"If one bullet could not cause seven wounds in two men, there had to be a fourth shot - Oswald didn't have time to fire a fourth shot - therefore, a second gunman and a conspiracy (O'Brien )." I have done some research myself on the assassination of President Kennedy, and have come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy. I believe that there was a conspiracy, in which Lee Oswald was to be made the scapegoat for a crime that could only have been organized by a very large organization. An organization that has an expendable amount of human resources available at its disposal.
             Certain critics feel that Oliver Stone's film JFK portrays a more confusing array of events than there already are. "Critics against the film complained that Stone mixed fact and conjecture so seamlessly that it is difficult to find the difference. In JFK, Stone solidified a brand new style of filmmaking - one of mixing differing film stocks, color and black and white film, and camera angles to paint a confusing portrait of one of the most confusing events of the recent 20th century (O'Brien)."
             Stone takes the audience through the events step by step, as well as portraying coinciding events that were taking place throughout the nation. This I feel, is ultimately important in order to give the viewer a choice. The observer of the film can organize the events for themselves, and decipher what they felt happen on November 22, 1963.
             Yes, I believe that portions of the movie are emphasized for dramatic effect, but that is to be expected. If people want really know the reality behind what took place in Dallas in 1963, then they need to research the events that led up to, and "after the assassination(JFKLancer)." "None of us really know the entire picture, but Stone comes pretty close to the truth(O'Brien)."
             ...