Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[David Von Pein]

​You pontificate on this site and others like you have some insights into the case from the "other side". The truth is you have none.

Yep. Just common sense. That's all.

LOL, ROTF

Gurvich and Sheridan (via Walace [sic]) is devoting time to Garrison's investigation?

Incredible.

Yep. Part 3 -- from 26:22 through 45:18. That's 19 consecutive minutes (out of about 50 or 51 minutes, sans commercials) devoted exclusively to talking about Garrison's nonexistent case against Clay Shaw.

Edited April 5, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

BTW, I really urge everyone to watch the Sevareid closing talk.

It is truly hard to believe. Eric must have been looking forward to retirement, and wanted to stay on the good side of Paley.

It's the exact same closing talk I already quoted verbatim in Post #6. It's an excellent and spot-on commentary by Sevareid too.

And so now, I suppose, Mr. Sevareid was part of the CBS cover-up too. Right, Jimmy?

Is there anybody in the Western Hemisphere you haven't accused of being part of some kind of plot to suppress the truth about JFK's demise, Jim? Anybody at all? Slim Pickens maybe? Willie Mays? Gregory Peck? Charlie Weaver? Or Ella Fitzgerald?

Edited April 5, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the part one of this is already the number one rated article at CTKA.

It only went up a day ago.

That almost never ever happens.

Wait until part 2 goes up.

[James DiEugenio]

ES: In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

LOL

And BTW, that is not even close to being the worst part. I urge all to actually watch Sevareid's whole four minute rant.

It is a forerunner of the future. That is, the schizoid unreality of the MSM which has caused such a disconnect between the public and the press today.

And the rise of men like Alex Jones to fill the void.

Edited April 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Here's the best part (emphasis is DVP's)....

"The deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years. If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid; June 1967

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:

"The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Edited April 5, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

You might want to point out, Jim, that Sevareid's rant was re-broadcast as part of CNN's Tom Hanks-produced, Vincent Bugliosi-fueled, program put together for the 50th anniversary, which was repeated if I recall six times in the weeks leading up to the 50th anniversary. I remember that you missed it when first broadcast. I'm not sure if it's available online. But just imagine the CBS special with Bugliosi hosting instead of Cronkite and you'll get the picture.

Although many of those working on the CBS program probably believed they were working on an honest program, the facts suggest the opposite. I mean, I'm sure DVP thinks it's just a coincidence that CBS and the AP both began intensive investigations in mid-66 after the publication of Epstein's and Lane's books, and that they both coughed up the results of their investigation within a few days of one another in June of the next year, with pretty much identical conclusions...

And wait, as far as the media's collusion on this stuff... the New York Times published an article on the CBS special which quoted Dan Rather's interview of Dr. Humes...with quotes not shown in the program. Well, this says to me that the NY TImes was provided videos of an unedited interview, and screwed up and published segments that were never shown.

Now, why would they have been shown such a thing if they weren't part of a "team" pushing the conclusions of the WC in cahoots with the Johnson Administration? Now, that may be a stretch.

But it's not naive, or paranoid. Just look at what the NY Times and WaPo did in support of the Bush Administration's lies about WMD in Iraq. They played ball with the government, and sold the public a lie. Well, it wasn't the first time.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Ron Ecker]

Here's the best part (emphasis is DVP's)....

"The deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years. If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid; June 1967

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:

"The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Sevareid (so also DVP) sounds just like me when I was about 20 years old. I still remember believing (not sure what prompted it, maybe claims that the 1960 election was stolen) that rich and powerful Americans with the wherewithal to steal an election would never do so because they especially know how precious are American democracy and freedom, which gave them their wealth, and they would do nothing to undermine it. I actually believed that as a numbskull college student (and I was still a numbskull when I voted for LBJ in 1964), and it's the same kind of stupid crap (the nobility of John McCloy et al) that Sevareid knowingly spouts in his rant. And I remember admiring that SOB (and Uncle Walter).

Edited April 5, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Michael Walton]

BRAD: A few personal comments from the peanut gallery (me): Several of my Professors in college 'back in the day' consistently told me & my classmates that almost everything we see broadcast on TV is a lie. That includes cooking shows & home lawn care shows; the cooking shows don't show you the burnt food, the cut fingers, the damage to your body certain foods cause just as lawn care shows leave out cancer & other diseases that some lawn care chemicals expose happy homeowners with pretty yards to (not to mention the wildlife & their environment struggling to survive constant & consistant mini-nukings from lawn enthusiasts). It's all a farce, the learned ones told us back in class.

Brad, I think comparing what CBS did with the assassination and cooking and lawn shows is disingenuous. Yes, cooking and lawn shows, and other shows like "This Old House" on PBS are well prepared (i.e., they have a script) before they go before the camera. But these shows are more along the lines of "here's what you can do, too" and for the most part, they're true because if you follow their instructions, you can do at home what they do on the show. For example, I recently watched Julia Child's cooking shows from back in the early 60s on Amazon and I hardly think Child was standing there trying to deceive her audience. To the contrary, I learned a better way on how to make an omelette.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

David Von Pein,

You're really missing the whole point about what CBS portrayed on these shows. Let's say you own a Shoney's restaurant in Indiana and you notice one day you receive a supply of green-colored hamburger patties. Corporate tells you to sell them regardless of your concern about them. You know you shouldn't do this, so you go to the local TV station and tell the reporter that corporate management is telling you to sell green-colored hamburger patties to your customers.

So now the TV station will do an expose called, "Shoneygate! Should you be concerned?" This is going to be an honest critique of Shoney's food service practices. The station management gets wind of the story and the vice president of the station happens to be a Shoney's franchise owner and the real kicker is he's also good friends and fraternity brothers with Shoney's worldwide's CEO.

On the day the story airs, you sit down to watch it. The story, originally titled "Shoneygate! Should you be concerned?" is now called, "WXIN-TV Presents...Shoney's An Inquiry." In it, corporate officials talk about how industrious and honest Shoney's is. There's a soothing voiceover talking about how wonderful the company is and you see happy smiling customers taking scrumptious bites of their Shoney's hamburger sandwiches. You see happy smiling cooks in the kitchen cooking bloody red hamburger patties. Not a one green-colored hamburger patty is seen on the hot grill.

Then, the narrator begins to explain how rumors and innuendo started when a single franchise owner reported receiving green-colored hamburger patties and management told this owner to use them regardless of concern. As you hear this narration, the station shows a freeze frame of you that they grabbed when they interviewed you with the title below saying "disgruntled franchise owner" and the freeze frame of you is not great - maybe your eyes are half closed and your mouth is agape.

The story concludes that there is no evidence of green-colored hamburger patties ever being served at Shoney's restaurants. Then the studio anchors, back on the air, shake their heads solemnly and say, "And that's the way it is...good night." Then an ad appears - "This newscast was sponsored in part by Shoney's Worldwide." Fade to black.

Now, I'm exaggerating here (just a little bit) but this is basically what happened with those CBS stories. An honest critique of the WC was completely thrown to the wayside and, instead, the WC was dusted off, polished, and propped up to continue to preach the official word of the WC as being the only word regarding the assassination.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Michael Walton

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

No I did not see that. OMG to see Sevareid's crazy rant in 2013 must have been like watching the movie Network today--where all the worst things imaginable about TV came true.

I mean Sevareid got it completely wrong. Just look at what McCloy did to Warren with Olney, and look at what McCloy, Dulles and Ford did to Russell at the last meeting of the WC. Then look at what McCloy said on the show. With Uncle Walter spoon-feeding him questions.

And the idea that McCloy would not distort history? I mean is Sevareid serious? This is the guy who aided the escape of Klaus Barbie from France after the war! Barbie, the guy who emptied an orphanage of something like 42 kids aged 3-15 and sent them to their deaths at Auschwitz. The guy who liked to hang up his victims from hooks in the ceiling and watch them die. Yeah Eric, your buddy John helped Barbie escape, and then lied about it. So please, no Sunday School lectures about Johnny and his place in history. Kai Bird nailed Johnny's place in history. McCloy was a thoroughly despicable character who got to the top by serving his masters in the Power Elite. And CBS and the CNEC let him do it again here.

Michael: your post at 24 is right on. That is just about what happened. Dick Salant and the CNEC hijacked the show to the point that the original intent was completely perverted.

And as I said, no one screamed.

Except Roger.

And he got terminated for it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Oh, almost forgot about Sevareid's idol, John McCloy. You know, George Washington etc.

When McCloy was ramming through the internment of Japanese American Citizens, for no other reason than they were Japanese, this was his reply to those who protested that it was unconstitutional :

"The Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me."

He then said that it was advantageous to incarcerate them without due process, and illegally deprive them of their property, for the sake of sociological experiments the USA could conduct on "these people" while they were in detention.

Johnny Boy then added, " I am aware that such a suggestion may provoke a charge that we have no right to treat them as "guinea pigs" but I would rather treat them as guniea pigs and learn something useful than merely to treat them... as they have been in the past with such unsuccessful results." (Jim DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 262)

Somehow Eric forgot about Klaus Barbie, the Japanese internment, and the immortal, "The Constituiton being just a scrap of paper comment", and the "guinea pigs" usage of American citizens.

Well, let us put it this way, its a good thing he did. For his own sake, and for the CNEC.

Can you imagine defending such a slime ball?

Edited April 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David G. Healy]

Here's the best part (emphasis is DVP's)....

"The deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years. If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid; June 1967

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:

"The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

you're not doing to well with the threads at AMAZON either, DVP (you or your alias(es)! Have you considered retiring to that KFC of yours?

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, Davey has to do this.

Why?

Because he really thinks the CBS 1967 special is something like the epitome of fairness in the media's handling of the JFK case. He has been talking it up and posting about it for years.

Me and Roger wrecked that pipe dream of his.

And somehow, he missed that Dan Rather told Bob Tanenbaum after he filmed a segment with him in 1993 in Dallas.

Apparently impressed by Bob's honesty and candidness, Dan said, "We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination."

Yeah Dan. That is an understatement.

Edited April 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

Regarding the Sevareid commentary shown earlier in this thread, is there some kind of transcript out there of what he says? I'm deaf so I can't hear what he's saying and clicking the CC button on the YouTube player is a voice-to-text translator which is wildly inaccurate.

Any help appreciated on this.

Meanwhile, could it be these guys were separated at birth?

Separated at Birth?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

I realize this thread is about Jim's article on the CBS stories in 1967 so I don't want to jump around here too much.

David,

I know you think the media, government, and god knows who else is this bastion of honest, high-road officials keeping their citizens in the loop.

Take a look at the clip below - isn't this when the fraud really began, literally days after Kennedy's in the ground at Arlington, and Oswald himself was just put in the ground when this segment aired?

You know as well as I do if Oswald had lived, the Zapruder film would have become one of the most important pieces of evidence to prove his innocence. But the plotters knew if Oswald was in the ground, silenced forever, it would have been very, very easy to manipulate the truth. And manipulate it they did because they knew that the Zapruder film would not be shown to the public for years to come, while they get the media - in the case below Dan Rather - to start twisting what they didn't want the public to see or know.

I'm paraphrasing here but as Rather says: "The shot pushed the president's head down."

This guy was a reporter and he'd just described the film as he saw it like that? Please, give me a break.

https://youtu.be/LuHdK-4M1Wc