Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks John, and I agree that Stanton and Salant and Paley all sanctioned in the future the MSM pulling off blatant lies about the JFK case.

[James DiEugenio]

SINCE THIS WAS MY THREAD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.

WHY DON'T THE MODS YANK ALL THE PARAFFIN, NAA STUFF OUT OF THIS AND START A NEW THREAD ON THAT?

THIS WAS MEANT TO CRITIQUE CBS AND HONOR ROGER FEINMAN.

THANKS.

[James DiEugenio]

DVP: And God bless Mr. Sevareid for it. Truer words were never spoken --- at CBS or anywhere else. And they deserve a reprise

Now, sooner or later, Davey always says something that exposes him for the shill he is. Consider what the article and Roger's documents show about the program.

​1. The whole Alvarez, jiggle effect idea was wrong. In fact, it proved a conspiracy.

​2. Wyckoff knew it was wrong. Four jiggles means four bullets.

​3. Wyckoff then tried to explain away the fourth jiggle by saying there was a siren. Hmm. Even if it was, does that have the same impact on Zapruder as hearing a gunshot over his shoulder?

4. But as Thompson noted, at Time-Life with the film itself and trasnsparencies, they deduced six jiggles.

​5. Realizing anything more than three kills them, CBS cuts that part of the interview from both the show and the official transcript.

​6. But since Alvarez said there was a jiggle early, around 190, CBS postulated a shot through the oak tree at 186.

7. Their original rifleman, Crossman, said such a thing could only be done with a large stroke of luck.

​8. About half the later rifle attempts were aborted.

9. CBS used enlarged targets in these rifle tests. Plus, there was no tree obstacle and no curve in the track.

​10. Humes lied on camera about the placement of the posterior back wound, and Rather let him get away with it.

​11. CBS distorted and disguised what Perry said about the anterior neck wound, even though they had the transcript.

​12. Humes lied about the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings and Rather let him get away with it.

13. CBS knew from Humes himself that he was forcibly limited in his autopsy practice on JFK--and covered up that confession.

14. Humes told CBS about an x ray that did not exist anymore--and they kept that hidden.

15. CBS knew that Kennedy's brain was missing from the archives--and did not tell the public about it.

​This is what Von Pein thinks is God's blessing to America. I'd hate to be in church with the guy.

And then to characterize what Severeid said as "truer word were never spoken", in the light of the above, well that is why I call DVP a carnival barker.

Actually more like a con man. Because the facts don't matter to him.

Edited May 2, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Because the facts don't matter to him.

Mr. Irony strikes again.

DiEugenio, you see, cares so much about "the facts" in the Kennedy case, he was able to spout the following nonsense (without even turning red). The gall of the man is becoming legendary:

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015

"I don't think [Howard] Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

If anybody needs a few dozen more examples of the strange way Jim DiEugenio treats "the facts", just ask. I can supply tons of them.

Edited May 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[John Crites]

Let's please try to stick to the topic of this thread; the CBS cover up.

[Sandy Larsen]

Because the facts don't matter to him.

Mr. Irony strikes again.

DiEugenio, you see, cares so much about "the facts" in the Kennedy case, he was able to spout the following nonsense (without even turning red). The gall of the man is becoming legendary:

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015

I've studied the Baker/Oswald encounter quite a bit and I think Jim is right. It never occurred. And I believe that not because it bolsters my CT beliefs (it doesn't) or supports any of my theories (it doesn't). I believe it because that's what the early statements show... especially Baker's.

Don't expect another response from me on this David... I don't want to hijack the thread again.

[Sandy Larsen]

This thread has gotten nearly 11,000 views in just a month. I wonder if that's a record.

[David Von Pein]

I believe it because that's what the early statements show... especially Baker's.

The statements show no such thing. In fact, Roy Truly's "early" [11/23/63] affidavit totally demolishes DiEugenio's

"Baker never saw Oswald" nonsense. (I guess Nov. 23rd isn't "early" enough for you, eh Sandy?) ....

Edited May 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

Compared to Baker's affidavit on 11.22. 63

"Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

​Note "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw man walking away from me"--Not "I saw a man in the vestibule through a window." his later statement.

Note "...165 lbs, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Oswald wasn't anywhere near 165 lbs (how could a trained cop get a description so wrong if it was Oswald?)

​Therefore whoever Baker saw on the third or fourth floor, it certainly wasn't Oswald.

The day after, the fix was in.

[David Von Pein]

Baker, Brennan, and Truly....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1000.html

Edited May 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

Brennan first day affidavit.

"I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.

/s/ H. L. Brennan

As I said wrong man, as Oswald weighed 131 lbs not 165/175 lbs as described.

Strange that the same wrong description was given by both Baker and Brennan.

Truly was the man who hired Oswald after a telephone conversation with Ruth Paine.

He was the one who said that Oswald was missing when he had no reason to suspect he was.

When asked why he had identified Oswald as being missing, he was unable to give a satisfactory answer.

Who would believe Truly?

Only in DVP's make believe world, would he try to say that despite both Baker and Brennan getting the description wrong, they must have seen Oswald, because Oswald was the man who did the shooting. I believe it is called a circular argument.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

So Truly was out to frame Oswald too, eh Ray?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald.

And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly:

Baker said -- "165 pounds".

Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds".

And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day?

Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates?" -- DVP; Aug. 2015

Edited May 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Ken Rheberg]

SINCE THIS WAS MY THREAD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.

WHY DON'T THE MODS YANK ALL THE PARAFFIN, NAA STUFF OUT OF THIS AND START A NEW THREAD ON THAT?

THIS WAS MEANT TO CRITIQUE CBS AND HONOR ROGER FEINMAN.

THANKS.

Jim,

The title of this thread, which you started, is "Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case."

It seemed like you were finally going to tackle the most important story of the Kennedy assassination.

But your thread was, unfortunately, hijacked.

No surprise when it comes to a CBS thread.

Then you step in and attempt to get things back on track to CBS. Good for you.

Alas, it's all for nothing. You're interested only in 1975. And 1967. And 1964. What a waste of time. No wonder it's 52 years and counting.

If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this Kennedy mess, why wouldn't you return to 1963? The day of the assassination, to be exact. Just before 3:00pm CST. CBS. KRLD. Dan Rather. . .

The story of your lifetime. Of our lifetime.

But you won't do it.

Why not, Jim?

Ken

Edited May 4, 2016 by Ken Rheberg

[Ray Mitcham]

So Truly was out to frame Oswald too, eh Ray?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald.

And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly:

Baker said -- "165 pounds".

Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds".

And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day?

Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates?" -- DVP; Aug. 2015

"Which we know is wrong"

It is wrong only because their descriptions don't match Oswald. However, if they both saw a different person, who was 165 lbs/175 lbs then they were right. Your arguments about them being "wrong" depend entirely on Oswald being the shooter. However Occam's Razor says that if they both saw a much heavier man then it wasn't Oswald.

Unfortunately, it seems your brain is wired so that you are unable to consider that they saw somebody other than Os.

[David Von Pein]

It is wrong only because their descriptions don't match Oswald. However, if they both saw a different person, who was 165 lbs/175 lbs[,] then they were right.

But we know for a fact that Baker wasn't describing "a different person". He was staring right at Lee Oswald in the lunchroom. Roy Truly confirms that fact.

But, since you've decided that Mr. Truly was a rotten [L-word], that paves the way for you to pretend that Baker never stopped Oswald in the lunchroom.

Nice system, Ray. It's foolproof.

Edited May 4, 2016 by David Von Pein