Ron Ecker Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 I see that CNN is running an original HLN documentary series on “How It Really Happened,” covering some of the most notorious crimes and mysteries of our time. Now why do you suppose this series could go on for four seasons without even touching on how the JFK assassination, arguably the most notorious crime of the 20th century, really happened? That should have been the first episode of Season 1, don’t you think? They should at least include an episode explaining why the JFK assassination is not included in "How It Really Happened." The episode could be titled, "Do You Think We're Crazy?" https://www.cnn.com/shows/how-it-really-happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Blackmon Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 They don't want to stir up anything. Gotta keep the millennials and other young folks ignorant about the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said: They don't want to stir up anything. Gotta keep the millennials and other young folks ignorant about the facts. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 10 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said: Agree. I don't agree, actually. For the 50th anniversary, CNN created a proud Oswald-did-it program, in conjunction with Tom Hanks' production company, which had bought the rights to Bugliosi's book. They ran this program multiple times. Over the course of the next year, this program was edited down to an hour, and broadcast over and over again as part of a series of programs on the sixties, if I recall. It has been shown many times since. In any event, CNN is not remotely afraid of stirring things up. It's just that in this case, they probably figure there's nothing new worth reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: It's just that in this case, they probably figure there's nothing new worth reporting. There's nothing old worth reporting? How often has the old stuff been reported? It's old stuff here, but what does that mean out there? How much is new about the stuff the series has covered for four seasons? Is there something new about the Titanic? Oh, but which is more important to this country, the Titanic or Dallas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: There's nothing old worth reporting? How often has the old stuff been reported? It's old stuff here, but what does that mean out there? How much is new about the stuff the series has covered for four seasons? Is there something new about the Titanic? Oh, but which is more important to this country, the Titanic or Dallas? Well, you are correct, in that much of what is discussed on TV is rehash of rehash of rehash. It makes me bonkers when, year after year, they report the same old stuff as opposed to looking for new stuff. My point was that the major networks aren't afraid of the case, because they know they can simply report whatever they want to on the case, much as they have for 60 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: My point was that the major networks aren't afraid of the case, because they know they can simply report whatever they want to on the case, much as they have for 60 years. Well, of course they're not afraid to report the government's version of the case, which they've done over and over. What they're deathly afraid of is to report the truth, even if that means nothing more than a second gunman at least. But no, it was that little Commie rat Oswald, alone. How many times do they have to tell us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: Well, of course they're not afraid to report the government's version of the case, which they've done over and over. What they're deathly afraid of is to report the truth, even if that means nothing more than a second gunman at least. But no, it was that little Commie rat Oswald, alone. How many times do they have to tell us? Repetition of the Big Lie by the mass media. And suppression of the truth. Propaganda 101. The mass media propaganda promoting the 9/11 Myth is even worse, to the extent that the vast majority of Americans are still utterly clueless about the obvious explosive demolitions of the World Trade Center buildings (WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) on 9/11--23 years later! Spike Lee interviewed the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in a recent anniversary documentary about 9/11, and he was, more or less, coerced into deleting his interviews about the scientific evidence proving explosive demolitions of the WTC. I can't imagine that CNN would feature any honest, science-based discussions about "What Really Happened" on 9/11. As Joseph McBride said after the Spike Lee censorship incident, 9/11 is the ultimate "third rail" in American political discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 By ignoring it they are helping relegate it to the dust bin of history. Something not a lot of people pay much attention to. The subject is barely mentioned if at all in high school or most college courses. They're helping smooth it over for future generations. 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