JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I have just posted the first part of the finest exposé of how a network turned what was supposed to be a fair look at the JFK case into an ugly propaganda piece. And CBS did it in 1967 and 1975.
The chief criminal from these documents is Richard Salant. Working in concert with a secret group inside of CBS called the CNEC. This was set up after Murrow left, so that no individual broadcaster would ever become that powerful again and subject CBS to that kind of pressure.
The CNEC completely altered a proposal by men like Dan Schorr and turned it into a fiasco in every way. This part shows in detail, point by point, how that was done. To my knowledge, no one has ever done anything like this before.
This is owed to the late Roger Feinman. He was the only person at CBS who gave two cents about how the network had prostrated itself before the figure of John McCloy. For that, he was terminated. And because of McCloy, the true facts of JFK's murder were ignored.
Part 2 is on its way....
Why CBS Covered Up The JFK Assassination
JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:
This has just gone up at ctka.net.
It is easily the most in-depth, detailed, compelling examination of how a powerful broadcast network abased and humiliated itself before the figure of John McCloy. And at the same time, completely and utterly adulterated its allegiance to its own code of ethics, while concealing the true facts of the JFK murder.
We all owe a great deal of gratitude to the memory of the late Roger Feinman for this powerful exposé of the American power structure and how it failed to work at a time of stress and pressure. As you read this, note that the people at the lower level, like Schorr, were completely run over by those at the top. And none of these guys screamed. Until Roger did many years later.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Here is Jim DiEugenio's summation of Part 1 of his CBS article:
"We have now seen—in unprecedented detail—how the executive level of CBS completely altered a proposal to present a fair and balanced program about the murder of President Kennedy to the public, and at a very sensitive time in history. Consulting with their lawyers, they decided such a program would not be in "the national interest" and would have "political implications". We have also seen how the president of CBS News secretly brought in a consultant, John McCloy, whose participation was a violation of the standards and practices of the network. We have seen how both McCloy and Salant then lied about this secret back channel, which was never revealed to the public. We have also seen how Gordon Manning and Les Midgley, through a combination of the carrot and stick treatment, were made to go along with the Salant/McCloy, CNEC agenda."
[End Quote.]
How the Nutters can continue their lying ways in the face of evidence such as that presented in the article is beyond belief.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If CBS News was in "cover-up" mode during their 4-part 1967 series, "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (as many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), and if CBS decided NOT to do any kind of a "fair and balanced program" at all, as Jim DiEugenio suggests, then how come interviews with witnesses like Carolyn Walther managed to make it to the TV screen during that CBS documentary?
Walther said she saw TWO men in the Sniper's Nest just before the shooting (see video below). So, if she's correct, there's your conspiracy right there. But CBS didn't silence Mrs. Walther at all. She was given ample time to tell her story—on camera—in the CBS News special. And the same goes for Arnold Rowland, another witness CTers like a whole lot. As well as S.M. "Skinny" Holland.
Plus, Jim Garrison is provided quite a bit of air time in Part 3 of the CBS series as well. He speaks his mind freely about the alleged conspiracy and cover-up that he thinks took place (see the video below).
So it sure looks to me like the "conspiracy" side of the story was being given a lot of air time and ample room to breathe during the CBS four-part program.
But, I guess some conspiracy theorists would still complain even if you hung them with a brand spanking new rope.
Go figure. ~shrug~
In short, it's my opinion that the CBS-TV special on the Warren Report that aired for four consecutive nights in June of 1967 is one of the best and most in-depth programs ever done concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. CBS News conducted its own investigation, re-interviewed key witnesses (even some witnesses who said they saw things that could lead to a conclusion that a conspiracy existed to kill JFK), and CBS even built its own 60-foot-high tower and moving track in order to re-create the shooting from the proper height and speed of the automobile (which is something even the Warren Commission didn't do nearly as well as CBS News).
Text excerpts from "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"....
WALTER CRONKITE -- "We have shown, by carefully-controlled experiments, that a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle CAN be fired more rapidly and accurately than the [Warren] Commission believed.
Now these points strengthen the Warren Report's basic finding. They make it MORE likely that Oswald shot the President. They significantly weaken a central contention of the critics....their contention that Oswald could NOT have done it because he did not have enough time to fire.
It is now reasonable to assume that the first shot, fired through a tree, missed its mark....and that it was this shot that Governor Connally heard. The Governor has insisted all along that he was not struck by the first shot. It now appears he was correct. Now we can answer all our secondary questions ---
Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.
Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? .... He did.
Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the building, on the sixth floor.
Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.
How many shots were fired? .... Three.
How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.
What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight seconds.
Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News concludes that he did."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ERIC SEVAREID -- "What fed the conspiracy notion about the Kennedy assassination among many Americans was the sheer incongruity of the affair. All that power and majesty wiped out in an instant by one skinny, weak-chinned little character. It was like believing that the Queen Mary had sunk without a trace because of a log floating somewhere in the Atlantic. Or that AT&T stock had fallen to zero because a drunk somewhere tore out his telephone wires. ....
And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.
These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.
And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.
In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.
In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.
If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."
+Logo.png)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If anything tells us how deep in denial DVP is, it's the above rant.
No one here needs any more convincing of course, but it's always nice to see the rabid dog drip his saliva on the sidewalk.
Two things that we are all aware of anyway:
1. He makes not one mention of the CNEC, the two lawyers who reversed the idea of giving equal time to the critics in a debate or mock trial format, the Furness appointment, and Midgley's promotion. Mr. Censorship is alive and well in Indiana.
2. His rabid condition forced him to comment before part 2 came out, which does deal with the actual program.
Suffice it to say, if Davey went nuts over this, wait until he sees part 2.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Will Part 2 be titled "More Mountains Out Of CBS News Molehills", Jim?
Because Part 1 of your article, in my opinion, is certainly a lot of to-do about nothing.
So CBS decided to change the original format of its 1967 special. Big freakin' deal. For this, Jimbo crucifies CBS and everyone involved at CBS News. Pathetic.
But, as everyone who has taken the time to watch the 4-hour CBS program has got to know already, the topic of conspiracy is certainly not shut down and ignored by CBS News. Not by a longshot. Especially in Part 3, almost half of which is devoted solely to Jim Garrison's New Orleans investigation, with Garrison himself getting plenty of time to speak his mind in front of the CBS-TV cameras.
Plus, other noted conspiracy believers are given some air time in the CBS special as well, such as Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark Lane, and Bill Turner.
Some cover-up by CBS there, huh?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
What Davy does not know is this: That interview with JG [Jim Garrison] on CBS was the second interview with him. CBS decided to wash out the first one completely. Why? Because it was too effective. I know since I saw the transcript. So they brought in Wallace to make sure the public did not see it.
Talk about ignorance being bliss. Davey is the worst researcher I have ever seen.
If McAdams or Davison does not tell him something, he does not know it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm not a "researcher" and I've never ever once claimed to be a "researcher". I'm merely a person who has been interested in the JFK case since 1981. That's all. Mostly, I react to and comment on all the stupid things CTers believe in relating to the death of the 35th U.S. President. And you, Jimmy, could keep me busy doing that until the year 2641. And, of course, you have.
I think I'd rather be considered "the worst researcher I have ever seen" than to be the kind of ambulance-chasing "researcher" that you are, Jimmy. You see conspiracy everywhere. Under every rock. In the CBS "back channels". In the statements of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. In Ruth Paine's calendar. In Howard Brennan (who is a witness that you don't think even viewed a line-up at the DPD at all! LOL!). In the autopsy report. Everywhere. Virtually every nook and cranny of this case is packed with nothing but conspiracy and cover-up, per James DiEugenio. Can it get any sillier than that?
Thank God I'm not you.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You are such a bad researcher you cannot even tell time. Garrison was on camera in the CBS special for about 8 :20 seconds. How that is one half of one program can only be explained in the twilight regions of DVP's web site, right next to Rod Serling.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Learn to read, Jim. I never said Garrison himself was on camera for half of Part 3. Here's what I said....
"Jim Garrison is provided quite a bit of air time in Part 3 of the CBS series as well. He speaks his mind freely about the alleged conspiracy and cover-up that he thinks took place. .... As everyone who has taken the time to watch the 4-hour CBS program has got to know already, the topic of conspiracy is certainly not shut down and ignored by CBS News. Not by a longshot. Especially in Part 3, almost half of which is devoted solely to Jim Garrison's New Orleans investigation, with Garrison himself getting plenty of time to speak his mind in front of the CBS-TV cameras. (Some cover-up by CBS there, huh?)"
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You pontificate on this site and others like you have some insights into the case from the "other side". The truth is you have none.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep. Just common sense. That's all.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
LOL, ROTF
Gurvich and Sheridan (via Walace [sic]) is devoting time to Garrison's investigation?
Incredible.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep. Part 3 — from 26:22 through 45:18. That's 19 consecutive minutes (out of about 50 or 51 minutes, sans commercials) devoted exclusively to talking about Garrison's nonexistent case against Clay Shaw.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
BTW, I really urge everyone to watch the Sevareid closing talk [in Part 4 of the CBS '67 special].
It is truly hard to believe. Eric must have been looking forward to retirement, and wanted to stay on the good side of Paley.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's the exact same closing talk I already quoted verbatim in Post #6. It's an excellent and spot-on commentary by Sevareid too.
And so now, I suppose, Mr. Sevareid was part of the CBS cover-up too. Right, Jimmy?
Is there anybody in the Western Hemisphere you haven't accused of being part of some kind of plot to suppress the truth about JFK's demise, Jim? Anybody at all? Slim Pickens maybe? Willie Mays? Gregory Peck? Charlie Weaver? Or Ella Fitzgerald?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
[Quoting Eric Sevareid:] "In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye."
LOL
And BTW, that is not even close to being the worst part. I urge all to actually watch Sevareid's whole four minute rant.
It is a forerunner of the future. That is, the schizoid unreality of the MSM which has caused such a disconnect between the public and the press today. And the rise of men like Alex Jones to fill the void.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's the best part (emphasis is DVP's)....
"The deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years. If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."
-- Eric Sevareid; June 1967
I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence:
"The notion that they would do
such a thing is idiotic."
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
After just doing a quick initial scan of Part 2 of Jim DiEugenio's CBS article, which features Jim's almost non-stop griping and complaining about how evil CBS News was when it produced its four-part 1967 documentary special, "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (which is par for the course for a conspiracy theorist; I wouldn't expect anything less from Jimmy D.), I took note of two major misrepresentations concerning the Warren Commission's 1964 conclusions....
DiEugenio flat-out twists and distorts the facts when he says this in his article:
"On his one miss, the Warren Commission said that Oswald’s shot hit the curb beneath bystander James Tague. This then bounced up off his face, drawing blood." -- J. DiEugenio
Fact:
The Warren Commission did not definitively conclude that Oswald's "missed shot" was the bullet that hit the Main Street curb and caused the cheek injury to bystander James T. Tague. The Commission allowed for multiple other possibilities concerning Tague's wounding. Here's what the WC said on Page 117 of the Warren Report:
"Even if it were caused by a bullet fragment, the mark on the south curb of Main Street cannot be identified conclusively with any of the three shots fired. Under the circumstances it might have come from the bullet which hit the President’s head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area. Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague’s testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities."
-- Warren Report; Page 117
~~~~~~~~~~~
And then we have this oft-repeated myth once again being repeated by James DiEugenio:
"As the critics of the Warren Report had pointed out, the Commission had used two tests to see if Oswald could have gotten off three shots in the allotted 5.6 seconds revealed in the Warren Commission..." -- J. DiEugenio
Fact:
The Warren Commission did not specifically claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had only "5.6 seconds" to fire his three shots at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Once again, if we turn to Page 117 of the Warren Report, we'll find proof that the conspiracy theorists who continue to attempt to promote the notion that the Commission had "allotted" only 5.6 seconds for the shooting are promoting nothing but a myth. Because here's what the Warren Commission said:
"Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
-- Warren Report; Page 117
Also see:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / The "5.6 Seconds" Myth
James DiEugenio, in Part 2 of his CBS article, also says that the press conference given at Parkland Hospital on the afternoon of 11/22/63 by Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry was "filmed". But that is almost certainly incorrect. That conference was very likely not filmed (or videotaped) at all. A text transcript of the press conference does exist, of course, which can be read in its entirety on my site HERE, but there's never been any evidence that any video or film of the conference was ever made.
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
"Almost certainly incorrect"
"Very likely not filmed"
That's settled then. :)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The Perry/Clark conference was either transcribed by a stenographer or was recorded on audio (otherwise, a verbatim transcript, which we DO have, could not possibly exist). But there's never been any video or film footage (with audio attached) that has ever surfaced of that conference that I am aware of. And as an avid JFK video collector, I've certainly searched for it over the years. But I've never found it anywhere.
I seem to recall seeing a snippet of silent film footage showing Dr. Perry at the conference, but nothing more than just a clip.
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
How convenient that the film of Perry survived without sound.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You aren't suggesting something sinister was involved there, are you Ray? ;)
It was simply a case of there being no sound cameras available at Parkland when Perry and Clark gave their conference, as Gary Mack explains in incredible detail in this Internet forum post from December 1999:
[Quote On:]
"While the absence of any recordings of the 2:18pm Perry-Clark press conference is disappointing, there is information that explains why. First...I learned there were NO live cameras in that room. Here's why:
1) KRLD's two remote cameras were still at the Trade Mart as late as 1:35pm, when technicians started the long process of packing it all up and moving over to Parkland. This would have taken at least an hour. One camera was put in place in time for Dr. Robert Shaw's conference, which started around 3:30pm (that time is off the top of my head, but it was quite some time AFTER Perry & Clark finished.)
2) WFAA's cameras and remote truck were enroute back to the studio after having been in place at Love Field for the 11:35am landing and live broadcast. Their plans were originally to provide live pool coverage of JFK's return flight. At some point, their truck was sent to Parkland and had just arrived in time to catch the hearse with JFK leaving for Love Field. The other camera, I recall from some other source, was still being unloaded to bring inside the hospital. It would be virtually impossible to have it set up and available until at least 2:30-2:45 or later. They may very well have been waiting for Clark-Perry to finish to get into the room.
3) WBAP's remote truck sat in east Fort Worth at the side of the turnpike (now I-30) with a blown engine and no back up. Eventually, it was towed to Dallas City Hall and sat on Commerce Street the rest of the weekend.
4) KTVT, which offered its remote truck to WBAP in exchange for permission to carry NBC programming (the station was an independent in those days and had only a small news department), headed to Parkland from east Fort Worth, arriving just before 2pm. Their only live camera was poking up through the truck's roof and was turned on and recording as they arrived. Just a few minutes later, the hearse left the hospital with JFK and that scene was recorded. Again, it would have taken 30-45 minutes or more to get that camera moved out of the truck, into the hospital and set up.
In short, none of the stations had video equipment in place to capture the press conference.
As for TV news film cameras, there is a series of still photographs taken by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of the Perry-Clark conference. The one in Lifton's book was taken early in that sequence. Many of the 30-40 images were shot from the back of the room and show a large, relatively empty classroom with only a few reporters present. Not one microphone or news film photographer are anywhere to be seen!
What this means is that, despite Dr. Malcolm Perry's later explanation to the Warren Commission that there were microphones present, no recordings were made and only a handful of reporters covered it.
This may not make sense to everyone, but TV news was equipment-challenged in those days. The best example is that of WBAP, then and now the NBC affiliate (today known as KXAS), which was far and away the #1 station in the entire Dallas-Fort Worth market in 1963. TV sound film cameras were cumbersome and generally not used for "spot" (breaking) news stories. So little use was made of sound in those days that the station only owned two sound cameras -- one was assigned to the Fort Worth office and one to Dallas.
The Dallas camera that day was held by the station's Bob Welch, who filmed the only sound record of Malcolm Kilduff's announcement of JFK's death at 1:30. Bob then left the hospital and headed to downtown Dallas where there was more important news to cover.
I do not know much about the other stations, other than WFAA had a silent camera there, but it only caught a few seconds of Perry's entrance into the room, suggesting that the photographer may have been sent by the station to another location and was, therefore, absent when the pictures were taken.
As for the radio stations, the photographs show no microphones or audio tape machines in the room. I have heard original and first-generation copies of the radio station tapes, some of which have been in private hands, and there was no live radio broadcast on either KLIF, WFAA, KRLD, KBOX, WBAP, or any other major station, with the possible exception of WRR. Their tapes, or copies, are at the National Archives, but since indexes exist and there's no mention of such a broadcast, perhaps WRR wasn't there. The station was, and remains, owned by the city of Dallas (a highly unusual situation) and did not have much of a news department at all.
So what does all this mean? I have to think, with some first-hand understanding of the business in those days, that only minimal coverage was done. Those kinds of stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45 or 2pm until nearly 3pm.
With breaking stories happening in four different parts of the city, Parkland was left virtually unattended."
-- Gary Mack; December 22, 1999
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
I'm afraid I don't believe anything the late Gary Mack said about the assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Gee, there's a surprise.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Gerald McKnight put to rest the whole idea of that being a fragment that hit Tague. DVP does not read books like that, so he is oblivious to it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I never said I agree with the theory that a fragment from the head shot is what caused Tague's slight injury. In fact, I definitely disagree with that theory, and I've said so on many occasions, such as this one here.
But my opinion on the matter is not at all related to the point I was making in my previous post regarding Tague. In that post, I was merely pointing out your wholly inaccurate interpretation of what the "Warren Commission said". You, Jim, said this in Part 2 of your CBS attack piece, and this is just not an accurate statement at all (as I proved earlier):
"On his one miss, the Warren Commission said that Oswald’s shot hit the curb beneath bystander James Tague. This then bounced up off his face, drawing blood."
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
As per the 5.6 seconds, no one did a better micro analysis than did Thompson. As he noted in SSD ["Six Seconds In Dallas"], if you go with the WR first hit at about 210, that is what you come up with.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not if the first shot missed the whole automobile. If the first shot missed, then (naturally) the timespan for all three shots goes much higher than just 5.6 seconds. And the Commission did not specifically discount or eliminate the possibility of Oswald's first shot being the shot which missed the car and its occupants.
Besides, when it comes to what I'm talking about in this discussion, who cares what Josiah Thompson concluded? I was talking, yet again, about how you misrepresented the Warren Commission's position on a particular matter. In the "5.6 seconds" instance, you, like almost all other conspiracists, want to believe the Commission was boxed in to only accepting a 5.6-second timeline for the total time of the shooting. But, as Page 117 of the Warren Report clearly proves, that is not true at all. The Commission clearly indicates that they could not say for sure which of the three shots missed:
"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed. .... If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time would be correspondingly increased." -- WCR; Page 117
Better stick to attacking CBS, Jim. Because you miss the boat a lot when you try to tell your readers what the Warren Commission concluded.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
It'd be nice if people would stop misrepresenting what the Warren Commission said. Even CBS kept saying the Commission had locked itself into a 5.6-second shooting timeline....even with Page 111 of the Warren Report 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."
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
As per the Perry press conference, well that settles it. Davey can't find it and the Sixth Floor explained why. Ipso facto, it was not filmed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Do you see any television or film cameras in this photo below? I sure don't. I suppose it's possible a camera is hidden by a spectator here, but there are certainly no TV or film cameras clearly visible in this picture (although it does look like the slightly-blurred man on the left might be looking down at something he is holding in his hands which could be a film camera of some kind; but, if it is a camera he's holding, he's certainly not using it to film the press conference at the time this picture was snapped). And the man at the bottom of the photo is obviously holding a camera up to his eye. But that looks like a smaller "still" camera to me. At any rate, it's certainly not a "sound" camera. Click to enlarge:
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Here's what Dr. Perry said in his Warren Commission testimony concerning possible recordings made during the Parkland press conference [at 3 H 375]:
GERALD FORD -- "Was there ever a recording kept of the questions and answers at that interview [i.e., press conference], Dr. Perry?"
DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "This was one of the things I was mad about, Mr. Ford. There were microphones, and cameras, and the whole bit, as you know, and during the course of it a lot of these hypothetical situations and questions that were asked to us would often be asked by someone on this side and recorded by someone on this, and I don't know who was recorded and whether they were broadcasting it directly. There were tape recorders there and there were television cameras with their microphones. I know there were recordings made, but who made them, I don't know and, of course, portions of it would be given to this group and questions answered here and, as a result, considerable questions were not answered in their entirety and even some of them that were asked, I am sure were misunderstood. It was bedlam."
GERALD FORD -- "I was thinking, was there an official recording either made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government agency?"
DR. PERRY -- "Not to my knowledge."
GERALD FORD -- "A true recording of everything that was said, the questions asked, and the answers given?"
DR. PERRY -- "Not to my knowledge."
=====================================
And here's what Dr. Kemp Clark said [at 6 H 21]:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What mechanical instruments were used, if any, by the press at the conference?"
DR. KEMP CLARK -- "Tape recorders and television cameras, as well as the usual note pads and pencils, and so forth."
=====================================
~shrug~
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
The soft shoe con is meant to hide the fact that Perry said three times during this press conference that the anterior neck wound appeared to him to be an entrance wound. And no one had a better look at it than he did.
The Secret Service then lied to the WC and said they had no record of this conference, when, in fact they did have one.
[...]
But further...it was revealed that...there was evidence the Secret Service did scoop up and then depart with recordings of that conference.
[...]
What this meant was that very early, as early as about 72 hours after the murder, the Secret Service was in on the cover up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But why would they do such a thing, Jim? What the heck for?
What useful "cover up" purpose would be served by the Secret Service deep-sixing a video or audio recording of the Perry/Clark press conference? From some of the early reports provided by the newsmen who were present at the conference (who were obviously taking notes as the two doctors were answering questions), it was being reported in the press on November 22nd that Dr. Perry had said he thought the throat wound was an "entrance" wound. Here's just one example in the print media (from page 2 of The New York Herald Tribune, dated November 23, 1963):
COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1415
So we know, with or without a complete videotape of the Parkland news conference, that word had already spread around the nation (via newspapers and very likely on television and radio as well) that Dr. Perry had said that JFK's throat wound was possibly an entry wound.
Therefore, the Secret Service wanting to ditch any video or audio recordings of the Perry press conference would be akin to closing the barn door after the horse had already escaped.
In other words, what's the point? The "entry wound" information supplied by Malcolm Perry at his news conference was already out there in the public domain as early as the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Len Osanic and I did pretty much a whole radio interview on this [CBS topic] last night [April 21, 2016].
This thing was getting almost 1800 views per day at ctka.
Bob Parry liked it so much that he rewrote it slightly and placed it at his site Consortium News. So we will set up a link to that version. [Click Here.]
I like doing this since that site is more broadly based and widely circulated.
ALBERT DOYLE SAID:
It's amazing how Von Pein tries to make a case that CBS showed the other side and everything was normal.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
CBS did show "the other side" (i.e., the "conspiracy" side). How can anyone possibly deny that they gave conspiracy a voice—and a fairly substantial voice at that—during the four-part 1967 broadcast?
For Pete sake, conspiracy theorists are popping up all over the place during those four hours — Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Cyril Wecht, Edward Epstein, Bill Turner. They all get to spout their conspiracy views.
If that's not showing "the other side", what would be?
RON ECKER SAID:
The gaping wound in the back of the head.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How can CBS show its audience something that doesn't exist and never did?
There simply is no "BOH" wound.
Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case—and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence—the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)—trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are.
RON ECKER SAID:
CBS hasn't changed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DAVID HEALY SAID:
Why? Make you real nervous if CBS did change? You do know the truth always wins out, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And what kind of "truth" do you think Lee Oswald's actions on 11/22/63 are spelling out for us, David?
Are his actions and movements after the assassination more indicative of his innocence....or his guilt?
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Another very good CBS JFK special was made in 1992 -- "Who Killed JFK?: Facts, Not Fiction". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make that program available on any of my websites.
Sample Amazon reviews for the "Facts, Not Fiction" program:
"Probably the most sound and focused of the JFK assassination videos. Like a good lawyer, this show cuts through the bull and just lays out the details in a good sound package. This is a great place to start even if you are determined to go running around for the rest of your life chasing phantoms. Too bad there isn't a DVD edition yet."
-- An Anonymous Reviewer; May 26, 2003
"As a teacher of Senior High students, we spend a large amount of time on the Kennedy assassination. This video is the best supplement I have during our studies. CBS lives up to their great reputation in presenting the FACTS....and some things for my students to think about! I would highly recommend!!!"
-- Randy Durr; November 9, 2001
"2.5 stars. This is a halfway decent video but is tarnished by its overt Warren Commission bias, courtesy of CBS' Dan Rather. There is some nice vintage footage included, as well as some primary witnesses (such as Jean Hill). I wouldn't call this one essential but I would call it slick. I did like the inclusion of LBJ's comments to Walter Cronkite (that were banned by Johnson at the time) stating that others other than Oswald may have been involved."
-- Vince Palamara; January 13, 2006
RON ECKER SAID:
Just think how different history would be if Lee Harvey Oswald had decided to go into the fried chicken business instead of assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, then you CT guys could have gathered into little groups and pretended Oswald never actually purchased the chicken franchise at all. It was all just a fabricated transaction from top to bottom, featuring dozens of phony documents that only seem to be in Lee's handwriting.
And maybe you could have also theorized that Bonnie Ray Williams' chicken-on-the-bone sandwich was "planted" in Bonnie Ray's lunch sack to serve as a crude murder weapon, so that when Bonnie Ray consumed the deadly bone-in sandwich, he would choke and be killed, thereby eliminating him as a witness when Mac Wallace and his patsy framers were up on the sixth floor planting all the evidence.
Good plan. Certainly as good as the complicated cloak-and-dagger charade dreamed up by desperate CTers regarding Oswald's rifle purchase.
DAVID LIFTON SAID:
There's something peculiar about Dan Rather, and the way he has handled the Kennedy assassination.
Former CBS producer Stanhope Gould...publicly stated that I had found "courtroom quality evidence" that the President's body had been intercepted before its arrival at the morgue of Bethesda Naval Hospital. (Gould was Cronkite's chief producer of the 1972 Watergate TV coverage).
[...]
Was Dan Rather really so thick-headed that he failed to "notice" the evidence spelled out in my book, and presented on camera, in meetings at 60 Minutes, including the private [meeting] that I had with him?
How could that be?
With the passage of years, and in reviewing my own experience and also taking into account how he misreported the Zapruder film [Click Here], I have reluctantly concluded that Dan Rather may well have had not just a bias, but a hidden agenda.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. Rather no doubt "noticed" the evidence and the witness interviews you brought to his attention, but he very likely had a reaction to your theory(ies) that was probably similar to my reaction (and Vince Bugliosi's too)....such as:
"Anybody who would accept as true the nonsensical theory of JFK's body being stolen off of Air Force One by evil plotters should check themselves into the nearest insane asylum and seek immediate treatment for 'Conspiracy Theory Overdose'." -- David R. Von Pein; March 2006
~~~~~~~~
"Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision. I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake." -- David R. Von Pein; May 2013
~~~~~~~~
"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1066 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
[Quoting from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...]
"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How can anybody possibly argue with the logic contained within the above sentences?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
[Quoting from Martin Hay's review of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...]
"Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So what? We're not in a courtroom. And Mel Ayton, when he wrote the above words for page 118 of BRD, wasn't speaking to a jury sitting in a courtroom's jury box either. He was merely applying common sense and logic to the BASIC TERM "reasonable doubt".
In short, the above paragraph from the BRD book is still 100% logical and sensible, regardless of official courtroom "definition".
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Martin's fine review...stopped the book in its tracks.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're too funny, Jimmy.
As if Martin's blistering critique had any effect on the pathetic book sales of BRD, which have been virtually non-existent since Day 1 in December 2014, just as I predicted they would be in August 2012 when Mel brought me into the project.
It's an "LN" book, so I knew it would sell like a lead balloon (especially since the authors are virtually unknown to most readers). And I was right. So there were no "tracks" for Martin Hay to stop in the first place. (LOL)
I'm still glad the book is out there, though. It provides at least a little more "LN" balance to the lopsided overall catalog which will always heavily favor the CT side in sheer numbers.
And there are a few sensible reviewers out there (thank goodness)....
"[Beyond Reasonable Doubt] is a very good book and one of the best resources on the Kennedy assassination I have ever read and a nice companion to "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi and "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. The manner in which Mr. Ayton and Mr. Von Pein present the information is very effective. .... A very useful book, very comprehensive, easy to read and well written. So, anyone interested in the Kennedy case must have a copy of this book." -- Cassio F. D. Queiros; March 15, 2016
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If you look at the ending of Six Seconds in Dallas way back in 1967, you will see that [Josiah] Thompson, using just 2-3 witnesses' testimony and the Hughes film, demonstrates that there was another way to explicate the crime. But that the WC and Hoover decided not to give that alternative any credence.
Now today, with all the evidence declassified by the ARRB, we can go light years further with what happened.
So therefore, far from not reaching the highest standard of evidence, the WC did not even meet the lowest standard.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Total BS.
The evidence is so abundant against Oswald, in order to have any "reasonable doubt" about his guilt, a person must pretend that all of that evidence (or virtually all of it) was faked by unknown plotters who wanted to make it only look like Oswald killed TWO people.
Yes, Jim DiEugenio is one of those people who believes such foolishness. But does that mean everybody should be sucked into his vacuum of silliness? I think not.
A friend of mine at Facebook summed up Jimmy's approach to the case the other day, and it's worth repeating here....
"DiEugenio is a master of the "shotgun" approach. He relishes in throwing out hundreds of questionable inconsistencies, yet cannot focus on the bare facts of Oswald's prints on the rifle and the sniper boxes. He is another hack distracter who desperately and cowardly will not address the obvious evidence. There will always be a wide audience for DiEugenio and others like him."
-- Steve Roe; April 16, 2016
Hear! Hear!
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
BTW, that screed by Sevareid at the end of the [1967 CBS] show really epitomized what it was all about.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And God bless Mr. Sevareid for it. Truer words were never spoken --- at CBS or anywhere else. And they deserve a reprise:
ERIC SEVAREID -- "And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.
These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.
And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.
In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.
In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.
If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Now, sooner or later, Davey always says something that exposes him for the shill he is. Consider what the article and Roger's documents show about the program.
1. The whole Alvarez, jiggle effect idea was wrong. In fact, it proved a conspiracy.
2. Wyckoff knew it was wrong. Four jiggles means four bullets.
3. Wyckoff then tried to explain away the fourth jiggle by saying there was a siren. Hmm. Even if it was, does that have the same impact on Zapruder as hearing a gunshot over his shoulder?
4. But as Thompson noted, at Time-Life with the film itself and transparencies, they deduced six jiggles.
5. Realizing anything more than three kills them, CBS cuts that part of the interview from both the show and the official transcript.
6. But since Alvarez said there was a jiggle early, around 190, CBS postulated a shot through the oak tree at 186.
7. Their original rifleman, Crossman, said such a thing could only be done with a large stroke of luck.
8. About half the later rifle attempts were aborted.
9. CBS used enlarged targets in these rifle tests. Plus, there was no tree obstacle and no curve in the track.
10. Humes lied on camera about the placement of the posterior back wound, and Rather let him get away with it.
11. CBS distorted and disguised what Perry said about the anterior neck wound, even though they had the transcript.
12. Humes lied about the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings and Rather let him get away with it.
13. CBS knew from Humes himself that he was forcibly limited in his autopsy practice on JFK--and covered up that confession.
14. Humes told CBS about an x ray that did not exist anymore--and they kept that hidden.
15. CBS knew that Kennedy's brain was missing from the archives--and did not tell the public about it.
This is what Von Pein thinks is God's blessing to America. I'd hate to be in church with the guy.
And then to characterize what Severeid [sic] said as "truer words were never spoken", in the light of the above, well that is why I call DVP a carnival barker.
Actually more like a con man. Because the facts don't matter to him.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. Irony strikes again.
DiEugenio, you see, cares so much about "the facts" in the Kennedy case, he was able to spout the following nonsense (without even turning red). The gall of the man is becoming legendary:
"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015
"I don't think [Howard] Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness."
-- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010
If anybody needs a few dozen more examples of the strange way Jim DiEugenio treats "the facts", just ask. I can supply tons of them.
David Von Pein
April 4, 2016
April 4—May 3, 2016
[Note -- The Amazon.com link above is no longer available. All of the Amazon forums were discontinued and completely deleted on October 6, 2017.]
