Thanks for response fobrien1

I am glad he had a decent innings.

Whaley didnt just say the man in his cab wore a jacket, he first said he wore the grey jacket, then he said he wore either the grey jacket or the blue jacket before finally settling on the man wearing both jackets and the shirt. Very accommodating.

He was actually called twice because his first testimony didnt help the official version at all. In his first version he said he had a trial run with a policeman and did it 9 minutes because he went in a certain way that meant the lights were with him and that it meant he always did it 2 minutes quicker than the police ever could do it. He then stated the lights were with him when he took Oswald and it was typical time for the journey and he had been a cab driver for 37 years.

Like you say, that would be very awkward in getting Oswald there early enough so they called him back a few weeks later. This time they asked him how long it took and he suddenly managed to get the time down to just, "A little more than 5 minutes, between 5 and 6 minutes." That begs the question, who did he manage to knock off 3 to 4 minutes of the 9 minutes it always took him for 37 years? His original time was already 2 minutes faster than the police ever managed so his revised time was 5 to 6 minutes faster than the police could do it in. I dont believe that for a minute.

McWatters gave a woman a transfer too according to the official version, do you think the woman followed the other passenger (Oswald?) and was the same woman that poked her head in to the taxi?

Pat Speer undertook the unpleasant task of reviewing much of the media’s coverage of the 50th anniversary of the assassination; see http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught. As usual, the coverage overwhelmingly favoured the lone�"nut hypothesis.

A PBS Nova TV documentary, Cold Case JFK, attempted to revive the single�"bullet theory by moving JFK’s back wound up to the level of his collar. Josiah Thompson, one of the participants, was unimpressed by the programme’s treatment of the evidence: “It was very reminiscent of what CBS News did in defending the Warren Commission in 1968 and successive years … it was biased and cooked at the beginning … I got handled by Nova.”

The station’s choice of advisors makes it clear that the programme’s purpose was not to provide an objective account of a controversial subject, but merely to promote an officially sanctioned interpretation. Among the credits on the programme’s web page are the words: “Historical Consultants: John McAdams, Gerald Posner”. Of the two ‘historical consultants’, the former runs a partisan lone�"nut website, and the latter is the author of Case Closed, which was described by a genuine historian, David Wrone, as “one of the most error�"ridden works ever published on the assassination” (David Wrone, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, p.117). For the role of Case Closed in the media’s coverage of the assassination, see Fiction, Propaganda and the Media.

In the footer of the Nova website, the station admits that its ability to deal with questions that affect established power is constrained by its reliance on corporate donations, primarily from an armaments manufacturer and a sponsor of climate�"change denial and other reactionary causes: “National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by The Boeing Company. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science.” Of course, an objective TV programme about the JFK assassination, were PBS even to consider making one, would not directly affect the business interests of Boeing or Koch. Nevertheless, the veto power allowed by corporate sponsorship provides a real constraint on criticism of domestic power in general. For a specific, relevant case, see Jane Mayer, ‘A Word from Our Sponsor’, New Yorker, 27 May 2013. For a thorough demolition of Cold Case JFK, see this article by Martin Hay.

The only programme on British television during the week of the 50th anniversary to deal with the facts of the assassination was one which claimed that a Secret Service agent shot JFK by accident, a preposterous notion that had been debunked two decades earlier. Apparently, the programme neglected to mention the inconvenient fact that a home movie exists which shows the Secret Service agent at the time of the fatal shot. The agent was not pointing his gun at anyone.

Although the ‘Secret Service agent killed JFK by accident’ nonsense insulted the intelligence of anyone who possessed more than a rudimentary knowledge of the assassination, it actually represented an advance on the British television coverage of the 40th anniversary, in which the BBC broadcast the one�"sided ABC show, The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Perhaps realising that viewers might be aware of the poor track record of US television companies on the assassination, the BBC attempted to give the programme some credibility by adding a voice�"over by a relatively respectable BBC journalist, Gavin Esler. For informed reaction to this programme, see Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.8, no.1 (2004), pp.54ff and this thread on the Education Forum. By November 2013, the British TV schedulers evidently suspected that they could no longer get away with promoting the notion that a lone nut fired all the shots, so instead they put forward the most convincing non�"conspiratorial theory available.
Direct Interference

It is often assumed that the media coverage of the JFK assassination is the result of direct interference by organisations such as the CIA. There is some evidence for this.

An internal CIA memo lamented the extent of public disbelief in the Warren Commission’s conclusions, and pointed out that such distrust in government institutions affected the CIA directly and indirectly:

    This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission … represented both major parties … efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. … Innuendo of such seriousness affects … the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists.

    (NARA RIF no. 104�"10009�"10022)

The memo suggested several courses of action, including:

    To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) … To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.

    (ibid.)

Nine years after the memo was written, the Church Committee pointed out that criticism of the CIA’s provision of information to the Warren Commission was justified (see Church Committee, Book V). The Committee also disclosed the CIA’s extensive links with foreign journalists and media outlets (see Church Committee, Book I, p.455). For more about the influence of the CIA on the media both in the US and abroad, see Carl Bernstein, ‘CIA and the Media,’ Rolling Stone, 20 October 1977.

There is little reason to doubt that in particular instances the CIA does act as an ideological enforcer, using its network of paid and freelance collaborators to influence newspaper and television coverage of sensitive topics such as the JFK assassination. In general, however, it is likely that simple institutional factors have more effect.
Institutional Reasons for Media Bias

The coverage of the JFK assassination by the print and broadcast media is bad for the same institutional reason that coverage of many serious issues by the print and broadcast media is bad.

Large corporate and state media organisations are not democracies. Editorial policy is not generated from below; it is dictated from above. Nor do these organisations function as bulletin boards. Access to print and air time is not open to all; it is almost always available only to those sanctioned by the needs of the institutions.
Objectivity and Power

There are certain topics and news events that are, for the most part, reported accurately and fairly. The reporting of natural disasters, for example, usually reflects the available facts. Sporting and cultural events can be expected to be reported honestly.

Earthquakes and football matches, however, do not often give rise to ideas critical of established power. The more closely a topic relates to political power, the less likely it is that the topic will be treated objectively.
Individuals and Institutions

Institutions are made up of individuals. Some journalists sincerely believe that they are free to express whatever views they want:

    The fact that BBC journalists perform as they do without overt external interference is offered as proof of their independence. In 2007, Justin Webb, then the BBC’s North America editor, rejected the charge that he is a propagandist for US power, saying: “Nobody ever tells me what to say about America or the attitude to take towards the United States. And that is the case right across the board in television as well.”

    (http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2009/578-trust-in-profit-james-murdoch-the-bbc-and-the-myth-of-impartiality.html)

It is no doubt true that reporters and editors are not often instructed in what to write and say. Direct interference is rarely necessary, for obvious reasons.

Social selection ensures that institutions which undermine themselves do not survive for long. Established social institutions generate filtering mechanisms that tend to identify and weed out individuals who threaten to undermine those institutions. Someone, for example, who advocates democratic control over the economy is unlikely to be appointed to the board of directors of a large company. Someone who resists the electronic surveillance of peaceful dissidents is unlikely to rise high within the NSA, the FSB, or GCHQ.

A career in the media, as elsewhere, usually requires an employee to demonstrate that he or she can be trusted to toe the institutional line. A dependable journalist rarely needs to be told what position to take on issues that affect established power. As the famous phrase goes: ‘you write what you like �" because they like what you write.’
How Bad Is the Media Coverage?

There are exceptions, of course. The control mechanism is not absolute, and not all journalists are unthinking drones.

In the case of the JFK assassination, anomalous facts do occasionally get reported, although they rarely affect the dominant narrative. So the Zapruder film may indicate at least one shot from the front, but Oswald was still on the sixth floor, firing the rest of the shots, and the Warren Commission did an honest job.

An enterprising journalist will occasionally get a critical story into a mainstream newspaper. On the other hand, the tracking down and publication of previously secret documents, which one might naively imagine is the task of the fearless professional journalist, has almost always come about as the result of action by members of the public. One notable exception is the attempt by the former Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, to secure the release of CIA files that should have been made public years ago.

The JFK assassination does much better than many other topics that might be considered subversive, a fact which no doubt reflects the level of danger that it is now considered to pose to established power. Anyone who is attuned to corporate or state propaganda will be aware that many topics, of more fundamental relevance to contemporary lives than the killing of a politician half a century ago, are given little or no critical coverage. The assassination may be covered badly, but at least it gets covered.
The Future of the JFK Assassination

The proportion of the US population who doubt the official lone�"nut interpretation has been kept down to roughly three out of four by the media’s consistently one�"sided coverage of the assassination. With the declining influence of traditional media, and easier access to more objective sources of information, that proportion is likely to increase. Although search engines will probably take on some of the filtering role that news organisations have performed, it is difficult to imagine that they will be as effective as newspapers and television have been.

Why is the Media Coverage of the JFK Assassination So Bad?
Summary

There are obvious institutional reasons for the state and corporate media's uncritical attitude. To question the lone nut hypothesis is to question established power. The media does not want to be reminded that it got things wrong from the beginning.
22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination

Find out more in 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination.

This essential JFK assassination book is available from Amazon as a paperback and ebook, from only:

    US $5.99
    UK £3.99
    CA $6.49

It is a common observation that anyone with specialist knowledge of a topic will spot errors in almost any news report which deals with that topic. Journalists without specialist knowledge will often get quite basic facts wrong.

Coverage of the JFK assassination, however, is different. In addition to making simple errors of fact, newspaper and television accounts of this contentious topic consistently distort the subject by favouring one interpretation over others.

Getting a few basic facts wrong is usually the result of sloppiness and haste: simple human error. The consistent distortion of a topic, on the other hand, surely has more fundamental, institutional causes.
Newspapers, TV and the JFK Assassination
The Warren Commission and the Media

The close relationship between the corporate media and the political establishment in Washington was evident very soon after the assassination. President Johnson took a phone call from Joe Alsop, a syndicated newspaper columnist, on the morning of President Kennedy’s funeral, in which Alsop offered what he called “public relations advice” about the best way to convince the general public of the lone�"nut interpretation. That interpretation had already been decided upon in discussions among the Washington elite, according to a memo written by the acting Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, to Bill Moyers, who at the time was an assistant to President Johnson and who later became a broadcaster.

The Warren Commission’s verdict, that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was guilty of the assassination, was in place several days before the Commission itself was established. Thanks to the efforts of researchers, previously secret documents have exposed the workings of the Warren Commission and revealed the amount of hammering that was required to fit the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of the conclusion.

The Commission itself, and its political sponsors, are not entirely to blame for the way in which it was obliged to act; the cover�"up was the necessary consequence of the way in which the assassination occurred. The media, however, has very rarely referred to the Commission as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Even now, the Commission is usually portrayed as an honest, objective enquiry that tried its best to find out the truth of the assassination.
Jim Garrison and the New Orleans Investigation

In 1967 the New Orleans district attorney, Jim Garrison, began the first, and perhaps the only, official investigation that genuinely attempted to discover how and why President Kennedy was assassinated. It resulted in the unsuccessful prosecution of a local businessman, Clay Shaw.

New Orleans was where Lee Harvey Oswald had associated with both pro�"Castro and anti�"Castro elements during the summer of 1963. Garrison possessed evidence that Oswald and Shaw had known each other and had conspired in the assassination. His investigation was hindered by a combination of governmental and media institutions.

CBS countered Garrison’s claims of a conspiracy by putting out a four�"part defence of the lone�"nut hypothesis. The programme’s flaws are discussed in:

    Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro�"Study of the Kennedy Assassination, Bernard Geis Associates, 1967, pp.292�"5.
    Robert Henelly and Jerry Policoff, ‘JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story’.

CBS in fact broadcast three defences of the lone�"nut hypothesis:

    One could cogently argue that, from 1963�"75, no other broadcast outlet did more to prop up the Warren Commission farce than did CBS. They prepared three news specials in that time period to support the Commission. These all came at crucial times in that time period. The first one was in 1964 to accompany the release of the Warren Report. The second was in 1967 to calm a public that was becoming anxious about what Jim Garrison was doing in New Orleans. The third was in 1975 at the time of the Church Committee exposure of the crimes of the CIA and FBI, and the Schweiker�"Hart subcommittee report on the failure of those two agencies to properly relay information to the Commission.

    (James DiEugenio, ‘Elegy for Roger Feinman’)

Perhaps the most serious attack on Garrison by the US media was an NBC television show which alleged that his staff had attempted to bribe witnesses. Playboy magazine provided one of the few exceptions to the hostile media coverage with a sympathetic interview with Jim Garrison.
The Media and Oliver Stone’s JFK

The treatment of Garrison by the media was referred to in Oliver Stone’s film, JFK. Ironically, JFK suffered at least as badly from the same type of misrepresentation, including the unfounded claim that the film contained serious factual errors.

Michael Parenti points out the unprecedented extent of the opposition to JFK:

    As far as I know, JFK is the only movie in film history that was attacked, six months before it was released, in just about every major broadcast and print outlet.

    (Michael Parenti, ‘The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State’ [emphasis in the original])

Edward Herman, who analysed the role of the media with Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, identified the danger posed by JFK and its director:

    JFK also stresses the coverup of the JFK assassination by government and media in tandem. He [Oliver Stone] provides numerous pieces of evidence of the destruction and misrepresentation of data, failures and perversion of police�"intelligence procedure, and media connivance in closing down the inquiry prematurely, from the moment Kennedy was shot to JFK. The Zapruder film, for example, was bought by Time�"Life, and then kept out of the public domain for many years. The media’s response to Stone’s film follows a long tradition of protecting a ‘historical lie’ that they have failed to investigate critically since November 22, 1963.

    Stone’s menace runs deeper. If not discredited now, he might some day look with a similarly jaundiced eye at the Iran�"Contra Report, hearings and media treatment; or, even more frightening, he might examine the great Persian Gulf war as possibly related to the political interests of George Bush and the threatened budget of the MIC (which had been looking frantically for a ‘mission’), instead of as a triumph of virtue against naked aggression. That would never do.

    (Edward Herman, ‘JFK’, Z Magazine, February 1992)

The eminent film critic, Roger Ebert, reviewed JFK favourably. He went on to identify one cause of the media’s attacks on the film:

    If it has done nothing else, JFK has acheived the remarkable feat of making the op�"ed people livid with anger �" greater anger, apparently, than was generated by Watergate, or Irangate, or the vast looming specter of Vietnam, or such issues as gun control. … Why are these guys so worked up? There is one obvious reason …

    If Stone is right, then their own reporting on the Kennedy assassination is discredited. They got the story wrong. They have spent the last thirty years tacitly acting as if there were no substantial stories still to be generated by the Kennedy assassination. What are they going to do now? Thank Stone for directing their attention back to some of the bothersome questions in the case?

    (Roger Ebert, ‘Pundits Go Astray Taking Aim at JFK’, Universal Press Syndicate, 15 January 1992)

In general, Hollywood studios do not make subversive films, and those subversive films that do get made are given little or no publicity by the media. JFK was an exception to both rules. In this case, the commercial interests of Warner Brothers, and by extension the commercial interests of all the other studios which profited by employing the film’s participants, over�"rode obvious class interests.

The studio’s business decision appears to have been justified; according to various sources (see here and here), the film cost around $40 million to make, and earned over $200 million in box�"office receipts.

JFK involved many Hollywood stars, several of whom were identified with the film industry’s main publicity device: Oliver Stone, for example, had won three Oscars, and Kevin Costner received two Oscars for Dances With Wolves just one year before JFK was released. Although the commercial interests of the film industry ensured that the film could not be ignored, the ideological interests of the media demanded that the film’s message be opposed.
The Media and the 50th Anniversary

hi geoffrey thanks for posting and joining us , its an honor to have a person of your undoubted knowledgeable and research in this case here with us .

indeed the time between 12.30 and about 1.45 are of great importance , and there is far more to this area of time than the official version of events and the media wants us to know .

Born    March 29, 1918 in Texas, USA
Died    February 5, 1995 in Dallas, Texas, USA
Birth Name   Cecil Joffrey McWatters


Cecil J. McWatters was born on March 29, 1918 in Texas, USA as Cecil Joffrey McWatters. He died on February 5, 1995 in Dallas, Texas.

as far as i am aware this is the same cecil mcwatters geoffrey .


whalley certainly as a witness was problematic . he saw a picture of oswald i believe in the paper before he went to the line ups , that is a problem in terms of his identification . he was shown pictures before going into the line up , i believe from memory atleast two of 3 were of oswald and he failed to identify oswald from them . he picked the wrong photo .

while in the line up and by his own admission it was patently obvious that oswald was the suspect . they were putting oswald who looked about 30 in a line up with 3 teen boys one of whom was latino DARK SKINNED . this is a line up that jim leavelle says was CONDUCTED FAIRLY AND PROPERLY lol .

naturally oswald complained loudly about this . even whalley said THEY WERE RAILROADING HIM . and cab driver scoggins was stood next to whalley at that time , so one witness could influence another . scoggins was back around the corner on patton , thats back along the street where tippit was shot and around the corner to the left . he had bushes obscuring his view and when he did get a bit of a view of the man he by his own admission only saw him from behind .

for the above reasons alone (there are other problems with whalley ) the identifications by whalley and scoggins are in my view very problematic for the above reasons and more . that said whalley didnt identify oswald in regard either murder . only that oswald boarded his cab .

mcwatters went to the line ups thinking he was identifying passenger roy milton jones . the bus was stopped in traffic and going nowhere , and when a man nocked on the bus door to tell the driver / passengers about jfks shooting jones rather stupidly smirked / laughed and made comments . these actions were falsely attributed to oswald . but it was in fact jones .

mcwatters said he gave out (from memory ) two transfers , one to a woman and the other to a young man , roy milton jones was given a transfer if my memory serves me right . sorry i dont have all this information to hand so i have to go a bit by memory , usually its pretty reliable but i can make the odd error . so mcwatters went to the line ups and never identified oswald , the reason was because he thought he was there to identify the young man he had seen which was roy jones .

jones also never identified oswald as being on the bus . both did however say that the man they saw wore a jacket , whalley said the man he saw get in his cab wore a jacket . back at the depository frazier told gary mack that he saw oswald leaving , having came from the rear of the building , the loading bay area , and that he saw him cross from one side of houston to the other and turn left at the daltex and go up elm street . he also said oswald was wearing a jacket .

now if all above 4 men are honest and telling the truth that they saw a man and that it was oswald well then all 4 men have oswald wearing a jacket . that then completely discredits mrs beldsoe who said oswald wore the brown shirt . not one witness placed her on mcwatters bus , and not one saw the man she saw , she said it was oswald with contorted angry face and wearing the brown shirt torn and ripped and with all buttons ripped from it . no other person saw this man . there is probably a very good reason for that , you see the damage to the shirt that bledsoe claimed to have seen at about 12.40pm would not occur until about 1.45 over an hour later .

LN play fast and loose with mrs roberts . on one hand citing her and saying she was reliable , while on the other hand they attack her reliability and credibility . this is the mentality we have to deal with every day . of course LN try and push the time that oswald came home back to about 12.55 . we know the warren commission and whalley ran time trials in his cab , and try as they could they could not get oswald to his rooming house any earlier than 1pm .

we know that roberts spoke to her neighbour and we know she put on the news on tv , and we know oswald arrived after that . so based on that we can fairly state that it was atleast 1pm when oswald arrived home . when roberts says oswald had no jacket LN like that SHE IS ULTRA RELIABLE , why ? because they have in A shirt , but not THE shirt . they need him in a shirt so that they can take bledoses word and dismiss the other 4 witnesses . this is how the LN mind works .

but when she says oswald stayed about 4 minutes in his room they dont believe her . they say she was wrong , but just in case she is not wrong they have a back up plan , they say oswald arrived at 12.55 . why ? well oswald has a 16 minute plus walk to 10th and patton where tippit was killed no later than 1.16 (in fact he was killed before that time )  ,  if they cant get oswald out of his rooming house at 1pm they know they have a problem . this is what you call making the facts fit the evidence , instead of the true evidence fitting the true known facts .

so oswald having arrived at 1pm stays in his room about 4 minutes and leaves . about a minute or so later mrs roberts gets up from her tv , walks to the window and sees oswald still there by the bus stop . that puts oswald still on north beckley a mile from tippit at 1.05pm . when she left the window she says oswald was still there . t f bowley arrived at 10th and patton shortly after the shooting , tippit was already down . he looked at his watch , the only witness to do so , his watch said 1.10pm . now if oswald on foot got to 10th and patton before 1.10 having still been on beckley a mile away at 1.05 well then i suggest that the military was the wrong career  option , he should have chosen athletics because at the sort of speed he would have had to have been moving i dare say he would have given usain bolt a run for his money .

i have another detailed post on the forum here that goes into the timing etc that may interest people .

One area of the JFK assassination that I think is taken for granted by many people is Lee Harvey Oswald's supposed journey from the TSBD to his rooming house.

3 witnesses were relied on for this....Cecil McWatters, William Whaley and Earlene Roberts. Its seems obvious to me that Whaley lied constantly and changed his story to suit the the official version at every opportunity. Cecil McWatters seems to be describing the younger, Roy Milton Jones as his passenger. Earlene Roberts may be the only one telling the truth about Lee going to the rooming house.

Roberts and Whaley died before Garrison could use them as witnesses (should he have wanted to) but does anyone know how and when McWatters died? Roberts and Whaley died withing 3 weeks of each other in late 65 and early 66. I was wondering if McWatters lived a long and full life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE

in the above video at 7 minutes and 10 seconds the media reported that the dallas police had just reported to them that they had handed the rifle over to the fbi . and that THEY (the dallas police ) had found no prints on the rifle .

LN will tell you that they are logical and intelligent , as tho logic and intelligence is the same as KNOWING facts based on proper research . the most logical and indeed intelligent person in the world without proper research will lack facts . THATS A FACT .

as a prime example , here is a link to a blog , by a man who appears well into his 60s and a bugliosi fan , well he himself mentioned bugliosi .

http://highplainsblogger.com/2017/10/jfk-conspiracy-talk-might-fire-up-again/

"You may now consider me an official JFK anti-conspiracy believer.

Donald J. Trump has decided to allow the release of thousands of pages of FBI and CIA documents relating to the Nov. 22, 1963 assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas.

I’m glad the president has made this call. It should help dispel the loony conspiracy theories that have been kicked around since Lee Harvey Oswald shot the president to death and severely injured Texas Gov. John Connally.

The release should do this. It won’t. It is likely to fire up the goofballs."

above is how he starts his blog . by thanking trump for DECIDING to release files . the file release was already scheduled and so zero to do with any decision by trump .

being that this guy says he is a career journalist his lack of knowledge here is laughable .

he follows that then with an idiocy that one would not see in a 13 year old by labelling anyone who has a differing opinion to his LOONS AND GOOFBALLS . sure a person puts facts in front of you and you think that by calling them a loon that you are refuting the facts they provided . this is the insanity of LN , and its the stupidity of people who fall for their insane rantings .

now this "CAREER JOURNAILIST" provided a little tidbit of information in regards his knowledge and research of this case . lets see it

"For the record, here is what I believe.

I believe Oswald was able to sneak into the Book Depository Building"

firstly if one has FACTS based on years of proper research they can tell you those facts , what they believe is really unimportant because its proof of nothing .

but lets look at the above statement by this 60 plus year old journalist . now the problem should be obvious , but if not here it is .

"I believe Oswald was able to sneak into the Book Depository Building"

the problem here is that mr oswald HAD NO NEED to sneak into the depository building , WHY ? because the man worked in there . and he went into work that morning . so NO he didnt sneak in to the depository building , he walked right in the door and in front of atleast one employee inside the building .

this guy is labelling people loons and goofballs , praising trump for making a decision HE NEVER MADE , and he thinks oswald SNEAKED INTO THE DEPOSITORY BUILDING .

so you see logic or intelligence or both cant and will never replace PROPER RESEARCH . something this guy clearly does not have .

he calls bugliosis book reclaiming history THE DEFINITIVE BOOK . he clearly and obviously has NEVER checked the so called facts in it for accuracy and truthfulness , nor read any of the valid critiques of that book . but then as he said HE IS A JOURNALIST , if american that means that by default he immediately accepts any warren commission apologist book / documentary as gospel and that he dismisses without a thought any VALID work that is critical of the warren commission . that means he will fall all over himself to pat people like bugliosi on the back .

"That’s my hope. My fear is that the conspiracy nut cases will fire up their nonsense yet again."

he ends his blog as he started it with silly childish insults .

and at the end the only stab he made at actually talking about the evidence was ? his line above where he asserted that OSWALD SNEAKED IN TO THE DEPOSITORY lol lol lol , that is the lone effort that he made . and its PAINFULLY inaccurate . AND THEY CALL ME KOOK ? . lol lol

the moral here is , beware of logical LN brimming over with notions of great intelligence , because if like the guy above they probably would struggle to locate their a-s with both hands .

"Dave
November 22, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Well written. There were no conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Oswald did it all by himself. That’s what the evidence clearly shows. These conspiracy theorists are crazy. When they are presented with the evidence they distort and ignore it or say it was all faked. Crazy stuff."

the blog above had just one reply , the above reply . notice he talks about conspiracy theorists being presented with evidence , which he says they ignore . well his pal the blogger only presented one piece of evidence THAT OSWALD SNEAKED INTO THE DEPOSITORY , clearly the guy posting the reply ALSO doesnt know that oswald worked in that building and that HE HAD NO NEED TO SNEAK IN lol lol . so in answer , when some idiot tries to tell you that oswald sneaked into the depository that morning YES YOU SHOULD IGNORE IT because its laughable and nonsense .

 Why CBS Covered Up the JFK Assassination
Written by James DiEugenio



In this two-part essay, Jim DiEugenio builds on unpublished material obtained by Roger Feinman from CBS in order to reconstruct how the 1967 CBS special became the shameless defense of the Warren Commission's case against Lee Harvey Oswald that it was.


Part One

When Warren Commission critic Roger Feinman passed away in the fall of 2011, he was freelancing as a computer programmer. That was not his original choice for a profession. Roger started out in life as a journalist. In fact, while in college, he actually submitted reports on campus anti-war disturbances to local radio stations. When he graduated, he got a job at the local New York City independent television station WPIX. In 1972, at the rather young age of 24, he began working for CBS News in New York. There, among other things, he assisted in producing “The CBS World News Roundup with Dallas Townsend.” Under normal circumstances, Roger could have expected a long career at CBS, a few promotions, a nice salary, a munificent benefits package, and a generous pension. He never got any of that. In fact, he was terminated by his employers in the fall of 1976.
Roger Feinman

Why? Because in 1975, Roger saw the CBS News Department preparing for another multi-part special defending the Warren Report. The reader should be aware that this was the third time in 11 years that CBS had used its immense media influence to propagandize the public into thinking all was right with the official version of President Kennedy’s assassination. Back in 1964, upon the Warren Report’s initial release�"actually the evening of the day it was published�"CBS preempted regular programming. Walter Cronkite, assisted by Dan Rather, devoted two commercial-free hours to endorsing the main tenets of that report.

But something happened right after Cronkite and Rather did their public commemoration. Other people, who were not in the employ of the MSM, also looked at the report and the accompanying 26 volumes. Some of them were lawyers, some were professors, e.g., Vincent Salandria and Richard Popkin. They came to the conclusion that CBS had been less than rigorous in its review. By 1967, the analyses opposing the conclusions of both CBS and the Warren Report had become numerous and widespread. Books by Edward Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher and Josiah Thompson had now entered into public debate. Some of them became best sellers. Thompson’s book, Six Seconds in Dallas, was excerpted and placed on the cover of the wide circulation magazine Saturday Evening Post. Lane was actually appearing on popular talk shows. Jim Garrison had announced a reopening of the JFK case in New Orleans. The dam was threatening to break.

read the full article in the following link

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination

earl warren was pressured to chair the warren commission , he was so based on the threat of ww3 and the potential loss of 40 million lives .

the following is from pat speers site

From chapter 1 at patspeer.com:

That the "clearing" of Johnson's name was a major factor in the commission's creation is confirmed, moreover, by a memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin A. Eisenberg. While reporting on the Warren Commission's first staff conference of 1-20-64, Eisenberg recalled in a 2-17-64 memo that Chief Justice Warren had discussed "the circumstances under which he had accepted the chairmanship of the Commission," and had claimed he'd resisted pressure from Johnson until "The President stated that the rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives."

Eisenberg's account of Warren's statements was supported, for that matter, by Warren Commission Junior Counsel--and subsequent Senator--Arlen Specter in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth. In Specter's account, Warren claimed that Johnson had told him "only he could lend the credibility the country and the world so desperately needed as the people tried to understand why their heroic young president had been slain. Conspiracy theories involving communists, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, the military-industrial complex, and even the new president were already swirling. The Kennedy assassination could lead America into a nuclear war that could kill 40 million people..."

And this, apparently, wasn't the only time Warren admitted Johnson's worries extended both beyond and closer to home than the possible thermo-nuclear war mentioned in his autobiography. In his biography of Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved."

ONE WONDERS JUST HOW FAR MR WARREN WOULD GO ? .

INCONTROVERTIBLE - Online Extras No1 - Matt Campbell Victim Family Member

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooBULK0jSLw