Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[Myra Bronstein]

Looking back at Rather's sign off on the 1993 show, he actually then says that the WR conclusions have passed the test of time.

Now recall, this is still in the wake of Stone's JFK, when the percentage of disbelief was way up there. So what the heck is he talking about?

But then it gets worse. He then says that there is no proof and little evidence of any conspiracy in the case.

Well, when you are making millions of dollars a year, you will say those kinds of things. And your nose will not grow.

The capper is when he says that the physical evidence and the facts point to one man, Oswald. And anything else is nothing but speculation based on imagination ruled by those who hear things that are not there and see things that are not visible.

OK Dan, now go back and reinsert the stuff you cut out, like Wyckoff telling you that there were really four jiggles in the Z film and not three. And then have him explain the fourth one by the sound of a siren. Then ask him this question:

"But sir, what siren could you hear on the Zapruder film? Its silent."

An honest answer would be: "But that is what DIck Salant wanted me to say when I told him Alvarez was wrong."

As Charles Burris said, he's "Rather biased."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rather-biased/

[David Von Pein]

Another very good CBS JFK special was made in 1992 -- "Who Killed JFK?: Facts, Not Fiction". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make that program available on any of my websites.



Sample Amazon reviews for the "Facts, Not Fiction" program:

"Probably the most sound and focused of the JFK assassination videos. Like a good lawyer, this show cuts through the bull and just lays out the details in a good sound package. This is a great place to start even if you are determined to go running around for the rest of your life chasing phantoms. Too bad there isn't a DVD edition yet."

-- An Anonymous Reviewer; May 26, 2003

"As a teacher of Senior High students, we spend a large amount of time on the Kennedy assassination. This video is the best supplement I have during our studies. CBS lives up to their great reputation in presenting the FACTS....and some things for my students to think about! I would highly recommend!!!"

-- Randy Durr; November 9, 2001

"2.5 stars. This is a halfway decent video but is tarnished by its overt Warren Commission bias, courtesy of CBS' Dan Rather. There is some nice vintage footage included, as well as some primary witnesses (such as Jean Hill). I wouldn't call this one essential but I would call it slick. I did like the inclusion of LBJ's comments to Walter Cronkite (that were banned by Johnson at the time) stating that others other than Oswald may have been involved."

-- Vince Palamara; January 13, 2006

Edited April 12, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

The one DVP points to above was done in the wake of JFK. It was one of those quickies that the networks put together to capitalize and counter the impact of that film.

There is one good segment in there were Richard Schlesinger interviews Helms.

Schlesinger asked Dirty DIck an unexpected question and Helms got all tongue tied and started stuttering.

But over at DPF, Joe McBride has found evidence of a really early CBS special called The Law and Lee Harvey Oswald.

I had never even heard of this one before.

It was apparently broadcast in late December of 1963! Rather was the host.

Has anyone seen this?

Edited April 13, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Roger DeLaria]

I've never heard of it before, but I found this link referencing the program.

https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=Law+&p=1&item=T77:0432

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks. I love this line:

"should the criminal go free because the constable has blundered?"

Oswald was a criminal?

[Guest]

I see in part two the following.

"During his consulting, Hill revealed that the police did a “fast frisk” on Oswald while in the theater. They found nothing in his pockets at the time. Which poses the question as to where the bullets the police said they found in his pockets later at the station came from. That question did not arise during the program, since CBS never revealed that statement. (Click here and go to page 20 of the transcript.)"

Neither the bus ticket that appeared later in pristine condition!

Fab stuff Jim!

Edited April 13, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks.

Spread it far and wide.

Its well over 1500 views per day now, and way over 2000 hits.

The highest rated article since my Talbot review.

If you can put it on Facebook, please do.

[David Lifton]

Another very good CBS JFK special was made in 1992 -- "Who Killed JFK?: Facts, Not Fiction". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make that program available on any of my websites.

Sample Amazon reviews for the "Facts, Not Fiction" program:

"Probably the most sound and focused of the JFK assassination videos. Like a good lawyer, this show cuts through the bull and just lays out the details in a good sound package. This is a great place to start even if you are determined to go running around for the rest of your life chasing phantoms. Too bad there isn't a DVD edition yet."

-- An Anonymous Reviewer; May 26, 2003

"As a teacher of Senior High students, we spend a large amount of time on the Kennedy assassination. This video is the best supplement I have during our studies. CBS lives up to their great reputation in presenting the FACTS....and some things for my students to think about! I would highly recommend!!!"

-- Randy Durr; November 9, 2001

"2.5 stars. This is a halfway decent video but is tarnished by its overt Warren Commission bias, courtesy of CBS' Dan Rather. There is some nice vintage footage included, as well as some primary witnesses (such as Jean Hill). I wouldn't call this one essential but I would call it slick. I did like the inclusion of LBJ's comments to Walter Cronkite (that were banned by Johnson at the time) stating that others other than Oswald may have been involved."

-- Vince Palamara; January 13, 2006

I don't agree that this was a "halfway decent" show, but then, my experience with Dan Rather was somewhat different.

I met with him--alone--for well over an hour in December 1980, when Best Evidene was just weeks away from publication, and after CBS Executive Producer Don Hewitt --after viewing my documentary footage--gave a provisional "green-light" to doing a 60 Minutes show on the forthcoming publication of Best Evidence. Sitting alone with Rather in a screening room at "Black Rock" (the CBS headquarters in Manhattan), Rather watched the full documentary--then cut at about 45 minutes. (Google BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO, to see for yourself what Rather saw that day). So Rather saw the footage of Paul O'Connor describing how JFK arrived in a shipping casket, inside a body bag, and all the rest. It was an in-depth briefing. When the lights went on, there was silence. "Well, what do you think?" I asked him. Rather looked at me, somewhat blankly, and maintained that he "didn't understand." Then he explained: "Since Oswald shot the president, I don't see that there was any need to alter the body."

From this exposure (to Rather, his personality, and his "logic"), and much else, I am positive that Dan Rather knew all too well what the implications were of a false autopsy. As he related to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting) producer Brian McKenna years later, when sitting in a bar in Rome, he had a "professional opinion" about the assassination, but then also a "personal opinion."

The fact of the matter is that when the chips were down, Dan Rather did not do his duty as a journalist, and follow the path to the truth.

At every step of the way--from his original false description of the Zapruder film in November 1963,to much else--he sidestepped the truth, and became a mouthpiece for the false official version.

This episode, and much else (about Rather) will be in Final Charade.

DSL

[David Von Pein]

I don't agree that this ["Facts, Not Fiction" program] was a "halfway decent" show, but then, my experience with Dan Rather was somewhat different.

I don't agree with Vince there either, David. It was way better than "halfway decent". It was excellent.

Edited April 15, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

I don't agree that this ["Facts, Not Fiction" program] was a "halfway decent" show, but then, my experience with Dan Rather was somewhat different.

I don't agree with Vince there either, David. It was way better than "halfway decent". It was excellent.

you're gettin' hammered from all direction as of late, eh Davey meboy? You can tell ol' Vin in your prayers tonight, he lost! The boat anchor, Reclaiming History went down with the ship! I'll take David Lifton's research over your fantasies and hero-worship any day!

[David Von Pein]

David Healy,

FYI....

The "Vince" I was referring to in my Post #129 isn't Vince Bugliosi. It's Palamara.

[David Von Pein]

FWIW....

CBS-TV audio excerpt....

Dan Rather describes the Zapruder Film:

https://app.box.com/s/1a0mhnrp3fc77lb470de

Edited April 15, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

This two parter is now over 1600 views per day.

I think people like reading exposes of the MSM.

For the simple reason that they feel deep down that they have been lied to about so many important subjects by the MSM.

In this particular instance, since Roger was inside the Belly of the Beast, we actually have the goods on them.

[Ron Ecker]

A few comments on Dan Rather.

He is weird.

Does anyone have any opinion about the bizarre "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" episode?

When Uncle Walter retired, Dan Rather got the news anchor gig instead of Roger Mudd. I wondered why at the time (Mudd was laid-back guy, while Rather always seemed so uptight for some reason). I think it's why Mudd left CBS. He got shafted. Why?

Shortly after 9/11, Rather was a guest on Letterman's show. He started crying. He got over it, but then he started reciting the obscure fourth verse of "American the Beautiful" and started crying again. Letterman cut to a commercial.

Did I mention that Dan Rather is weird?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[David Lifton]

A few comments on Dan Rather.

He is weird.

Does anyone have any opinion about the bizarre "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" episode?

When Uncle Walter retired, Dan Rather got the news anchor gig instead of Roger Mudd. I wondered why at the time (Mudd was laid-back guy, while Rather always seemed so uptight for some reason). I think it's why Mudd left CBS. He got shafted. Why?

Shortly after 9/11, Rather was a guest on Letterman's show. He started crying. He got over it, but then he started reciting the obscure fourth verse of "American the Beautiful" and started crying again. Letterman cut to a commercial.

Did I mention that Dan Rather is weird?

I would be very interested in seeing the episode where Dan Rather started to cry. (Does anyone have a clip?) What I remember is a stone-faced person who failed to deal with very clear evidence.

I am not claiming that he had to be an uncritical apostle or an advocate for my book.

What I am saying is that--as a decent journalist, and faced with the fact that a major New York publisher was about to release Best Evidence (a book which, incidentally, was not reviewed by Time Magazine but, instead, was treated as a news story, and given a full two pages in the National Affairs section; and was also a Book of the Month Club Selection). . .Dan Rather instead looked at the evidence, pretended ignorance, and said (in effect) to me: "I don't understand; since Oswald shot the president, there'd be no need to alter the body."

That's almost akin to saying: "Since Oswald shot the president, there's be no need to falsify the autopsy." (And so I won't bother to look into the matter of burned notes, or a burned "first draft")

That's how illogical and absurd his statement was.

Then he continued to keep his head in the sand throughout his tenure at CBS, pretending that Best Evidence had never been published and making remarks in the 1992 show as if the case for conspiracy rested not on good evidence, but on mistaken perception of people who "thought they heard echos" from the grassy knoll (or words to that effect). (Once, I ran into Rather on a street in Manhattan, and he wished me well, and spoke briefly with me, as if he were a completely disinterested third party).

There's something peculiar about Dan Rather, and the way he has handled the Kennedy assassination.

Former CBS producer Stanhope Gould--who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a one hour special on Best Evidence (when he was at KRON-TV in San Francisco)--publicly stated that I had found "courtroom quality evidence" that the President's body had been intercepted before its arrival at the morgue of Bethesda Naval Hospital. (Gould was Cronkite's chief producer of the 1972 Watergate TV coverage).

Dan Rather pretended "not to see." Instead of doing a program in which he certainly would have been free to agree--or disagree--with what I set forth in my book, and even had put on film (!), he chose to pretend it did not exist. (Throughout the months of its initial publication [spring 1981] and then for years afterwards.)

So, for three months, while Best Evidence was on the NY Times best-seller list, rising to position #4, and while it was #1 in both the AP and UPI listings (and #1 in quite a few cities, e.g., Philadelphia, for one), Dan Rather--the great "Kennedy assassination expert"-- continued his pretense that it wasn't there, and declined to go forward with a project that Executive Producer had approved, and given the green light to, in my presence (and in the presence of the top executives at Macmillan).

There may be a number of other issues at CBS (e.g., the handling of the four-part 1967 documentary, which "rehabilitated" the Warren Report) but that's the one that I personally witnessed, and experienced in 1981.

For a number of months, I was left to wonder: Was Dan Rather really so thick-headed that he failed to "notice" the evidence spelled out in my book, and presented on camera, in meetings at 60 Minutes, including the private that I had with him?

How could that be?

With the passage of years, and in reviewing my own experience and also taking into account how he misreported the Zapruder film, I I have reluctantly concluded that Dan Rather may well have had not just a bias, but a hidden agenda.

DSL

4/15/16 - 7:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 15, 2016 by David Lifton