was assassinated in Buffalo in 1901.

During this same scene, the assassination attempt on former president and presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 was mentioned. The Secret Service did not start providing past presidents protection until 1958 and presidential candidates were not given protection until after the assassination of RFK in 1968.

Compared to the massive flaws in Oliver Stone's movie, this one was fairly mundane.

Larry Hancock, a circumspect and dedicated JFKA researcher, is preparing an update on his six-part series on the RFKA, that can be read at https://www.maryferrell.org/arch/essays/incomplete-justice-1

In a nutshell, Hancock posits Sirhan fired live ammo at RFK at the Ambassador, and likely invented (or his defense counsel did) his memory loss non-explanation of what happened that night.

Hancock does not buy the hypnosis tale about Sirhan, and presents Sirhan as a willing, aware, politically motivated assassin.

Hancock, in his pending research, may provide more explanation of Sirhan's background, and who may have been involved with Sirhan.

I have some minor disagreements with Hancock; I think Eugene Thane Cesar likely did not discharge his firearm that night, and was what he appeared to be, only a maintenance plumber and moonlighting rent-a-cop who drew a very unlucky assignment.

In any event, Larry Hancock is always worth reading, and even more, is a gentleman.

Take cues, dudes.

I don't know what MTG is trying to prove by arguing the holes in the coat and shirt are too low to fit with the SBT. We have a photo of where the entry wound on JFK's back was and that was above the exit wound in the throat. It would be pretty silly to argue that the hole in JFK's back was caused by a different bullet than the one that made the hole in his shirt and jacket.

I see Nickerson is still peddling the absurd bunched-clothing theory, ignoring the fact that no photo or frame taken within 3 seconds of the back-wound bullet's impact shows JFK's coat with a bunch even close to the bunch that would have been required to account for the location of the bullet holes in the back of the coat and shirt, not to mention that Willis slide 5, taken a fraction of a second within the bullet's impact, shows the coat lying virtually flat.

Uhh....What? 

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Gallery/Willis%20Gallery/willis05_small.jpg

JC--

I have heard rifles fire, maybe 1000 times, and never heard two booms from a single shot.

Why you heard two boom-sounds from a single shot from muzzle-loaded rifle suggests you have cognitive difficulties.

There is no indication Bowers suffered from the same cognitive difficulties you have.

Bowers appears to have been a sound and sane witness.