John Simkin Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 What the documentary failed to reveal was just how many events occurred by pure chance over the weekend of the assassination if the official version is to be believed.Firstly, Oswald was a social misfit who buys a rifle and decides he wants to assassinate prominent political figures to gain his place in history. By chance, he gets a job in a tall building and, by chance, President Kennedy passes right in front of the building a few weeks later. Secondly, extra security from the 112th Military Intelligence Group could have stopped the assassination from occurring but, by chance, when an offer of their services was made to the Secret Service it was categorically refused on the one occasion it was really needed. Thirdly, a press car with TV cameras and press photographers would usually have been following just behind the Presidential Limousine but, by chance, they were put back several places in the motorcade so that no film or photographs of the actual assassination were taken by any professional press photographers or TV cameramen. Fourthly, about twenty five minutes after the assassination, Oswald was traveling by taxi over the Houston Street Viaduct to Oak Cliff. By chance, Officer Tippit was in his car watching the traffic come over the viaduct at that time. He had not been ordered to go there that morning but five witnesses saw him watching this traffic and then suddenly head off at speed. Fifthly, by chance, some minutes later Tippit was driving at walking pace in the same street where Oswald just happened to be walking. By chance, of all the men in Oak Cliff that were about 165lb in weight and about 5 feet 10 inches in height (i.e. matching the vague description of the wanted assassin broadcast to all the police units) he just happened to stop Oswald. Sixthly, two days later Oswald was to be transferred from Dallas Police Headquarters. Jack Ruby was emotionally disturbed by the assassination and he carried a loaded revolver with him over that weekend. That morning an employee asked him to lend her some money. By chance, this involved him going to the Post Office just across the road from Dallas Police Headquarters. He came out and decided to go down into the Police Headquarters at the time, by chance, that Oswald was being brought out and he suddenly decided to shoot Oswald. Seventhly, within hours of Oswald's death Jack Ruby asked attorney Tom Howard to represent him. Earlier that day, by chance, Howard had walked into Police Headquarters and looked through the jail office window at the time that Oswald was being taken off the jail elevator. According to Detective H.L. Mc Gee, he said "That's all I wanted to see” and left the building less than a minute before Ruby shot Oswald. There seems to have been rather a lot of happenstances of history going on that weekend! There is another interesting story that relates to these events in Unsolved Texas Mysteries by Wallace O. Chariton. On the morning of the assassination, Jerry Coley, who worked in the advertising department of the Dallas Morning News, spent sometime drinking coffee with Jack Ruby, who had arrived at the office to place his weekly advert in the newspaper. Ruby spent far longer than usual in the office. He also seemed interested in looking at the Texas School Book Depository (the Dallas Morning News office provided a good view of the building). Coley and another worker from the building, Charlie Mulkey, decided to go and watch the JFK motorcade. Ruby said he was not interested in seeing JFK and remained in the office. This is the same Ruby who was so upset by the assassination of JFK that he decided to go and kill Lee Harvey Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 John Simkin Posted Today, 01:21 PM QUOTE(Tony Austin @ Mar 30 2006, 09:35 PM) What the documentary failed to reveal was just how many events occurred by pure chance over the weekend of the assassination if the official version is to be believed. Firstly, Oswald was a social misfit who buys a rifle and decides he wants to assassinate prominent political figures to gain his place in history. By chance, he gets a job in a tall building and, by chance, President Kennedy passes right in front of the building a few weeks later. Secondly, extra security from the 112th Military Intelligence Group could have stopped the assassination from occurring but, by chance, when an offer of their services was made to the Secret Service it was categorically refused on the one occasion it was really needed. Thirdly, a press car with TV cameras and press photographers would usually have been following just behind the Presidential Limousine but, by chance, they were put back several places in the motorcade so that no film or photographs of the actual assassination were taken by any professional press photographers or TV cameramen. Fourthly, about twenty five minutes after the assassination, Oswald was traveling by taxi over the Houston Street Viaduct to Oak Cliff. By chance, Officer Tippit was in his car watching the traffic come over the viaduct at that time. He had not been ordered to go there that morning but five witnesses saw him watching this traffic and then suddenly head off at speed. Fifthly, by chance, some minutes later Tippit was driving at walking pace in the same street where Oswald just happened to be walking. By chance, of all the men in Oak Cliff that were about 165lb in weight and about 5 feet 10 inches in height (i.e. matching the vague description of the wanted assassin broadcast to all the police units) he just happened to stop Oswald. Sixthly, two days later Oswald was to be transferred from Dallas Police Headquarters. Jack Ruby was emotionally disturbed by the assassination and he carried a loaded revolver with him over that weekend. That morning an employee asked him to lend her some money. By chance, this involved him going to the Post Office just across the road from Dallas Police Headquarters. He came out and decided to go down into the Police Headquarters at the time, by chance, that Oswald was being brought out and he suddenly decided to shoot Oswald. Seventhly, within hours of Oswald's death Jack Ruby asked attorney Tom Howard to represent him. Earlier that day, by chance, Howard had walked into Police Headquarters and looked through the jail office window at the time that Oswald was being taken off the jail elevator. According to Detective H.L. Mc Gee, he said "That's all I wanted to see” and left the building less than a minute before Ruby shot Oswald. There seems to have been rather a lot of happenstances of history going on that weekend! There is another interesting story that relates to these events in Unsolved Texas Mysteries by Wallace O. Chariton. On the morning of the assassination, Jerry Coley, who worked in the advertising department of the Dallas Morning News, spent sometime drinking coffee with Jack Ruby, who had arrived at the office to place his weekly advert in the newspaper. Ruby spent far longer than usual in the office. He also seemed interested in looking at the Texas School Book Depository (the Dallas Morning News office provided a good view of the building). Coley and another worker from the building, Charlie Mulkey, decided to go and watch the JFK motorcade. Ruby said he was not interested in seeing JFK and remained in the office. This is the same Ruby who was so upset by the assassination of JFK that he decided to go and kill Lee Harvey Oswald. I guess he changed his mind about JFK.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 It also appears to be on an almost continuous loop on the History channel, where it is shown at least once a month. it was showing again this week-end, tellingly on Sat 1st April on the History channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 What the documentary failed to reveal was just how many events occurred by pure chance over the weekend of the assassination if the official version is to be believed. Firstly, Oswald was a social misfit who buys a rifle and decides he wants to assassinate prominent political figures to gain his place in history. By chance, he gets a job in a tall building and, by chance, President Kennedy passes right in front of the building a few weeks later. Secondly, extra security from the 112th Military Intelligence Group could have stopped the assassination from occurring but, by chance, when an offer of their services was made to the Secret Service it was categorically refused on the one occasion it was really needed. Thirdly, a press car with TV cameras and press photographers would usually have been following just behind the Presidential Limousine but, by chance, they were put back several places in the motorcade so that no film or photographs of the actual assassination were taken by any professional press photographers or TV cameramen. Fourthly, about twenty five minutes after the assassination, Oswald was traveling by taxi over the Houston Street Viaduct to Oak Cliff. By chance, Officer Tippit was in his car watching the traffic come over the viaduct at that time. He had not been ordered to go there that morning but five witnesses saw him watching this traffic and then suddenly head off at speed. Fifthly, by chance, some minutes later Tippit was driving at walking pace in the same street where Oswald just happened to be walking. By chance, of all the men in Oak Cliff that were about 165lb in weight and about 5 feet 10 inches in height (i.e. matching the vague description of the wanted assassin broadcast to all the police units) he just happened to stop Oswald. Sixthly, two days later Oswald was to be transferred from Dallas Police Headquarters. Jack Ruby was emotionally disturbed by the assassination and he carried a loaded revolver with him over that weekend. That morning an employee asked him to lend her some money. By chance, this involved him going to the Post Office just across the road from Dallas Police Headquarters. He came out and decided to go down into the Police Headquarters at the time, by chance, that Oswald was being brought out and he suddenly decided to shoot Oswald. Seventhly, within hours of Oswald's death Jack Ruby asked attorney Tom Howard to represent him. Earlier that day, by chance, Howard had walked into Police Headquarters and looked through the jail office window at the time that Oswald was being taken off the jail elevator. According to Detective H.L. Mc Gee, he said "That's all I wanted to see” and left the building less than a minute before Ruby shot Oswald. There seems to have been rather a lot of happenstances of history going on that weekend! There is another interesting story that relates to these events in Unsolved Texas Mysteries by Wallace O. Chariton. On the morning of the assassination, Jerry Coley, who worked in the advertising department of the Dallas Morning News, spent sometime drinking coffee with Jack Ruby, who had arrived at the office to place his weekly advert in the newspaper. Ruby spent far longer than usual in the office. He also seemed interested in looking at the Texas School Book Depository (the Dallas Morning News office provided a good view of the building). Coley and another worker from the building, Charlie Mulkey, decided to go and watch the JFK motorcade. Ruby said he was not interested in seeing JFK and remained in the office. This is the same Ruby who was so upset by the assassination of JFK that he decided to go and kill Lee Harvey Oswald. Yes, this is interesting. It can also be noted that in one of his interviews to the Warren Commission Ruby admitted that he had not gone to watch the motorcade and that he had not even voted for Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted April 4, 2006 Author Share Posted April 4, 2006 (edited) Part 3 THE WARREN COMMISSION The documentary looked at the Warren Commission and told us that President Johnson spoke to Richard Russell, one of the seven men heading the Warren Commission, and warned him that evidence of a foreign conspiracy could lead to a war which could kill 40 million in 1 hour. History records that he said similar things to Earl Warren who headed the Commission. It was also mentioned that the committee was under pressure to finish quickly and in fact finished in ten months. The documentary failed to make the obvious point. All this shows that there was considerable pressure on those heading the Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald acted alone whether or not this was the case. SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Oswald killed President Kennedy. For this to happen there must have been plenty of physical evidence to incriminate Oswald. However, researchers have recorded numerous problems with this evidence and even found reasons to believe that some of it could have been planted to frame Oswald. Watching the documentary, you would not know that there was any controversy about the physical evidence as it simply described some of the evidence without saying anything about the problems with it. The documentary told us that ballistics showed that the bullets that hit Kennedy and Connally could only have come from 'Oswald's rifle'. However, let us consider the front and back ends of a broken bullet recovered from the front of the limousine many hours after the assassination. The limousine had been left unguarded in an area with public access for some hours before the bullet fragments were found so it is possible that they were planted. There were similar problems with the unbroken bullet found on a hospital trolley (see later). We were told that Oswald's palm print was on the rifle. However, this was a faint print on a part of the rifle that only could have been exposed when the rifle was broken down. This is not proof that Oswald handled the rifle on the day of the assassination. The print could have been made many days earlier. Oswald's prints were found on boxes on the sixth floor but only a small number of prints on the top surfaces of two boxes. There were no prints on the sides of these boxes so, in theory, he lifted the boxes into position without leaving prints on the sides of the boxes but managed to leave prints on the top surfaces of the two boxes. There were no prints on the boxes built up like a wall behind the 'sniper's nest' and no prints on the boxes around where the rifle was found left near the stairs. Oswald worked on that floor and it would not have been too difficult for someone to trick him into putting his prints on two boxes at an earlier time. No prints were found on the floor, wall or window ledge of the 'sniper's nest' area. Prints were only on moveable objects. There are numerous observations of this nature which have been made by researchers but this documentary failed to look into this aspect of the case. Good articles by Ian Griggs and Michael T Griffith have highlighted some of the problems associated with the physical evidence that is said to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald (see references) THE WARREN COMMISSION - A JOB WELL DONE? As you would expect, the documentary considered the question as to whether the Warren Commission did a good job. It did this by interviewing two former members of the Warren Commission who told us, in effect, that the Warren Commission did a good job. Hardly what you would call "in depth journalistic investigation" is it? WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION DID NOT KNOW There was a mention of the fact that the Kennedy administration was determined to get rid of Castro and it was backing convert operations against Castro. We were told that the Warren Commission never received information of this type. What the documentary also failed to do was to look at other important information that the Warren Commission was unaware of. Firstly, it was known at that time that President Kennedy and his brother had organised a major crackdown on organised crime. Researches have found evidence that the Kennedy family found covert ways to contact Mafia bosses before John F Kennedy was elected. They persuaded them to invest money and manpower into getting Kennedy elected. However, instead of turning a blind eye to organised crime as they expected, John Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, headed a major operation by the government to tackle the growing menace of organised crime in America. To the Mafia this was an act of extreme betrayal. A huge double cross which was a powerful motive for them to assist in any plan to assassinate Kennedy that might arise. Secondly, the Warren Commission did not know about an unholy alliance that was going on between the Mafia and the CIA in the 1960s. The documentary did mention the use of Mafia people in secret plans to have Castro assassinated. However, the extent to which the CIA worked with the Mafia was not mentioned. Mafia sources suggest they were jointly involved in illegal arms smuggling and also drugs trafficking to raise money for both organisations. The links between these two organisations were very strong in the early 1960s. Thirdly, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Frank Church, issued a report in 1975 entitled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders." The CIA was allegedly involved in plots to assassinate Castro of Cuba, Lumumba of the Congo and Diem of South Vietnam. It was also alleged to have schemed to assassinate President Sukarno of Indonesia and Francois Duvalier of Haiti. It was alleged that the agency was involved in initiating such plots and that the CIA agents would never carry out assassinations themselves so that the blame would never go back to the CIA. The Committee came across the term "executive action" used by the CIA to mean a project for research into developing the means for overthrowing foreign political leaders, including a "capability to perform assassinations." The Warren Commission knew nothing about these matters. Modern researchers speculate that if the CIA had developed skills in assassinating foreign leaders, whilst making sure someone else took the blame, then rogue elements from this organisation could have assassinated Kennedy and then made sure that Oswald took the blame. Here are three important types of information that the Warren Commission were unaware of that were not mentioned by the documentary. The documentary went on to look at the work of the HSCA when they looked into the possibility that Castro could have been behind the assassination. The programme looked at this question in some depth and showed us the evidence that Castro was not involved. However, it should be noted that only a minority of conspiracy theorists have ever thought that Castro and his followers were to blame. The documentary ignored the information on the Mafia and the CIA that the Warren Commission did not know as stated above. The possible involvement of the CIA in the assassination of Kennedy was not given any serious consideration at all by this programme. This was a serious omission by the documentary given that the majority of modern conspiracy theorists believe that the CIA had some involvement in the Kennedy assassination. THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) Within months of Kennedy being elected to office a CIA sponsored military assault was launched against Cuba. About 1400 Cuban exiles landed at the Bay of Pigs in an attempt to overthrow the new communist regime of Fidel Castro. The operation had been planned during the previous administration of President Eisenhower. The operation was a total failure which many in the CIA blamed on Kennedy for not authorising air support as the operation was in progress. However, Kennedy blamed the CIA for poor organisation and failing to accurately inform him about the details of the planned operation. He proceeded to sack CIA Director Allen Dulles (who later sat on the Warren Commission), Deputy Director Charles Cabell (whose brother was the Mayor of Dallas) and Deputy Director of Plans Richard Bissell. This was enough to anger many in the CIA but when Kennedy was later quoted by the media as saying that he would "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" some researchers believe this made certain CIA personnel decide that, for the sake of their organisation, Kennedy had to go, even if that meant killing him. They argue that the CIA already had the apparatus to assassinate foreign leaders and then cover up their involvement in the crime. All they had to do was mount the same type of operation in Dallas. It could be argued that the CIA had the motive and the means to carry out the assassination of Kennedy and also the skills necessary to cover up their involvement. The documentary failed to look at the evidence for and against this theory. THE SOUND RECORDING OF THE ASSASSINATION The documentary looked at the police dictabelt recording of sounds picked up from a police motor cycle, which had a microphone stuck open, on the morning of the assassination. The HSCA believed that that the sounds of gunshots were recorded onto the tape and their scientists decided that one of the shots must have come from the grassy knoll area. The HSCA stated that it was the microphone of Officer H B MacClain which picked up the sounds and that he was near to the School Book Depository when the first shot was fired. The documentary used this as the basis for attacking the HSCA conclusions on this matter. They used Dale Myers's computer model to show that MacClain was a long way from the School Book Depository at the time of the first shot. However, researcher Michael T. Griffith wrote an article in 2003 on this subject in which he argues that the microphone of Officer Bobby Hargis could have been the one which was open and that he would have been in the right position to record all the shots. If this is the case then the argument put forward by the documentary is invalid. This area is highly controversial with different experts reaching very different conclusions about the validity of analysing the dictabelt recording to determine the origin of the shots fired at Kennedy. However, if the dictabelt evidence is faulty this does not mean that there was not another gunman firing from the grassy knoll it just means that this type of evidence cannot be used to determine if this really happened. THE FILM "JFK" The documentary moved on to criticise Oliver Stone's film "JFK" by looking at the film's "hero" Jim Garrison. Garrison has always been the subject of heavy criticism, even writers who believe in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy have criticised him. This programme showed that his case against Clay Shaw relied almost entirely on the evidence of Perry Russo and that he was a totally unreliable witness, somebody who was just lying about what he saw. The police officer who did the polygraph lie - detector test on him helped the programme put across this point quite strongly. The documentary also went on to say that there was no basis to Garrison's case and that it was all fanciful nonsense. However, the trial judge, Judge Edward Haggerty, was interviewed for TV in New Orleans in 1992 and he said "...I certainly thought that there was sufficient evidence to warrant bringing it to trial and let a jury decide." Judge Haggerty also said “...there were a number of things that I believe that Shaw testified to that I did not believe. I believe that he was lying to the jury ... I think that Shaw put a good con-job on the jury." The documentary relied on derogatory comments by certain individuals and failed to look at evidence from the 1960s and more recent evidence that has emerged which give support to Garrison's basic ideas. Garrison's theory was that some members of the CIA had conspired with others to assassinate President Kennedy. He thought that Shaw worked for the CIA and that he had a central role in the conspiracy. He believed that Shaw engaged in intelligence activities with David Ferrie and Guy Bannister. Garrison felt that Oswald had associated with Shaw, Ferrie and Bannister in 1963 and this had led to him being chosen to take the blame for the assassination. Clay Shaw sat on the board of two secretive international companies which were suspected to be fronts for the CIA in Europe. The Centro Mondiale Commerciale Company was expelled from Italy and Switzerland for allegedly engaging in illegal political-espionage activities on behalf of the CIA. The Permindex Company was public ally accused by the French President de Gaulle of channeling funds to the illegal Secret Army Organisation which tried to assassinate him on several occasions. A CIA document released in 1977 showed that between 1949 and 1956 Shaw filed thirty reports with the CIA. Former CIA director Richard Helms admitted under oath in 1979 that Shaw had been a CIA contact of the Domestic Division. A CIA document released in 1993 discloses that Shaw had covert clearance for a secret CIA project codenamed "QKENCHANT." David Ferrie was an ultra-right winger with connections to the CIA and the Mafia. He ran a Civil Air Patrol group in the 1950s which included Lee Harvey Oswald who was then a teenager. Photographs showing the two of them together at CAP meetings have been found. Shaw denied knowing Ferrie but there are two well know photographs showing them together at a party. Clay Shaw admitted under cross examination that he knew Layton Martens and James Lewallen, both of whom were friends of Ferrie. Mr and Mrs Nicholas Tadin testified that Ferrie introduced them to Shaw and said that he was a friend of his. Guy Banister was a former FBI agent with an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. He was an ultra-conservative with ties to the anti-Castro movement and the CIA. The Cuban Revolutionary Council was set up by the CIA and had their offices at 544 Camp Street. In the summer of 1963, Oswald was in New Orleans handing out "Fair Play for Cuba" handbills and some of them were stamped with the address 544 Camp Street. When Oswald was applying for a tourist card at the Mexican Consulate in that city the man in line in front of him was William Gaudet. His tourist card number was 24084 and Oswald's was 24085. Gaudet worked for the CIA and he told the HSCA that on one occasion he had seen Oswald talking to Banister on a street corner. A number of individuals have claimed that there was an association between Banister and Oswald. Author Michael Griffith writes that three former intelligence agents have linked Shaw to the CIA and also claim that he was associating with Ferrie and Banister in 1963. New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews told the FBI that shortly after the assassination that "Clay Bertrand" called him and asked him to defend Lee Harvey Oswald. Garrison promoted the idea that Clay Bertrand was an alias for Clay Shaw. He did find witnesses to support this idea. A hostess at the VIP room at New Orleans Airport testified that she saw Shaw sign the guest register as Clay Bertrand. William Morris stated that he was introduced to Shaw as Clay Bertrand by Gene Davis at the Masquerade Bar in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Garrison also found three bar tenders in the French Quarter who stated that it was common knowledge in that part of town that Shaw was Clay Bertrand. Unfortunately for Garrison none of them wanted to get involved and testify to what they knew. These are just examples of evidence that Shaw was linked to the CIA, that he knew David Ferrie and Guy Bannister and that he tried to get Oswald a lawyer using the alias of Clay Bertrand. The documentary made no attempt to look deeply into these matters. The HSCA uncovered the fact that the CIA had planted people in Garrison's team working on the Shaw case. If Shaw was a completely innocent man with no connections to the CIA or to the Kennedy Assassination, as the documentary would have us believe, why should the CIA have any interest his trial whatsoever? The documentary continued with a further attack on the film "JFK". It sternly criticised the film for taking dramatic licence with "several fundamental facts that are beyond dispute." There was then a clip from the film showing one of Garrison's team talking to Jim Garrison in which he says: "Oswald was at best a medium shot...” (actually, after weeks of intensive training Oswald barely managed to qualify for middle of three qualification ranges for the Marines, the "Sharpshooter" range. The next time he fired for the record he barely managed to qualify for the lowest range the "Marksman" range. So this was not an unreasonable comment. )".....The scope was defective...." (which is completely true the scope was badly misaligned) and:"....The guy couldn't do the shooting, nobody could..." At this point the documentary points out that at the time of the fatal head shot Kennedy was only 88 yards away and that Oswald could be expected to shoot and hit a target at that range. However, if the complete scene had been shown we would have seen that he was referring to the whole sequence of shooting within the time frame described by Warren Commission not just the ability of Oswald to shoot and hit a target at 88 yards. The next clip from the film shows Senator Long talking with Jim Garrison and saying about Oswald firing 3 shots in less than 6 seconds. The commentator then comes in with a stern rebuke: "3 shots in less than 6 seconds is completely wrong” Here we need to pause and review the matter. The idea of Oswald firing 3 shots in less than 6 seconds was not something dreamed up by conspiracy theorists, it was not made up by Oliver Stone for his film "JFK". It was the preferred position of the Warren Commission. When FBI marksmen tried to replicate this type of shooting in 1964 they were unable to do so. For this reason critics of the Warren Commission quite rightly criticised this idea. This means that when the documentary asserted that "3 shots in less than 6 seconds is completely wrong" it was saying that the Warren Commission was wrong on this important point and the conspiracy theorists that condemned the idea as implausible were right all along. In fact the Senator Long character in the film is only expressing doubt on the Warren Commission's idea of 3 shots in 6 seconds which, as this programme shows, has now been proven wrong. We were then told that Oswald would have had 8.3 seconds to fire. The next thing we saw was the 89 year old Dr John Lattimer showing us that he can fire three shots from a Mannlicher Carcano rifle in 7.2 seconds. In fact this was a totally meaningless demonstration. A new version of the manner in which shots were fired at Kennedy has been developed in response to years of criticism of the Warren Commission version. This new version has in turn been criticised by researchers over a number of details, but to the best of my knowledge no one has ever criticised this model by saying that Oswald would not have had time to fire 3 shots in 8.3 seconds. The only purpose of this demonstration was to ridicule the conspiracy theorists and give the false impression that they have been promoting the idea that Oswald could not fire 3 shots in 8.3 seconds. In this respect the programme was being totally misleading and grossly unfair on the conspiracy theorists. The programme moved on to look at the way the film "JFK" made it appear that a bullet would have had to zig-zag through space to go through both Kennedy and Connally. It used the computer model to show that this would not have to be the case in reality. For a change, the documentary managed to make a valid point the demonstration appearing in the "JFK" film was very misleading. In the film "JFK" the idea that a bullet could go through two men and break two bones and still have very little deformity was rejected as implausible. This documentary explained that that is not really the case. The copper jacketed bullets in question are tough and penetrating. Michael Baden (forensic pathologist) made a valid point when he said that they are meant to go through people with very little deformity. However, if this is the case, then what happened with the other shots is surprising. Officially, the first shot hit a thick branch but instead of ricocheting off the bullet broke into two pieces so that the jacket part shot down and hit the road behind the limousine whilst the core of the bullet went off in another direction and hit a curb stone over 400 feet away. Also, officially, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the head immediately broke up into pieces. Separate head and tail ends of the bullet came out of the front of the head and were recovered from the front of the limousine. Also a trail of tiny metal fragments was left though the head. Very strange for copper jacketed bullets that we were told were meant to go through people without breaking apart. Forensic expert Vincent DiMaio M.D. has stated that "Military bullets [meaning full jacketed bullets] usually do NOT fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths." Australian forensic expert Detective Shaun Roach on reviewing the autopsy X-rays of Kennedy's skull stated that "The head wound has all the hallmarks of 5.56 mm bullet performance. I would expect that if JFK were struck in the head from above and behind by a 6.5 Carcano bullet, the bullet would have crashed into the skull, out the other side, intact, and continued on till it hit something else." Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue believes that the bullet that struck Kennedy in the head behaved like a high velocity, frangible missile, whereas the Mannlicher Carcano fires medium velocity non-frangible bullets. A number of experts have said that it would be extremely uncharacteristic of a carcano bullet to leave a trail of dozens of tiny fragments through the skull as happened with the missile that hit Kennedy. The programme told us how strong the bullets are but made no mention of this aspect. It was reasonable for the documentary to state that the copper jacketed bullets fired from a Mannlicher Carcano are very strong and can go through two bodies and break two bones with minimal deformity, however, this then raises the question why did the other bullets break apart on impact? THE SINGLE BULLET AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The documentary went on to look at physical evidence that the minimally deformed bullet examined for the Warren Commission is the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. This bullet "the single bullet", known to the Warren Commission as CE399, was ballistically matched to the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found in the Book Depository. The programme stated that bullet fragments were recovered from the wrist of John Connally and their antimony content "precisely" matched that of the bullet CE399. This statement is a little misleading, the wrist fragment measurement was 797 parts per million and the bullet measurement was 833 parts per million which is 4.5% more antimony. The amounts were very similar but not "precisely the same" which was the impression being given. The forensic investigation into this aspect of the case was done by Dr Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in the late 1970s. The documentary was referring to his work but did not mention that his findings are highly controversial with some assassination researchers claiming that the study he did was seriously flawed. Dr Guinn noted that the weights of the fragments he was given to study did not match any of the weights of the wrist fragments as recorded by the Warren Commission. This means that there is some uncertainty as to whether he tested fragments that had genuinely come from the wrist of John Connally more than 12 years earlier. The Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) testing was used to accurately measure the concentration of trace elements in bullets and bullet fragments. The validity of this method depends on Mannlicher Carcano bullets varying markedly in their content of trace elements. It also depends on there being little variation in the amounts of trace elements between different parts within an individual bullet. However, critics point out that Guinn had 3 reference bullets and he could see the results of taking 4 different samples out of each of the 3 different bullets. For one bullet the antimony content for all 4 samples was different with a variation of 173 parts per million. For the second bullet there was a variation of 304 parts per million (between different parts within the same bullet) and for the third bullet there was a variation in antimony content between fragments within the same bullet of 625 parts per million. This is a huge variation given that the average amount of antimony for samples from this bullet was only 773 parts per million! To put it another way, a tiny sample taken from the single bullet had an antimony sample that was only 4.5 % different to that of the wrist sample. However, if a sample been taken from another part of the same bullet it might have given a completely different answer because there is so much variation within one bullet. Dr Guinn noted that the alleged wrist fragments had 4.5% less antimony than the intact bullet CE399. However, his own data showed that they also had 25% more silver than the bullet. This makes his claim that there was a good match between the wrist fragments and the bullet look rather dubious. Dr Guinn's findings were quoted in this TV programme but no mention was made of the fact they have been strongly criticised by a number of people who have looked at his work. SINGLE BULLET - PROBLEMS IGNORED There were problems with single bullet that was found on a trolley at Parkland Hospital (known as bullet CE399) which was ballistically matched to the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that the documentary failed to mention. A bullet was discovered on a hospital trolley by Darrell Tomlinson but if you read his Warren Commission testimony there appears to be some doubt as to whether he found it on a trolley that had been used by Kennedy or Connally. He passed the bullet to Mr O.P. Wright who handed it on to the Secret Service. However, Wright was interviewed by author Josiah Thompson in 1966 and he stated that the pictures of the single bullet in the Warren Report show a bullet with a rounded tip but the bullet he handled after the assassination had a pointed tip. He told Thompson and two witnesses that the bullet he saw did not resemble the one pictured in the volumes of the Warren Report (CE399). Wright passed the stretcher bullet on to Secret Service Special Agent Richard Johnsen who then passed it to Secret Service Chief James Rowley. Warren Commission Exhibit #2011 is an FBI report on how they checked the chain of possession for the stretcher bullet. This report states that when Johnsen and Rowley of the Secret Service were shown the bullet (CE399) in June 1964 by FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd they could NOT identify this bullet as being the same one they saw on the day of the assassination. This raises the possibility that the stretcher bullet was swapped. There are other findings to support this idea. The bullet (CE399) was supposed to have gone through two human bodies but no blood or human tissue were found on the bullet. The bodies were clothed but no fabric fibres were found in the grooves of the bullet. It is known that if a bullet goes through a layer of clothing the material will leave tiny scratch marks on the bullet know as fabric striations. According to the Warren Commission, bullet CE399 went through more than 10 layers of clothing and yet there are no fabric striations on this bullet whatsoever. This does suggest that there are good reasons to believe that bullet CE399, which was ballistically matched to the 'Oswald' rifle was not the bullet found on a trolley at Parkland Hospital. This is a serious point because, if true, it suggests that Oswald was framed for the assassination. However, the documentary failed to look into this aspect of the case. AUTOPSY PROBLEMS The documentary went on to consider the shot that struck Kennedy in the head. We were told that the shot could only have come from behind him, it was stated: "The x-rays and photographs of the autopsy show precisely where the bullet struck the back of the Presidents head." However, there was something of importance that the documentary failed to mention. The Warren Commission stated precisely where the head entry wound was using the information from the pathologists who did the original autopsy. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) also stated precisely where the head entry wound was using information from experts reviewing the autopsy x-rays and photographs. The problem is that there is a difference between the findings of the two committees of about four inches! This is only one of many problems found when reviewing the forensic pathology work done in this case. This is a highly controversial area which was not touched upon by the documentary. To start with a large number of individuals reported seeing a large hole in the back of the President's head behind the right ear. These included Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses, a Secret Service agent, an ambulance driver, a Fort Worth newsman, a Bethesda radiologist, a Bethesda mortician, a mortician's supervisor, a Bethesda lab assistant, the two official autopsy photographers at Bethesda, a Navy Medical Technician, some Bethesda doctors and one of Kennedy's top aides. However, an autopsy photograph of the back of the head shows a completely intact scalp covering the back of the head. There were two autopsy photographers who could have taken this photograph. Floyd Riebe was one but he has said that he did not take any of the photographs that are now in evidence. James Stringer was the other photographer but he also stated in a taped interview that he did not take the photographs of the back of the head. White House photographer Joe O'Donnell testified to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that Robert Knudsen, another White House photographer present at the time of the autopsy, showed him a photograph of the President's head which appeared to be intact. However, he also testified that Knudsen showed him another photograph which showed a grapefruit sized hole in the back of the head. What became of this photograph is unknown. Officially, Sandra Kay Spencer processed the autopsy photographs. However, under oath, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photographs that are now in the archives. So who took the photograph showing the back of the head intact? Who developed it and why does it contradict the testimony of nearly forty witnesses? This photograph was part of the evidence that the HSCA used to determine the position of the entry wound on back of Kennedy's head. Moving on to the lateral x-ray of the President's head which was supposedly taken before the pathologists started their examination. The pathologists stated that initially some pieces of bone were missing from the back of the head. The missing fragments were recovered from Dealey Plaza but they arrived late at night, long after the x-rays had been taken. They put them back in position at the back of the skull at which point the entry wound became apparent. This was near to the External Occipital Protruberance (bump at the very back of the head) low down at the back of the skull. Two morticians witnessed this and testified to the ARRB that the bones were placed at the back of the skull. However, the lateral x-ray shows bones at the back of the skull to be broken into large pieces but there are no bones missing from the back of the head. Again, there was no sign of the hole witnessed by so many people. The pathologists reported that the trauma to the head had caused a loss of tissue from the upper half of the right side of the brain. A considerable amount of brain tissue was lost, in particular the upper half of the parietal lobe was missing and the frontal lobe of the brain had been blown out. The lateral x-ray shows a trail of multiple small bullet fragments going down from the top of the head down to the front edge of the temple area above the eye. In other words, it shows a trail of tiny metal fragments through brain tissue that is no longer there. So what is holding up these fragments? The only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, Dr Pierre Finck, testified to the ARRB that on the day of the autopsy he saw a lateral x-ray which showed a trail of fragments going up from the very back of the head up to the eye area. This is more consistent with the brain tissue damage reported to be visible but contradicts what can now be see on the lateral x-ray in the archives. The lateral x-ray was also used by the HSCA to determine the position of the entry wound. Autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe was interviewed for KRON-TV in 1988 and he stated that the autopsy x-rays and photographs had been doctored in some way and that the photographs did not show the wounds that he saw that night. He also recalled seeing a big gaping hole in the back of the head. The AP x-ray (front to back view) is similarly problematic. In amongst the trail of bullet fragments there appears to be a large fragment which is the shape of a disc except for a small notch of material missing from its lower edge. The diameter of the circular fragment is exactly 6.5mm. It should be noted that officially two bullets went into the limousine. One was the "single bullet" that ended up on a hospital trolley with minimal damage. The other went through Kennedy's head and broke apart. The front and rear end of this bullet were found on the floor of the limousine up near the front. This is very strange, how could a bullet enter the top of the head, break up into three pieces and then the front and back ends exit out of the left temple but the thin, round middle piece stay behind inside the skull? This disc shaped piece would need have retained a ring of copper jacket around it to give it a diameter of exactly 6.5mm. It is hard to imagine how this could happen. In addition there is no record of the large fragment being found by anyone at autopsy. The answer came in the 1990s when Dr David Mantik was allowed to examine the x-rays in the archives. He is an exceptionally well qualified radiologist who also possesses a degree in physics. He made hundreds of point-like measurements of optical density of the xray in the region of the fragment. He found the optical density measurements to be incredibly high where the fragment was, far higher than would be expected. By running experiments to investigate further he finally came to a stunning conclusion. The x-ray in the archives is a copy made from an original x-ray plus a disc of dense material placed over the x-ray when the copy was made. By doing so it was made to look like a 6.5mm bullet went through Kennedy's head.Mantik also found evidence of tampering with other photographs and x-rays in the archives. Jerrol Custer, a Bethesda x-ray technician stated that the day after the autopsy he was instructed by his superiors to tape bullet fragments to pieces of skull and then to x-ray them. The bizarre reason given to him for doing this was that they needed the x-rays to make a bust of JFK's head! Putting it all together, there is now an abundance of evidence to show that x-rays and photographs from the autopsy were substituted for copies which had alterations made to them. This appears to have been done to disguise the fact that there was a large blast hole at the back of Kennedy's skull, which is more consistent with a bullet entering from the front of the head. It also made it appear as if 6.5mm caliber bullets had been used, when this might not have been the case. Were they also altered to hide evidence of a shot entering the left temple? A SHOT FROM THE FRONT? This brings us back to the documentary which relied on the HSCA report when it stated that there was only one entrance wound and this was on the back of the head. However, as we have seen, this report relied upon photographs and x-rays whose reliability can now be challenged. The programme did not mention evidence which suggests that a bullet did enter the right temple. Joe O'Donnell was a White House photographer and another White House photographer, Robert Knudsen, had been with him at the time of the autopsy. In testimony to the ARRB he stated that Knudsen had shown him an autopsy photograph which appeared to show an entry wound in the right temple. Mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB that he was instructed to fill a small hole in the right temple with wax. He speculated that it might have been made by an exiting fragment. However, there are no autopsy photographs in the archives currently available to the public to see exactly what this hole looked like. James Curtis Jenkins, a Navy medical technician who assisted with the autopsy, has told researchers that upon seeing the President's head wounds, he formed the impression that a bullet had entered the right temple and had exited the right rear part of the skull. He saw metal smears in the right temple and a large wound at the back of the head looking like an exit wound. When interviewed on ABC's "20/20" Dr Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland doctors who treated the President, stated that the bullet entered in the area of the right temple and exited through the right rear part of the head. Sherry Gutierrez, a certified crime scene analyst and a consultant in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis, studied the Zapruder film sequence when Kennedy was struck in the head. She said "I am convinced that the head injury to President Kennedy was the result of a shot fired from the right front of the President." Massad Ayoob, a police trainer and firearms journalist who has taught courses on the effects of bullets on human bodies in police instructor schools and medical institutions, reached the same conclusion. He believes the head shot sequence is not very consistent with a shot from behind but it is "far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hypervelocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 feet per second." Even the x-rays in the archives appear to show evidence of a shot to the right, front part of the head. Dr Randy Robertson, a highly qualified radiologist studied the x-rays at the National Archives and reported that the x-rays showed that two bullets had struck the head with one of them entering the right front of the skull. Dr Joseph Riley, an expert in neuroanatomy has also said that the skull x-rays along with other autopsy evidence, demonstrate "conclusively that John Kennedy was struck in the head by two bullets, one from the rear and one from the front." Dr David Mantik, radiologist and physicist, reviewed the x-rays and noted a notch in the right frontal bone over the lateral orbit as well as two trails of bullet fragments through the skull. He too believes that two bullets struck the head. All this adds up to a considerable amount of evidence for a bullet striking Kennedy in the right temple. This would not be consistent with a shot fired from the Texas School Book Depository but of course it would be consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll area. None of this evidence was considered by the documentary. EVIDENCE FOR ALTERATION IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM Another important area not explored by the documentary was evidence that has emerged in recent years that the original Zapruder film was tampered with and altered. On the face of it, this sounds like a half-baked idea coming from some odd conspiracy theorists with little to base it on, however, this is not the case. Richard J DellaRosa brought out a book in 2003 "The Great Zapruder film Hoax" which he has produced with the help of John Costella PhD (a physicist with specialisation in light and the properties of moving objects), Jack white (a photo analyst), David Henley (an expert on film production and post-production), David Mantik M.D. PhD (Radiologist and Physicist) and James H Fetzer Ph D a professor of logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. In this book experts show that there is evidence of alteration of the Zapruder film. It also mentions that the Zapruder film was in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Centre, which was run by the CIA, on the night of the assassination. Other experts who believe that some alteration has taken place include physicist Dr Luis Alvarez, mathematician Daryll Weatherly and also Dr Roderick Ryan. Dr Ryan is a retired scientist and he holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in cinema and communications. He spent 29 years working for Kodak in the field of motion picture technology before he studied the Zapruder film. These experts have uncovered a large number of problems with the Zapruder film. Many of the problems are very technical in nature but an example would be that Dr Ryan performed a careful study of the way background images appear blurred in the film. He discovered that the limousine is moving at frame z302 but in frame z303 it is standing still. This tells us that the limousine decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 th of a second. Running the film through normally shows no signs of this sudden, severe breaking. This suggests that some frames have been removed from the Zapruder film. The number of problems found and the expertise of those who have found them means that this is not an area that can easily be ignored. However, that is precisely what the documentary did. 3D COMPUTER MODEL - FURTHER PROBLEMS Earlier in this review I stated that there were two more problems with Dale Myers's computer simulation of the assassination. These problems are, firstly, that it assumes that the autopsy conclusions from the HSCA are accurate. Secondly it assumes that the Zapruder film is reliable evidence that has not been tampered with in any way. We can now see that there is evidence to show that both assumptions are false. In other words, no matter how clever and sophisticated the computer model is we cannot use it to make any conclusions about the assassination because it is founded on physical evidence that has been tampered with. When Dale Myers considered the head shot he used the entry wound as described by the HSCA which was based on a panel reviewing the photographs and x-rays. If we were to accept that this evidence was tampered with we wound have to go back to the Warren Commission description of the entry wound which was based on what the pathologists saw on the night. We would then be looking at an entry wound about 4 inches lower on the back of the head. If we used the Dale Myers's model and put a line through the entrance and exit wounds and then extend it back the result would be a line of trajectory rather too low to have come from the sixth floor of the School Book Depository. It would be more consistent with a shot fired from a lower floor of the Daltex building. No wonder Myers decided to go with the HSCA assessment as to the position of the head wounds! THE ASSASSINATIONS RECORD REVIEW BOARD Numerous books on the assassination and the film "JFK" led to the Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) being created by Congress. You might think that this was because of all the concerns that had been raised on the issue and a desire to make sure that original enquires had not missed anything important. The ARRB could have been created to see if there was any evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of John F Kennedy that had been overlooked. However, the documentary suggested that this was not the case. I am sure that it was correct in stating: "in the 1990s a determined effort was made to end the conspiracy thinking about the Kennedy Assassination ...Congress created the Assassination Record Review Board." In other words, it was set up with the assumption that Oswald was the lone gunman and the board's function was to review thousands of documents, previously classified, and to perform hundreds of interviews simply to confirm that Oswald was guilty as charged. When the testimonies from people involved in Kennedy's autopsy were taken, as we saw earlier, many of the statements were very alarming and pointed to major tampering with important physical evidence. However, as the board had a mindset that Oswald did it alone, the assumption was that such tampering was simply not possible so such statements were recorded but essentially ignored. CONSPIRACY THEORISTS The documentary talked about the mood of the public in the United States of America in the 1970s when events like the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal lead to a loss of trust in the government of the country. At this stage a long row of books by conspiracy theorists was shown. The impression being made was that these books were being published simply to exploit the public mood at that time and not worthy of any further consideration. Hundreds of books have been written on the assassination and, as you would expect, the quality of these books varies considerably. However, some of these books have been very well written. The authors have spent years researching the subject and their books are packed with fascinating information. This review has highlighted just some of the important information that the documentary failed to consider. The information has come from books and web sites written by conspiracy theorists. In recent years people with a high level of expertise have written about very specific aspects of the assassination. Experts in photography and cinematography, radiologists, forensic pathologists, physicists and experts in weapons and ballistics have made interesting contributions. As shown in this article, many of these specialists have highlighted serious problems with the lone gunman view of the assassination. However, the documentary made no mention of these people or their work on the assassination. GENERAL CRITICISMS OF THE FILM "JFK" General criticisms were made of Oliver Stone's film "JFK" which seemed to be somewhat hypocritical as the same type of allegations could equally be made against the documentary "Beyond Conspiracy". We were told that because "JFK" was skillfully put together so that the audience was deceived into thinking that it was seeing accurate and undisputed truth. In fact it was seeing the view point of Oliver Stone using lots of "artistic licence". However, "Beyond Conspiracy" was also skillfully put together with old and new film footage, impressive computer graphics, copious amounts of historic information and dozens of interviews. Once again the audience was deceived into thinking it was seeing accurate and undisputed truth. In this case the inaccuracies were minor but the programme presented lots of disputed details as if they were simple undisputed facts. This time it was the viewpoint of the lone gunman theorists that we were seeing. We were told that the film "JFK" takes dramatic licence with several fundamental facts beyond dispute, but what about the fundamental facts beyond dispute that "Beyond Conspiracy" takes dramatic licence with? Here are some examples: As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of FBI reports to show that Jack Ruby was involved in gambling, prostitution and narcotics trafficking in the Dallas area but this documentary stated "In Dallas Ruby achieved a measure of respectability..." Also, it is 'fundamental fact' that the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had a telescopic sight that was badly misaligned. In fact some metal shims had to be put in place to realign the sight before any test firing could be done on the weapon by the authorities. The gun sight could not have been used to aim at Kennedy but the documentary showed a sequence using Myers's computer model which showed assassination from the viewpoint of an assassin on the sixth floor using an accurately aligned scope with four times magnification. This is "dramatic licence" which makes the shooting appear easier than it really would have been. The documentary was discussing the murder of Officer Tippit and it showed his car door being dusted for finger prints where witnesses had seen the killer place his hands as he spoke through the side window to Tippit. This helped give the impression that efficient police work was building up the 'iron clad' case against Oswald. The 'fundamental fact' that these prints were found NOT to be those of Lee Harvey Oswald was not mentioned. We were told that the film "JFK" had put certain myths into the American bloodstream. However, I would say that "Beyond Conspiracy" has now put certain myths into the American and British bloodstreams. These include:- The myth that a 3D computer model of the assassination "proves" that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. The myth that the case against Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit is "iron clad”. The myth that the idea of 3 shots fired in less than 6 seconds was invented by conspiracy theorists. The myth that conspiracy theorists do not believe that Oswald could have fired 3 shots in 8.3 seconds. The myth that there was no underlying basis to the Garrison Case against Clay Shaw. The myth that people who believe in the idea of a conspiracy are misguided film makers, young people who watch 'JFK' and believe everything they see or else they are book writers using the mood in the country at a particular time to sell books of no worth. Certainly the film JFK had its faults but was this documentary really any better? CONCLUSIONS In theory this documentary should have been very good. The programme had been extensively researched and a great deal of factual information was compiled and was well presented. Numerous interviews were carried out involving people close to events in 1963 as well as various experts giving their opinions. Plenty of film footage of past events was presented and the Dale Myers 3D computer model looked very impressive. However, inspire of the slick and impressive presentation the documentary was a superficial and totally inadequate examination of the assassination of President Kennedy. Some issues were dealt with inadequately, for example: - The background of Jack Ruby. - The evidence for Mafia involvement. - The case against Clay Shaw. - The incident when Oswald was passing out pro Castro leaflets in New Orleans. - The simple physical evidence that incriminates Oswald in the murder of the President. Other issues were dealt with inadequately to the point of crassness, for example: - The Warren Commission did a good job because a couple of men who worked for the Commission say so. - Oswald definitely killed Officer Tippit because Gerald Posner says so. There were some highly controversial issues which were dealt with as if no controversy existed, for example: - The Edwin Walker incident. - The visit to Mexico City. - The sixth floor evidence that implicates Oswald. - The work of Dr Vincent Guinn. - The location of the entrance wound on the head of Kennedy and some very important issues were not discussed at all by this documentary, for example: - How good a job did the police and FBI do with the investigation of the crime? - Did certain individuals know the assassination was going to take place before it happened? - Did Oswald have links to the CIA? - Was the CIA involved in the assassination? - Was Oswald was being impersonated? - Was autopsy evidence tampered with? - Was the Zapruder film tampered with? The documentary made use of the Myers 3D computer model of the assassination but the conclusions being made went beyond the data available. The Warren Commission's favoured position was that 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. The modern, official view is that 3 shots were fired in 8.3 seconds. This documentary confused criticisms of the former with criticisms of the latter. The impression given was that conspiracy theorists had made a great error over this matter when, in fact, it was the Warren Commission that made the error. The documentary did not allow conspiracy theorists to put forward their point of view (except for 13 seconds when Robert Blakey was speaking) and remained biased throughout the whole programme. The documentary gave the false impression that conspiracy theorists were either unscrupulous film makers, young people who watched the film 'JFK' and believed everything that they saw or else book writers who were exploiting the mood in the country at a particular time to sell books which were of no worth. Derogatory comments were made against Lee Harvey Oswald, Jim Garrison, the "JFK" film and people that believe in the idea of conspiracy. There was nobody to reply on their behalf. All these faults and yet the documentary still appeared to be much better than it really was. To understand why this happened we need to look at documentaries in general: TV documentaries can use one of two methods to search for the truth about a subject. Firstly, they can try to use a scientific approach or, secondly, they can use an adversarial approach. The search for the truth using a scientific approach is generally carried out by persons who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the search and they are mandated to look at all the evidence. Both the evidence that supports and refutes the hypotheses under consideration must be weighed impartially. Scientific reports are generally conservative documents that reflect a careful weighing of all the data with conclusions that do not go beyond the data; assumptions not well supported by data are avoided. The search for truth using using an adversarial approach should involve two adversarial sides and a judge. Each adversarial side states debatable assumptions as fact and then makes the best possible case they can to "prove" that their assumptions are the "true" ones. They have a vested interest in the outcome and are only obliged to consider the evidence that supports their case, leaving the other side to give contrary data. Efforts to discredit the other side are fair game and the expected behaviour in courts of law. The other side is allowed to challenge efforts to discredit them and they make counter claims in return. The "truth" is arrived at by the judge, who does not have a vested interest in the outcome and who impartially compares the cases made by the two sides. The problem with the documentary "Beyond conspiracy" was that it tried to give the impression that it was using a scientific approach to look at the assassination of President Kennedy when in fact it was using an adversarial approach with the viewing pubic as the judge. However, the approach was deeply flawed because only one adversarial side was presenting its case. Only the side that believes that Oswald was the lone assassin was allowed to make a case in the documentary. This side was free to promote assumptions that went beyond the available data, to present debatable beliefs as undisputed truths and to make derogatory statements against whoever they liked without fear of contradiction. There was no other side to defend the pro-conspiracy camp against the attacks being made on it or to put forward the case for conspiracy. Using an adversarial approach with only adversaries for one side meant that any conclusions reached were bound to be suspect. The programme relied on most of the viewing public not knowing enough about the subject to realise what was happening. The use of amazing computer graphics, selective references to scientific work on the assassination and an impressive array of experts tricked the public into thinking they were seeing a scientific approach to the assassination when in fact they were seeing a highly flawed adversarial approach. The result was that what should have been a very good documentary was in reality a very bad documentary that came nowhere near to telling us "what really happened in Dealey Plaza on November the 22nd 1963." ..AND THE REST IS HISTORY The programme finished in Dealey Plaza with the narrator firmly restating the conclusions of the Warren Commission. His last words were "...and the rest, of course, is history." Those who study history do well to remember that it is the winning side that gets to write the history. When I saw this documentary I felt like I was watching the winning side making sure that it would get to write the history of the assassination of President John F Kennedy. REFERENCES THE 3D COMPUTER SIMULATION "Secrets of a Homicide: The JFK Assassination" The Dale K Myers web site. "Hasty Judgement: A Reply to Gerald Posner" from the "JFK Assassination Web Site" by Michael T Griffith( notes about reaction time on Zapruder film ) THE SHOOTING OF POLICE OFFICER J D TIPPIT "Did Markham Identify Oswald as Tippit's killer?" from "JFK Assassination Web Page" by Michael T Griffith. THE LIFE HISTORY OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD Plausible Denial by Mark Lane: Thunder's Mouth Press 1991 Page 70( Marina's comments about Oswald's biographer ) "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs: Pocket Books 1993 page 101( about joining the Marines ) "Hasty Judgment: A reply to Gerald Posner - why the JFK case is not closed" from the "JFK Assassination Webb Page" by Michael T Griffith.( about associations with the CIA ) THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF EDWIN WALKER "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs: Pocket Books 1993 page 262 "The Kennedy Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers 1989 edition Warner Books page 163 and page 421 "Notes for a new investigation" Web page by Silvia Meagher PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD "Hasty Judgment: A reply to Gerald Posner - why the JFK case is not closed" for the "JFK Assassination Web Page" by Michael T Griffith. (positive comments made by people about Oswald) THE VISIT TO MEXICO CITY Hoover's phone call to Johnson: The transcript of the conversation was among the classified documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board. Plausible Denial by Mark Lane: Thunder's Mouth Press 1991 Page 82 (Comments made by David Atlee Phillips) A HAPPENSTANCE OF HISTORY - JUST THE ONE? Plausible Denial by Mark Lane: Thunder's Mouth Press 1991 Introduction page XV (112th Military Intelligence group) ROBERT OSWALD "Harvey and Lee 1997 the research of John Armstrong" by Jerry Robertson JACOB RUBINSTEIN A.K.A. JACK RUBY "Beyond Conspiracy" The Question of Conspiracy Warner Home Video. 1992 Embassy International Pictures WAS THE MAFIA INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION? "Just the facts: Established facts about the JFK assassination that point to conspiracy." From the "JFK Assassination Web Page" by Michael T Griffith ( Carlos Marcello ) "The Mafia Killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 page 38 ( Johnny Roselli ) RUBY'S LINKS TO THE MAFIA - EVIDENCE IGNORNED "Bound by honour: a Mafioso's story" New York: St. Martin's Press 1999 p.110 "Double Cross" by Sam and Chuck Giancana Warner Books 1992 pages 433 to 436 "The Mafia Killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 "The HSCA on Jack Ruby's Mafia Links" from the "JFK Assassination Web Site" by Michael T Griffith( regarding Joe Campisi ) RUBY'S GUN RUNNING ACTIVITIES "Jack Ruby's Cuban Connection" - Chapter 5 of the book "The Mafia killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 RUBY'S ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES IN DALLAS "Jack Ruby's Criminal Activities" - Chapter 8 of the book "The Mafia killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 RUBY AND THE KILLING OF OSWALD Crossfire by Jim Marrs: Pocket Books 1993 page 423( Ruby reacts to the news of Oswald's death ) "The Mafia killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 Chapters 12 and 13 RUBY'S KILLING OF OSWALD - AN UNPLANNED HAPPENSTANCE? "The Mafia killed President Kennedy" by David E Scheim published by W H Allen 1988 Chapters 12 and 13 SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "Kennedy Assassination Web Page" Chapter III by Edward C Dorsch, Jr 1999 "The paper bag that never was" by Edited April 6, 2008 by Tony Austin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 (edited) Great job, Tony. You should put it up on the History Channel Forum. Does the international version use Peter Jennings as well? To me, his involvement is one of the worst things about the program. To take the man who read America the news every night for 30 years--a man who was trusted by millions for "telling it like it is"--and have him present such a one-sided mean-spirited piece of garbage was a great disservice. As stated in an earlier thread, I suspect Jennings came up with the idea for the program himself. If, however, Operation Mockingbird is alve and well, Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet would be two programs that one should certainly suspect. Both programs were big-budgeted deliberate LIES which sought to convert viewers through dishonest manipulations of the evidence. On such a controversial subject, a network would only have green-lighted these programs if they were told the conclusions in advance. Which brings up the question: why are networks ONLY interested in presenting the case against conspiracy? On the 30th anniversary, if I remember correctly, the programs were much more balanced. What has happened in the last ten years to make the media so antagonistic towards the belief in conspiracy? I find it hard to believe it's that Posner and Myers have been so convincing... Edited July 17, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 Great job, Tony. You should put it up on the History Channel Forum. Does the international version use Peter Jennings as well? To me, his involvement is one of the worst things about the program. To take the man who read America the news every night for 30 years--a man who was trusted by millions for "telling it like it is"--and have him present such a one-sided mean-spirited piece of garbage was a great disservice. As stated in an earlier thread, I suspect Jennings came up with the idea for the program himself. If, however, Operation Mockingbird is alve and well, Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet would be two programs that one should certainly suspect. Both programs were big-budgeted deliberate LIES which sought to convert viewers through dishonest manipulations of the evidence. On such a controversial subject, a network would only have green-lighted these programs if they were told the conclusions in advance. Which brings up the question: why are networks ONLY interested in presenting the case for conspiracy? On the 30th anniversary, if I remember correctly, the programs were much more balanced. What has happened in the last ten years to make the media so antagonistic towards the belief in conspiracy? I find it hard to believe it's that Posner and Myers have been so convincing... Thank you for your comments Pat, I would be happy to put my review on the History Channel Forum but at the moment I don't have the information on how to contact them. I agree with your comments about Peter Jennings. Here in Britain the documentary was shown around the time of the 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's death. First of all the BBC2 symbol appeared ( BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation 2 - one of the main channels watched in Britain ) and an announcer said that the next programme looks at the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. The documentary then started and the voice of a British narrator came in and was used throughout the whole programme. The voice of Peter Jennings was not heard in this version. Gavin Esler was the narrator, he is well know as the main presenter of the programme "Newsnight" a well respected current affairs programme that has been running for many years in this country. He also often does background commentry for many BBC documentaries. In other words, the impression given to the viewing public was that they were seeing a BBC made documentary on the assassination. The BBC is generally well respected for making well researched, well made and highly informative documentaries. It generally tries to avoid being biased when handling controversial issues and usually makes sure the advocates of differing points of view get to present their views on the matter in the programme. I was shocked to find that the BBC was showing one of the most biased, one sided documentaries ever made for television and, not only that, it was doing it in a way which made this documentary appear to be made by the BBC when in fact it was an American documentary. It appears that people engaged in anti-conspiracy propaganda and misinformation are still very active and strong. Their influence stretches right over the Atlantic Ocean ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I still have not seen this piece of garbage in its entirety. (I do have it on tape). Before it aired I was involved with several other researchers, in an effort spearheaded by Jim DiEugenio to take out as many ads as possible, warning people of this piece of disinformation in advance. I was able to watch about 15 minutes while being revolted by the Dale Myers piece. I thought it was the biggest piece of disinformation I had ever seen. It really goes to show just how far the networks will go to distort the truth on this case. Jennings became just like Dan Rather to me after that evening. For sometime there was a running commentary at a History channel website on the censorship of the Men Who Killed Kennedy. A lot of the posts were in opposition to HCs executive decision to cater to the LBJ cover-up artists. Shame on them! Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 I still have not seen this piece of garbage in its entirety. (I do have it on tape). Before it aired I was involved with several other researchers, in an effort spearheaded by Jim DiEugenio to take out as many ads as possible, warning people of this piece of disinformation in advance. I was able to watch about 15 minutes while being revolted by the Dale Myers piece. I thought it was the biggest piece of disinformation I had ever seen. It really goes to show just how far the networks will go to distort the truth on this case. Jennings became just like Dan Rather to me after that evening. For sometime there was a running commentary at a History channel website on the censorship of the Men Who Killed Kennedy. A lot of the posts were in opposition to HCs executive decision to cater to the LBJ cover-up artists. Shame on them! Dawn I was interested to hear of your efforts to alert the American public to the fact that they were going to be shown a documentary of such a biased nature that it could, quite rightly, be described as disinformation. Sadly, the British public did not get any such warnings and I am sure that many of them were taken in by the documentary. I know that members of the Dealey Plaza UK group wrote letters of complaint to the BBC but they never received any reply. I would recommend that you get your tape out and watch "Beyond Conspiracy" I know it is so bad that it is painful to watch. However, it shows the art of propaganda and disinformation at its very best. In this respect it is very educational. It also shows us which areas of the assassination the "lone gunman theorists" believe they have the information that proves beyond any reasonable doubt the Oswald was the lone assassin. This is useful to know if you are someone who actively promotes the alternative view point. You can then always have your information which counters their assertions at the ready! Best Wishes Tony Austin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If there's a hell, maybe Jennings is in it. Right now he may be trying to wrangle an interview with LBJ, who's running the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Cheslock Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If there's a hell, maybe Jennings is in it. Right now he may be trying to wrangle an interview with LBJ, who's running the place. Ron It seems to me that a major network in the U.S. has to have a handle on the assassination and what is said about it on the air. For years, CBS's Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather were the keepers of the propaganda that was dispensed. Then, it seems that ABC took over the responsibility with Peter Jennings as the new henchman, replacing Rather. I'm now wondering who the new keeper of the propaganda machine will be for the U.S. networks. Katie Kouric is moving to CBS, but I don't think she will be the one. My hunch is that Brian Williams will now emerge to be the heavy to remind the American people that there was a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot JFK. Bill C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Peter Jennings propaganda "Beyond Conspiracy" is on The History Channel.http://www.historychannel.com/global/listi...4&page=listings EDIT: Well, I guess you can watch half of it... I came to it right in the middle and didn't realize that it was two hours long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Tony, have you seen this? Send me an email if you want to read the full article. Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. ABSTRACT: The bullet evidence in the JFK assassination investigation was reexamined from metallurgical and statistical standpoints. The questioned specimens are comprised of soft lead, possibly from full-metal-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano (MC), 6.5-mm ammunition. During lead refining, contaminant elements are removed to specified levels for a desired alloy or composition. Microsegregation of trace and minor elements during lead casting and processing can account for the experimental variabilities measured in various evidentiary and comparison samples by laboratory analysts. Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. Alternate statistical calculations, based on the historic analytical data, incorporating weighted averaging and propagation of experimental uncertainties also considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory. In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...29.2006.00165.x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 Tony, have you seen this? Send me an email if you want to read the full article. Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. ABSTRACT: The bullet evidence in the JFK assassination investigation was reexamined from metallurgical and statistical standpoints. The questioned specimens are comprised of soft lead, possibly from full-metal-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano (MC), 6.5-mm ammunition. During lead refining, contaminant elements are removed to specified levels for a desired alloy or composition. Microsegregation of trace and minor elements during lead casting and processing can account for the experimental variabilities measured in various evidentiary and comparison samples by laboratory analysts. Thus, elevated concentrations of antimony and copper at crystallographic grain boundaries, the widely varying sizes of grains in MC bullet lead, and the 5–60 mg bullet samples analyzed for assassination intelligence effectively resulted in operational sampling error for the analyses. This deficiency was not considered in the original data interpretation and resulted in an invalid conclusion in favor of the single-bullet theory of the assassination. Alternate statistical calculations, based on the historic analytical data, incorporating weighted averaging and propagation of experimental uncertainties also considerably weaken support for the single-bullet theory. In effect, this assessment of the material composition of the lead specimens from the assassination concludes that the extant evidence is consistent with any number between two and five rounds fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...29.2006.00165.x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Austin Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 Thanks John, this work looks really interesteing. Good science always stands the test of time. Looking at the work of Vincent Guinn (on the stretcher bullet and wrist fragments) I do not see it as being science that is standing up well to the test of time. I would be interested in seeing the full article. I am working on a new article which I hope to finish soon. I think it will cause a stir. Watch this space.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now