So, in the beginning, they play recordings. But the recordings, in particular that of Oswald's wife, sound pretty unnatural, including the interviewer. On the website linked, there are sources, but they are text only. Were those interviews "recreated" for the video, as far as you know?

Edit: it is mentioned (not very clearly) at the end that the recordings were "voiced" by other people. So that answers my question.

What is your own opinion of what probably happened?

I watched it as well. I don't have a strong opinion on what actually happened, but the details in the video of how LHO came to be employed at the book depository and his movements in the days preceding the assassination make it seem pretty improbable that his position there and the assassination were part of some carefully coordinated plan.

For example, if there were actually multiple gunmen in different locations, who all fired within a few seconds, they would have to have had some way to coordinate not only the fact that they would shoot at the motorcade that day, but to precisely synchronize exactly when they all fired. How would they do that? Did LHO even have a watch? Were there other gunmen sitting around somewhere with their guns ready and on target and fingers on triggers, ready to fire within a split second of when some other shooter fired?

I would also note, I've watched training videos on how to respond to mass shooter situations. One of the main points is to discount any claims of additional shooters in other locations until you hear shots yourself. It seems it's quite common in mass shooter situations for witnesses to falsely report additional shooters in other locations.

I didn't read all the source material researched for the video myself, so I'd take all this with a grain of salt, but I personally consider Lemmino reliable. Based on his presentation of the evidence I think it was just Lee Harvey Oswald taking an attack of opportunity. It seems likely he was working at the building by happenstance, heard/read that the motercade would pass by, and hasily planned the assassination in secret. He had a motive that doesn't require any conspiracy as he was self admittedly a marxist and was described as "unstable". To me, his murder of a police officer immediately following the assassination is indicative of mental instability rather than a carefully planned conspiracy. I also consider the reports of multiple gunshots unreliable; I remember being nearby Parliment in Ottawa during the 2014 shootings at Parliment Hill. There was incredible confusion when it started, and rumours and miscommunications travelled at lightning speed since everyone feared for their lives. At first there were reports of multiple gunman in several different locations near the actual shooting because of echoes off of nearby buildings and return fire from police. Really it was a lone gunman, and despite those inital reports I'm not aware of any conspiracies about the whole event. I think the true conspiracy, if any, was that any of the people involved who failed in their role to prevent the assassination of the president by a lone unstable man, or to conduct a flawless investigation following it, were incentivized to bend evidence and testimoney in their favour (whether unconsciously or intentionally). I don't think this was done out of malice, rather, who would want to admit to any actions that could conceivably invite criticism? In the article itself he provides several (perhaps reasonable) reasons for why he moved the bullet at all, probably to defend against criticism that leaving all evidence in place (seems to me) would have been the best course of action. As for the article itself, human memory is notoriously unreliable (even shortly after shocking events like this), so even if he beleives he is telling the truth, and isn't interested in the profit motive, I don't think it's compelling enough evidence to believe in a conspiracy beyond human fallacy.

Thanks for this link. I've never seen nor heard of this film before.

You're very welcome, he gives a similar video rundown on Jack the Ripper; in both cases I find it fascinating how messy real life investigations are.