Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[James DiEugenio]

I totally agree with that Michael.

There is an upcoming article at CTKA by a Canadian professor which will show how this MSM cover up extends to those who write the history books for high school students.

And how these authors simply accept the MSM verdict and their anointed authors. Doing new research on their own.''Thereby closing the circle of propaganda..

[Pat Speer]

I put the Feinman/CBS jpgs that I had up on my website. Most of them are pretty blurry. Here's one in which Midgely discusses CBS' putting the Warren Report on trial. This was written in December 1966. Within a few weeks John McCloy had come on board and the focus had changed to putting the critics of the Warren Report on trial.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Here, also are two pages of John McCloy's notes in which he responds to CBS' questions about the performance of the WC. (You might need a magnifier to read them.) He writes, intriguingly, that the truth of the case is not found in the scientific evidence but in Oswald's life. Well, this was pretty backward, in my opinion. One doesn't determine guilt based on whether or not the prosecution successfully makes the accused seem like the kind of guy who might do something bad, but on whether or not the evidence suggests he did the act for which he is accused.

[Pat Speer]

CBS hasn't changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, David. I realized that I hadn't watched the 1993 special and decided to give it a look. Holy moly. It wasn't too terrible until it devolved into a Rather/Posner lovefest. At one point, Rather discusses the Luis Alvarez blur analysis of the Zapruder film performed for CBS in 1967 and claims "The first blur happens precisely when Posner says Oswald got off the first shot, supporting the theory that Oswald had more time to get off three shots, not the far more difficult 5 1/2 seconds estimated by the Warren Commission."

Was he telling the truth?

[Tom Neal]

DELETED POST

Edited April 12, 2016 by Tom Neal

[David Von Pein]

It'd be nice if people would stop misrepresenting what the WC said. Even CBS kept saying the Commission had locked itself into a 5.6-second shooting timeline....even with Page 111 of the WCR staring them in the face, which has these words printed on it:

"The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm

Edited April 12, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Its interesting to speculate, who got McCloy involved initially?

Was it Salant? It sure looks that way doesn't it?

Espeicailly, since his daughter worked for him.

Midgley's memo above looks pretty interesting. That would have made the basis of a very good show.

McCloy put the clamps on it pretty fast.

Edited April 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

It'd be nice if people would stop misrepresenting what the WC said. Even CBS kept saying the Commission had locked itself into a 5.6-second shooting timeline....even with Page 111 of the WCR staring them in the face, which has these words printed on it:

"The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm

While the WC gave itself an out, so to speak, and said the first shot might have missed, everyone in the media "knew" from the eyewitness accounts they'd taken and repeated that the first shot did not miss.

But that's besides the point. Rather said ""The first blur happens precisely when Posner says Oswald got off the first shot, supporting the theory that Oswald had more time to get off three shots..."

Was he telling the truth? No. He was spewing a 100% falsehood to prop up Posner and help sell that Oswald had more time to make the shots than previously believed. The first blur discussed in the 1967 special was at Z-190. Posner said the first shot was at Z-160, and that the HSCA was wrong when it said there was a shot at Z-190. The blur analysis was at odds with Posner's scenario. And Rather, rather than telling this to his viewers, said the opposite.

[James DiEugenio]

In light of what Roger got out of CBS, Rather's closing comments in 1993 are risible.

He actually says that many reporters would like to uncover something to contravene the Warren Report, but in spite of many years of trying etc etc.

LOL

The trying at CBS consisted of Midgley's memo proposal. Then McCloy clamped it down. Then Salant sent Midlgey and Manning to California and the two corporate lawyers said, words to the effect, this could have political implications and we must protect the national interest. In other words, it never got out of the box.

Dan also seems to have forgotten about his Humes interview in 1967 when the Justice Department sent CBS a memo outlining it in advance.

He also seems to have forgotten about the Humes' malleable probe x ray which disappeared, and the fact Humes admitted that his autopsy practice was limited that night on orders from above, but not RFK.

IN other words, CBS did uncover things that contravened the WC, but they never got on the air.

Edited April 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

I remember in my incredibly naive youth feeling sorry for the Russian people because they had such a government-controlled media (Pravda and Tass) that wouldn't tell them the truth. Anybody want to join me for a stiff shot of vodka?

[James DiEugenio]

[Ray Mitcham]

I remember in my incredibly naive youth feeling sorry for the Russian people because they had such a government-controlled media (Pravda and Tass) that wouldn't tell them the truth. Anybody want to join me for a stiff shot of vodka?

The difference, Ron, is that in Russia the government ran the papers. In the US, it's the papers that run the government.

I'll have mine with a dash of tonic and a slice of lime.

[James DiEugenio]

Grey Goose or Stoli's?

Edited April 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

The brand doesn't matter. I just chugalug it from the bottle. The question is what to chase it with.

[James DiEugenio]

Looking back at Rather's sign off on the 1993 show, he actually then says that the WR conclusions have passed the test of time.

Now recall, this is still in the wake of Stone's JFK, when the percentage of disbelief was way up there. So what the heck is he talking about?

But then it gets worse. He then says that there is no proof and little evidence of any conspiracy in the case.

Well, when you are making millions of dollars a year, you will say those kinds of things. And your nose will not grow.

The capper is when he says that the physical evidence and the facts point to one man, Oswald. And anything else is nothing but speculation based on imagination ruled by those who hear things that are not there and see things that are not visible.

OK Dan, now go back and reinsert the stuff you cut out, like Wyckoff telling you that there were really four jiggles in the Z film and not three. And then have him explain the fourth one by the sound of a siren. Then ask him this question:

"But sir, what siren could you hear on the Zapruder film? Its silent."

An honest answer would be: "But that is what DIck Salant wanted me to say when I told him Alvarez was wrong."

Edited April 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio