Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CBS hasn't changed. It was only two or three years ago (the last time I've gone near CBS News) that evening news anchor Scott Pelly (sp) stated in his "newscast" that "Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy." I don't remember what the subject was (maybe the 50th anniversary), he just had to get in that simple statement of fact.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Von Pein said:

Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.

Hmm, Interesting Dave, So I guess when it's get down to it, we're all Cter's, We see a conspiracy in that we don't see LHO as a lone gunman, and you see all the first witnesses at Parkland and Clint Hill as a conspiracy to advocate a bullet coming from the front. Is that right ? Or is it that you think all the first people who independently verified that Kennedy's wounds were in the back of the head were simply mistaken? Would that be a sort of a mass hypnosis? Not having heard accounts from others and being verified as official observers to the head wound, isn't it remarkable how many have have said there was a big hole in the back of Kennedy's skull? Surely you can't believe that so many people could be innocently mistaken? That just isn't common sense.

Let's try to ferret out motive. What would be the motive of those who falsely claim they saw the hole in the back of Kennedy's head? At that point there was no official story to uphold. On the other hand, As far as the motive to try to establish a lone gunman? Well you've heard all of our theories over and over again.Even someone like you who so adamantly wants to believe the official record and the integrity of his governments investigation could easily see a motive that they just don't believe they can get to the bottom of it, and wanted to quell the potential unrest that could come from a conspiracy. There is so much possible motive in fomenting a story line of a lone gunman, and none on the part of the witnesses to the BOH wound. Another common sense question, Why would there be a more accurate account in Washington hours later then there would be from the first witnesses and Doctors in Dallas? That just isn't common sense. Would you believe that just because the people who said it in Washington are agents of the federal government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, this two parter on CBS is now up to 1220 views per day.

Its the highest rated article at CTKA since my review of Talbot's book.

So if you can post it around please do.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBS hasn't changed.

I hope they never change when it comes to the JFK case, because it's blatantly obvious to me that year after year and documentary after documentary, the Columbia Broadcasting System has gotten things right when it comes to its major conclusions associated with President Kennedy's assassination — such as:

Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly purchased the C2766 Carcano rifle (only a rabid CTer could possibly believe otherwise in light of all this evidence and this evidence that proves it was LHO's gun), Oswald shot JFK, Oswald shot Tippit, Oswald shot at Walker, and Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby was not part of some kind of prearranged conspiracy plot.

So my rally cry is .... Go CBS!

CBS News Extra: "November 22nd & The Warren Report" (1964)

"A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)

"Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?" (1993) (CBS)

"Who Shot President Kennedy?" (1988) (PBS)

Note --- The 1988 NOVA/PBS program features former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite as narrator, plus Robert Richter as director, producer, and writer. Richter was one of the associate producers of the 1967 CBS four-parter. So the PBS special most definitely has a "CBS connection" attached to it. And it's an excellent program too, featuring lots of talk about potential "conspiracy" and interviews with Warren Commission critics such as Cyril Wecht and David Lifton. So, just like the CBS specials of the '60s, PBS in '88 was certainly not stifling the voice of conspiracy during its one-hour JFK documentary.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they never change when it comes to the JFK case

Yes, CBS will change about the same time that David Von Pein does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know the truth always wins out, right?

And what kind of "truth" do you think Lee Oswald's actions on 11/22/63 are spelling out for us, David?

Are his actions and movements after the assassination more indicative of his innocence....or his guilt?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think how different history would be if Lee Harvey Oswald had decided to go into the fried chicken business instead of assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:clapping

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think how different history would be if Lee Harvey Oswald had decided to go into the fried chicken business instead of assassination.

Yeah, then you CT guys could have gathered into little groups and pretended Oswald never actually purchased the chicken franchise at all. It was all just a fabricated transaction from top to bottom, featuring dozens of phony documents that only seem to be in Lee's handwriting.

And maybe you could have also theorized that Bonnie Ray Williams' chicken-on-the-bone sandwich was "planted" in Bonnie Ray's lunch sack to serve as a crude murder weapon, so that when Bonnie Ray consumed the deadly bone-in sandwich, he would choke and be killed, thereby eliminating him as a witness when Mac Wallace and his patsy framers were up on the sixth floor planting all the evidence.

Good plan. Certainly as good as the complicated cloak-and-dagger charade dreamed up by desperate CTers regarding Oswald's rifle purchase.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, you said you couldn't understand why all the witnesses saw a wound to the rear of the President's head.

Have you ever considered that they were all telling the truth and what followed changed the appearance of the head. Do you think more likely that they were all lying? They were doctors, nurses, FBi men, SS guys,military men at the autopsy, and Funeral home guys. All without any dog in the fight. Why would they all lie? They obviously are not all wrong.

Consider which is the more likely. That they all saw a hole in the back of JFK's head and then the photos were altered or faked, or the head witnesses were all wrong and the photos showed the state of JFK's head as it was after he was shot.

Everything else is flim flam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the BOH witnesses "lied", Ray. None.

And you think the Zapruder Film is a fake too, eh? (Because it most certainly does not show a big hole in the back of JFK's head.)

That means TRIPLE the fakery regarding the photo/film record --- autopsy pics, autopsy X-rays, AND the Z-Film.

How likely is this fakery in triplicate, Ray?

And then you've got to come up with some pretty good excuse to disregard this conclusion reached by the 20 members of the HSCA Photo Panel....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the BOH witnesses "lied", Ray. None.

And you think the Zapruder Film is a fake too, eh? (Because it most certainly does not show a big hole in the back of JFK's head.)

That means TRIPLE the fakery regarding the photo/film record --- autopsy pics, autopsy X-rays, AND the Z-Film.

How likely is this fakery in triplicate, Ray?

And then you've got to come up with some pretty good excuse to disregard this conclusion reached by the 20 members of the HSCA Photo Panel....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

So none of the BOH witnesses lied. Then they were all correct, or mistaken. Which do you think it was, David?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So none of the BOH witnesses lied. Then they were all correct, or mistaken. Which do you think it was, David?

JOHN CANAL SAID:

He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there were so many BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH ["Reclaiming History"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses, including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they were either lying or hallucinating.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And those "BOH" witnesses do still bother me to a large degree. It's still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case.

I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film.

In fact, author Vincent Bugliosi places quite a bit of confidence in the Zapruder Film when it comes to specifically locating the large (exit) wound in JFK's head. Such as when Vince says this in his book:

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"

MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PARKLAND WITNESSES:

I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?

Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound).

But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:

1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head).

and:

2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; June 1967

BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:

"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006

JOHN CANAL SAID:

What gets me is that in RH, Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his number-one source and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least two issues. Go figure.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, for heaven's sake, John C., not everybody is 100% right ALL of the time. Take yourself, for example. I think you are right when you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy.

But I sure as heck think you're 100% wrong about some of the other things that you believe regarding this case -- such as your unique "BOH" beliefs and your belief that the 6.5 mm. "object" was planted on an X-ray, and your belief that Dr. Burkley "ordered" the autopsy doctors to "understate" the true condition of JFK's head wounds.

Another "Not Always Right" example would be Vincent Bugliosi. I've discovered multiple errors in Vince's JFK book (factual errors too, not just minor typos).

But, oddly enough, when those factual errors that I've noticed in Bugliosi's book are corrected, it actually bolsters VB's lone-assassin conclusions, instead of weakening his LN case.

I found that to be quite interesting. This is especially true regarding a portion of VB's book when he's discussing the amount of metal (bullet) fragments that were left inside Governor John Connally's body after he was operated on.

David Von Pein

May 21, 2009

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...