Does The 11/22/63 Television And Radio Coverage Support A Conspiracy?

[Pat Speer]

What do you mean, David? These videos are riddled with information to suggest a conspiracy.

"Riddled"? I beg to differ.

Some early reports mentioned the "knoll", yes. Which is understandable, since many witnesses were tricked by the sounds of Oswald's three shots from the TSBD. But note that NOBODY in the early news footage said they thought shots came from TWO different directions.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

And there was a very early inaccurate report about "a man and a woman" possibly firing a rifle from a "walkway overlooking the underpass". (But does anyone here believe that happened?) And Jim Hagerty, as Kathy pointed out, does go on his network (ABC) and decides to put all of his common sense on hold when he utters the totally irresponsible and unfounded comment about how he thinks "this must have been a planned conspiracy". But Hagerty had no information or hard evidence that would suggest any such thing when he said those words on live TV on 11/22. He just blurted out that crap like a ninny who didn't give a damn about backing up what he was saying. It was nothing more than a completely unwarranted and blatantly irresponsible personal comment coming from one of the head men at ABC (no less).

But when all of the reports are totalled up, it's fairly easy to see that the initial reports and bulletins are referring to a ONE-GUNMAN shooting that takes place from ONE single location (first thought by many to be the Knoll; but the SINGLE location was very quickly amended to the TSBD when other facts became known, such as the discovery of the shells and rifle in the building).

If anyone watches any of the 11/22 first-day coverage and comes away with the sense that up to THREE gunmen were involved and that more than three shots were fired, you must be watching Oliver Stone's film instead. Because there's virtually nothing like that in the hundreds of hours of radio and TV first-day broadcasts that I have collected in the last several years.

Why was it "irresponsible" to say it must have been a conspiracy when the evidence at that time suggested a conspiracy, but was far from conclusive, but not equally "irresponsible" for others to go on and on about "the sniper" or "the assassin" when they had evidence before them indicating shots had come from more than one location?

Wouldn't it be more dangerous for the people to think there had not been a conspiracy, when there had been one, than for them to think there had been a conspiracy, when there had not?

Or, did the media, much as the new president, think the American people so stupid and impulsive they couldn't handle the possibility of a conspiracy without starting WWIII?

[David Von Pein]

Why was it "irresponsible" to say it must have been a conspiracy when the evidence at that time suggested a conspiracy, but was far from conclusive, but not equally "irresponsible" for others to go on and on about "the sniper" or "the assassin" when they had evidence before them indicating shots had come from more than one location?

What evidence? There is none. And was none. There were some erroneous early witness reports about shots coming from the "Knoll", yes. But very early on in the TV and radio coverage, those "Knoll" reports were completely absorbed and overtaken by THE TRUTH of the situation---i.e., the shots had really come from "the building" (the TSBD).

And, btw, when Hagerty made his "It must have been a conspiracy" comment on ABC, he also (at the same time) talked about the SINGLE SHOOTER firing shots which had a long "carry" from the Book Depository. He was acknowledging (at least in his own mind anyway) the fact that there HAD, in fact, been only one shooter, and that shooter had been in the TSBD, with the fatal shot having a pretty good "carry". Hagerty never says anything about there being a second gunman in Dealey Plaza firing at the President.

Hence, Hagerty told America that the assassin must have been someone "who could handle a rifle". And that comment was one of the main things that led to Hagerty's goofy "it must have been a conspiracy" comment. Just because the assassin was a pretty good shot and could handle a rifle, that fact (per Hagerty) must mean it was a "carefully planned conspiracy".

Say what??!! How silly can you get?

Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein