A few years ago, an outfit called "Conspiratus Ubiquitus" produced a
10-hour, 6-part video documentary entitled "Evidence Of Revision: The Assassination Of America".
At YouTube, I recently took a look at Part 1 of the program, which
focuses on the assassination of President Kennedy while relying
heavily on the use of archival news footage from November of 1963.
And after just a very few minutes, I could tell that my initial suspicions
about this documentary were going to be accurate -- it is a shameless
propaganda piece, IMO, designed to sway the thinking of people who
have not studied the evidence in the case in any depth at all, and to
also mold the thinking of individuals who have not seen all of the
uncut, as-it-was-happening network television coverage from the day
of John F. Kennedy's murder (November 22, 1963).
The point at which I knew my initial suspicions about the program had
been confirmed beyond all doubt is the point when we see some TV
footage from the morning of 11/22/63 at the Chamber of Commerce
breakfast in Fort Worth.
At one point during this Fort Worth footage, the television announcer
tells the viewing audience all about the circumstances surrounding the
1901 assassination of President William McKinley.
And just before the announcer begins talking about McKinley's
assassination, these words are flashed on the screen by the
documentary filmmakers --- "Preparing The Public Mind....A
Pause....Then He Begins To Read...."
Now, I can't see any other way to interpret those words than this way:
The documentary filmmakers were actually suggesting that the TV
announcer's comments about President McKinley's assassination were
part of some kind of plot or conspiracy in order to "prepare the
public" for the so-called "cover story" about Lee Harvey Oswald being
the lone gunman in the assassination of President Kennedy, which is an
assassination that would be taking place later that day.
What other conclusion could I possibly come to after reading the
filmmaker's caption -- "Preparing The Public Mind" -- on the screen at
that precise moment?
But to imply that the TV announcer had advance knowledge of JFK's
assassination (which was still more than three hours away when he made
those comments to the television audience about McKinley's murder) is
simply reprehensible and completely irresponsible on the part of the
Now, maybe the filmmakers had some other "innocent" reason or motive
for placing those words ("Preparing The Public Mind") on the screen at
that exact moment when McKinley's assassination was being discussed,
but I certainly cannot think of any other reason for doing it--other
than to embed in the minds of the viewers something that is totally
ludicrous and ridiculous -- i.e., the notion that the TV announcer (or
someone connected with the television coverage that aired live on the
morning of 11/22/63 from Fort Worth's Hotel Texas) had some kind of
advance information that the President was going to be killed later
And then a little later in the documentary I saw former Dallas Deputy
Sheriff Roger D. Craig pop up on the screen (via several clips taken
from Mark Lane's video "Two Men In Dallas"). At that point, my opinion
about this particular documentary went downhill even more (a lot
Because for anyone to place any faith whatsoever in what Roger Craig
had to say about anything connected to the events of 11/22/63 is to
place your faith in a known and provable liar. And he lied about some
pretty important stuff in Mark Lane's "Two Men In Dallas" video, too.
No question about it.
Craig's biggest lie, of course, was when he said he saw the words
"7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that was found on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository. The rifle that was found was actually Lee
Harvey Oswald's 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, of course. And several
rifle experts agree that the rifle being handled by Dallas Police
Lieutenant J.C. Day, as seen in the film taken by WFAA-TV cameraman
Tom Alyea just after the rifle was first discovered, is indeed a
Mannlicher-Carcano, not a German-made Mauser [see photos below from
Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" lie is so blatant, and so outrageous, that
for any reasonable person to believe anything else uttered by Deputy
Craig would be for that person to admit that he was taking the
word of a known liar at face value.
And the proof that Craig lied about the rifle is available in Roger Craig's
very own words, in the form of a 1968 interview he had with the
Los Angeles Free Press, wherein he stated he had no idea what type
of rifle had been found on the sixth floor of the Depository. HERE is
"Evidence Of Revision" does exactly what many conspiracy theorists
accuse the various "lone assassin" documentaries of doing -- it picks
and chooses its content very carefully, so that it conveniently leaves
on the cutting room floor the many, many hours worth of network
television coverage from November 1963 that vividly illustrate exactly
the OPPOSITE conclusion from the one that the "Revision" filmmakers
wish to convey.
From a video or audio standpoint, the best way to get a clear and
unbiased view of the facts surrounding JFK's tragic murder, in my
opinion, is to not rely on any single documentary film or video, but
instead take the time to watch (or listen to) all of the UNCUT and
UNEDITED television and radio footage that exists from the day
President Kennedy was shot and killed.
And when watching the uncut TV/radio coverage (much of which is
available at the link directly above), in combination with the
knowledge that ALL of the physical evidence that exists in connection
with the murders of both JFK and police officer J.D. Tippit points to
only one person (Lee Harvey Oswald), the overall picture of the true
events of that day becomes quite clear -- namely that the assassination
of John Kennedy was an assassination carried out by ONE PERSON
(Oswald) who fired THREE SHOTS from a single weapon coming from
ONE LOCATION (the Texas School Book Depository).
Anything else is just pure speculation (and, in the case of many
things uttered by Roger D. Craig, are just flat-out lies).
I have not watched the other five parts of the 6-part documentary
(which all deal with things other than the JFK assassination), but if
Parts 2 through 6 are anything like Part 1, I'd wager to say that
"Evidence Of Revision", in its entirety, is pretty much worthless.
David Von Pein
May 23, 2010