JFK-Related Video & Audio Programs

[Michael Hogan]

I guess Mike Hogan actually thinks that 100+ people answered "One Man" in 2003 without even knowing who the "one man" was. They just said "one man" for the hell of it.

Mike, you're a hoot. Have another cookie. You deserve it after your stellar Gallup interpretation.

I knew it was over your head David. I posted it for the benefit of other members.

Next time try using a primary source and actually read what it says, rather than a secondary source that is incomplete.

And try repeating what the source actually states, rather than what you would like it to say.

On second thought, never mind. You're doing a fine job of demonstrating there had to be a conspiracy.

My neighbor's dog said that was one lightweight cookie.

[David Von Pein]

I didn't even look at the poll, the fact thats it's a smaller percentage makes it that much more crazy that DVP points to that as backing up his LNer views.

I said no such thing, Dean. Nor did I ever imply that LNers were even close to being in the majority.

My earlier post was to merely point out that Jim DiEugenio is dead wrong when he has implied in the past (and he has done so on multiple occasions) that VB, McAdams, Bugliosi, Hanks, and Von Pein are pretty much the only people on the planet who accept the "lone assassin" findings of the Warren Commission.

That's simply not true. And not even close to being true. Out of the 533 Gallup respondents in 2003 alone, somewhere between 100 and 106 people said they think that "one man" and only "one man" was responsible for JFK's murder. (And, quite obviously, that one man is Oswald.)

Extrapolate and multiply that 100+ figure by the entire adult population of the USA, and you can see that the number of LNers in the country as a whole (as of Nov. 2003) would certainly equal tens of millions of people.

DiEugenio would have us believe, however, that there are probably about a dozen LNers worldwide. Silly Jim.

And the silliness of Jimbo's Anybody But Oswald position is far greater when we examine the ABC News poll from 2003.....with a mere 7% of 1,031 respondents saying that they believed Oswald was not involved as a gunman in Kennedy's death:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?".....

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%

ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%

OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%

NO OPINION ------------- 10%

Edited October 11, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

VIA ANOTHER JFK FORUM (FROM APRIL 2009):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Per a 2003 ABC poll (which included twice the number of respondents

than the Gallup Poll), only 7% of people asked thought that Oswald was

completely innocent (i.e., only 7 of every 100 think that Oswald

didn't fire a shot at JFK).

Compared to the paranoid fringe that appear on Internet sites, that's

quite a difference. Because probably better than 85% of those paranoid

kooks seem to think Oswald never fired a shot.

2003 poll:

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

David, your interpretation of the poll results is incorrect, and

reflects an obvious bias. Although only 7% of conspiracy theorists

thought that Oswald was "not involved"[,] that by no means means the

rest thought he was a shooter. The majority of conspiracy theorists

believe he was involved on some level; some believe he was a lookout,

others believe he was infiltrating the plot on behalf of an

intelligence organization. Only a minority believe he fired a shot at

Kennedy.

DVP THEN SAID:

Yes, it does mean exactly that...because of the specific way ABC News

worded that particular question.

Better look again. 83% of the 1,031 people polled think Oswald was

definitely firing a gun at JFK via that "gunman" polling question:

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID:

As usual, David is right and you [Pat Speer] are wrong.

Question, ABC news poll, November 5-9th, 2003.

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?"

Only Oswald - 32% (All of them CIA, presumably - NSR)

Another Gunman - 52% [it was actually 51%]

Oswald Not Involved - 7%

No Opinion - 10%

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

Plainly, the question is phrased so that people who (are insane enough

to) believe that Oswald was a "lookout" or a "government operative"

but (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald didn´t fire a single

shot, would answer "Oswald not involved". The figure for those who

(are insane enough to) believe Oswald wasn´t involved is clear - an

unlucky seven percent. When it comes to sheer arrogance and pomposity,

patspeer, you take the cake. You owe David an apology and you owe

yourself a reality check - either Oswald was innocent, which goes

against all the evidence, or he acted alone.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Here is the question, David:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?"

By asking whether or not "Oswald was not involved in the assassination

at all" as opposed to the more logical third alternative "Oswald was

not a shooter on 11-22-63"[,] the question becomes blurred. The words

"at all" bit extend way beyond merely shooting.

FWIW: There is a book called "Tainting Evidence" which deals with this

very phenomena--the skewing of poll results via adding bits like "at

all" at the end of the question.

Over the years, I have discussed the Kennedy assassination with at

least 1,000 people beyond those I've met online or at conventions. The

vast majority have no real opinion on the assassination; many saw

[Oliver Stone's] JFK and were half-convinced but then saw the ABC or

the Discovery Channel and were half-convinced, etc. IMO, this

represents the bulk of Americans. Most of them--rightly or wrongly--

have doubts that Oswald could have fired the shots. A large

percentage--perhaps a majority--believe he was involved in some way,

however.

So, bottom line. You are correct to point out that the number of

people thinking Oswald was some innocent guy framed because he was a

leftist is small. But you are totally incorrect if you think the vast

majority of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy.

NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID:

Now now, Pat Speer, it's very simple - David was right, and you were

(once again) wrong. Pompously, arrogantly and stupidly wrong. That's

all there is to it.

Naturally, I didn't really expect you to have the class to apologize

to David, but at the very least, you could have avoided compounding

your stupidity.

Oh well.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Geez, Louise. Let's be CLEAR about this. David and Nick (assuming

they're not the same person--ha) are now BOTH claiming that 93% of

Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. Is this right?

If so, I suggest they both get out a little bit, and talk to people

other than themselves (ha).

DVP THEN SAID:

Again, Pat Speer misses the boat (and point). I was talking about the

SPECIFIC POLL done by ABC News in Nov. 2003.

And that's a poll (whether you like its results or not) that shows,

undeniably, that 83% (not 93%, because 10% had "no opinion" one way or

the other) of the respondents--which numbered 1,031 people, twice the

number of the Gallup Poll, btw--were of the opinion that Lee Harvey

Oswald was firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63.

Live with it, Pat.

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Weak sauce, David. You prop up a poll with misleading data and then

run from it when I ask you to say you believe what it implied.

Once again...It was a flawed poll because it had a flawed question.

Think of it in the reverse. If the same group of people had been asked

if they 1) thought the Warren Commission deliberately misled the

public, or 2) thought the Warren Commission told the truth ABOUT

EVERYTHING, how many do you think could bring themselves to go along

with #2? Almost no one, right?

It is the use of the absolute that steers the vote. Same thing with

the ABC poll. By saying "not involved at all"[,] the pollsters knew

damn well they were steering their subjects in the opposite direction.

DVP THEN SAID:

Pat, you must be totally blind not to recognize that the first two

parts of the question (within that particular 2003 ABC Poll question

being discussed here) have the word "GUNMAN" in them:

1.) "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination."

2.) "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there

that day."

32% of the 1,031 people responding voted for #1 above, while another

51% said #2 was their choice.

Which means, by definition, Pat, that 83% total thought that Oswald

was, indeed, shooting at Kennedy.

You cannot slide by those figures and pretend that that 83% really

didn't understand the question or utilize some other excuse to skew

the plain-as-day figures regarding the "GUNMAN" topic in the JFK

assassination.

The fact is that more than 8 out of every 10 of those respondents said

they thought that Oswald was either the lone gunman in Dallas or that

Oswald was one of the gunmen -- hence, the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" in

the wording of the second part of that particular question.

And since the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" are followed by the words "IN

ADDITION TO OSWALD" in the wording of the poll's question, those

respondents who fall into that "Another Gunman" category are telling

ABC News that Oswald was ONE OF THE GUNMEN they thought were shooting

at President Kennedy.

Get it now, Pat? Or should we dance around this Mulberry bush a few

more times before the obviousness of this whole thing sinks in?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

"BOOGIE KNIGHT" THEN SAID:

Pat, once again proving that a self-taught man has an idiot for both a

teacher and a student, is showing that polling, like other topics such

as "science" and "forensics", is just beyond his grasp.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

I see your point, David, but I assure you that the question is

deceptive.

DVP THEN SAID:

Well, your "assurance" doesn't mean much.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

If asked, point blank, "Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F.

Kennedy?"[,] do you REALLY believe 83% of those asked would say

"yes"[?]"

DVP THEN SAID:

Yes. Absolutely.

But you don't need my opinion on that matter, because we have the

results of just such a "Do You Think LHO Shot JFK?" inquiry in black-

and-white via the ABC News poll from 2003:

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

The "gunman" question in that ABC poll couldn't be any clearer, with

ABC asking those 1,031 people if they thought Oswald was the "ONLY

GUNMAN" or if there was "ANOTHER GUNMAN IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" or if

Oswald was "NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION AT ALL".

I think you're probably confusing the answer you'd get from kooks at

Internet forums like this one with the answer you'd get to that

question from the vast majority of Americans who don't frequent pro-

conspiracy Internet boards.

The Anybody-But-Oswald nuts that are abundant online certainly do not

reflect the thinking of the majority of America.

Probably 85% of the kooks online think Oswald never fired a shot. But,

as the ABC poll demonstrates, the majority of people in the mainstream

who have an opinion on the subject believe Oswald was firing a gun at

JFK.

That doesn't mean, however, that that same mainstream doesn't believe

in a conspiracy, as these numbers from the exact same 2003 ABC News

poll readily suggest:

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man,

or was it part of a broader plot?":

One Man -- 22%

Broader Plot -- 70%

No Opinion -- 8%

Also, let me add this:

You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is

deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this:

If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that

"gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at

all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to

that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with

respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word

"gunman" appearing in both segments)?

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of

those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?

I'll leave you to sort out my last question in your own mind.

Edited October 11, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Michael Hogan]

I didn't even look at the poll, the fact thats it's a smaller percentage makes it that much more crazy that DVP points to that as backing up his LNer views.

I said no such thing, Dean. Nor did I ever imply that LNers were even close to being in the majority.

All David did was misstate what the poll showed and when he was shown to be wrong,

deny it with bad jokes, spam, and responses that bore no relation to his mistake.

Par for the course with David.

[Steve Duffy]

So, were onto middling statistics. When 10% of people in a poll have no opinion, my first though it, "do they also vote".

Jim, can you let us know a bit more about the update to Davis's book? I'm close to ordering the original, but if an expanded version comes along, all the better!

Thanks.

[William Kelly]

Alright, here goes.

The URL for ctka is ctka.net

This is a link to Bill Kelly's new article on Mr.Leventhal, the State Department guy who runs the "disinformation clearinghouse" on conspiracies for the government.

His guidepost for the JFK case? Reclaiming History.

http://ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

Davdi Mantik's related article on Obama's buddy Cass Sunstein's piece telling the government to "cognitively infiltrate" conspiracy sites.

http://ctka.net/2010...k_sunstein.html

My update of Ray Marcus' classic monograph entitled The Bastard Bullet, which traces the incredible one day journey of whatever bullet was found at Parkland. It was not CE 399.

http://ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

What I consider the top five books on the RFK case

http://ctka.net/revi...fk_top_bks.html

What I consider the top five books on the MLK case

http://ctka.net/revi...lk_top_bks.html

Some upcoming articles and reviews: David Mantik on the work of Doug Horne and Don Thomas, Gary Aguilar on Doug Horne, Joe Green on Philip Nelson's book on LBJ, Martin Hay on the book Head Shot, David Williams on Robert Oswald, Jim DiEugenio's two concluding installments on Reclaiming History, an excerpt from Mitchell Warriner's book on Jim Garrison.

Thanks for posting my article Jim,

And for posting so many other good reserachers and critics of the official party line and reviews of books that cover both sides.

It's a shame DVP doesn't read conspiracy books, or we could have an intelligent conversation with him.

Bill Kelly

Bill

I read the levanthal Piece and now that the page has been suspended maybe he is writing part 2 as we speak informing us how to deal with part 1 The disinformation.I personally find it strange that a government would have such a department and also inform us it has such a department what would Winston Smith have made of this ?.

Ian

For some reason they were nicknamed Memory Holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somehwere in the recesses of the building.....with a movment which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to the flames. What happened in the unseen labryinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as allthe corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the TImes had been assembeled and collated, that number could be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed in the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivable hold any political or ideological significance.

It struck me as curious that you could create dead men but not living ones...and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, he sould exist just as authenticaly, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar....What most afficted him with the sense of nightmare was that he had never fully understood why the huge imposture was undertaken. The immediate advantages of falsifying the past were obvious, but the ultimate motive was mysterious.

At one time it had been a sign of madness to believe that the past is unalberable. He might be alone in holding that belief...but the thought of being a lunatic did not greatly trouble him; the horror was that he might also be wrong.

- George Orwell

In response to a HSCA request for the accused assassin's military file, The Department of Defense replied:

1. Dossier AB 652876 Oswald, Lee Harvey, was identified for deletion from IRR (Intelligence Recordes and Reports) holdings on Julian date 73060 (1 Mrach 1973) as stamped on the microfilmed dossier cover. It was not possible to determine the actual date when physical destruction was acomplished, but is credibly surmised that the destruction ws accomplished within a period not greater than 60 days following the identification for deletion....

2. It was not possible to determine who accomplished the actual physcial desctrution of the dossier...

3. The exact material contained in the dossier cannot be determined at this time.

4. ...It was not until 1975 that the archivist changed the criteria to ensure non-destruction of investigative records that may be of historical value.....