DIRECT NEWS (review of their jfk news video )

[fobrien1]

as a person that is and has researched this case for some time now and have viewed a great many jfk youtube videos well i dont expect them all to be accurate or even true . lets face it there are some strange people out there with strange ideas . with weird or strange youtube videos no review of them is needed as those videos should speak for them selves . however videos from big tv companies and reasonably well made videos (that are inaccurate or untrue ) and well made videos (that are inaccurate or untrue ) certainly do need to be reviewed . i like to review some of these videos because often they atleast dont give the true story , in some cases they are deceptive , in others they downright lie about things . so its important to review these videos and give people the facts .

people need to know exactly what they are looking at . they need to know how reliable and or trustworthy the video content and or its maker / uploader is . but even an honest video  by an honest person or people can be inaccurate in part or in whole . jfk youtube videos get a lot of views and i know from personal experience that many believe what ever these videos say , this is why its important to look at these videos and their uploaders to atleast ensure that people viewing them get an accurate run down of the facts .

so lets start , here is the direct news video

the video above is less than 2 minutes long , and even tho its that short its quite inaccurate , and deceptive to people that wont have the proper research . is it purposely deceptive ? well i dont know , but i do know that its had 160000 views . if only 25% of that figure believe every part of that video that equates to 40000 people that believe or accept inaccurate information in that video .

very early on from just 15 or so seconds in the video starts pretty much with the premise that oswald was guilty and that he acted alone . while there is evidence that points to oswald we know that there are many many problems with that evidence , none of which the video even mentions , but then it is a short video . oswald also never had the opportunity to be tried in court and have all this evidence tested IN AN OPEN AND HONEST FASHION , he also has been denied the right that everyone has to be considered innocent untill proven guilty .

at about 26 seconds in the video claims that oswald WAS POSITIONED ON THE 6TH FLOOR AS THE MOTORCADE PASSED BY . only one person ever claimed to have seen oswald in that window , and that was howard brennan . this was having first refused to identify oswald as the man he saw . having later said it was oswald AFTER MR OSWALD WAS DEAD AND COULDNT CONTRADICT HIM brennan gave a description of the man he saw , which included height and weight something that was impossible to ascertain when the man he saw was kneeling .he also described specific clothing that WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN oswald wasnt wearing . the warren commission rightly felt that it was unwise to rely on mr brennans identification , so they decided NOT TO , they decided only that HE SAW SOMEONE . so aside from a man that even the warren commission decided they couldnt rely on no other person ever said they saw LEE OSWALD in that window . so anyone or any video that claims as proven fact that he was in that window is inaccurate , they can say they BELIEVE HE WAS IN THE WINDOW if they wish but its very far from a proven fact .

so we are but 26 seconds in and we have a video that starts with the premise of guilt without making any effort to prove it , and with a statement of fact based on something they cant prove and which has not been proven . in FACT dallas police chief jesse curry stated that

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."jesse currie dallas chief of police

at 35 or so seconds in the narrator stats that the view was PARTIALLY obstructed by the trees , in fact it was pretty much fully obstructed . the video even shows little in the way of obstruction from that tree . in fact in the video the tree branches dont obscure anything really , here is a secret service reconstruction photo that shows the obstruction all be it as the limo really is emerging from beneath the tree as opposed to being directly under it .



at about 45 seconds in the video narrator says ACCORDING TO THE WARREN COMMISSION oswald fired 3 shots . but no mention is made of the fact that they tried to ignore james tague who was injured by a shot . the FBI did ignore him and his wounding ENTIRELY , they came out in their report and said 3 shots , shot 1 hit jfk , shot 2 hit connally and shot 3 hit jfk , no tague wounding so NO MISSED SHOT and most certainly no single bullet theory . the commission as with the FBI willfully ignored tague for months , and not long before they were due to wrap up tague who wasnt going to be ignored again managed to get into the media and the commission then was forced to speak to him . they had already concluded BASED ON WHAT THE FBI CONCLUDED that 3 shots were fired and they were concluding pretty much what j edgar hoover decided upon . which was 3 shots and 3 hits . now they had tague and they had another shot to account for . this shouldnt be a problem but it was a serious problem because they had ONLY 3 shells and because oswald if the shooter only had  the time to fire 3 shots , so 4 shots meant a second shooter and conspiracy . now you can see why both FBI and the WC went to such great lengths to avoid and indeed ignore mr tague .

this was when the single bullet theory was born , as they say necessity is the mother of all invention. they simply could not and would not admit that a fourth shot was fired by someone other than oswald who was portrayed as a marxist , that could lead to ww3 . so they were forced to find a way to make 4 shots into 3 shots , easy just say one missed and one hit both men JOB DONE . lets forget that they couldnt and never did prove that , or that pretty much all medical experts said that it was HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that ce399 (the so called magic bullet ) caused all wounds attributed to it .

at 47 seconds in the video has a bullet (the first shot ) hitting the tree and heading off down elm where the video states that it STRUCK mr tague . firstly the bullet bouncing off the tree scenario is a theory and NOTHING MORE put forth by gerald posner , it in FACT has not one shred of proof in support of it . mr posner invented this scenario , but then he claims to have interviewed witnesses , witnesses some of whom  said THEY NEVER EVEN MET HIM . so in that sense should we be surprised here ? . but the very fact that the video mentions the bullet hitting the tree nonsense tells us that the video maker / narrator atleast in part used posners book as a basis for this video . that then explains why the video starts with a premise of guilt as opposed to starting with a blank canvas and seeing where the facts take you .

by the way contrary to what the video FALSELY states mr tague was not STRUCK by a bullet , the bullet hit the curb very close to where he was standing and either a fragment of bullet or a small piece of concrete flew up and scratched his face . the curb was marked from being hit , fresh damage was photographed .

at 50 seconds or so in the narrator mentions the 2nd and 3rd shot hitting jfk , no mention of the single bullet theory or connallys wounding .

at about  1 minute in give or take the odd second the narrator states that an analysis of the zapruder film shows that the 3 shots were fired in some 8.5 seconds . this again is based on posnsers book in which he posits a theory that the first shot was fired at frame z160 , the head shot being at frame z313 , thats 153 frames , mr zapruder whos film is the basis for the z frame referenced above  filmed at roughly 18.5 frames a second which roughly equates to 8.5 seconds . DO THE MATH .  what posner offered as proof of this was the little girl in red running along who turned her head to the right at about z160 . as she was running along the pavement and jfks limo was to her right its not unreasonable that her head would be looking that way . mr posner buttresses this look to the right with testimony from the little girl . but here is the problem , the little girl in red was rosemary willis SHE NEVER TESTIFIED , her older sister linday kay testified and thats who posner quoted NOT THE LITTLE GIRL IN RED . thats one hell of a researcher isnt it ? i dont know any even reasonably well researcher who doesnt know that rosemary willis was the little girl in red SO HOW IS IT THAT POSNER DIDNT KNOW ?.

so in essence all that is accurate and proven in that segment of the video is that the film was indeed analyzed , there is no proof of any shot at z160 . the reason posner et al claim there was a shot at z160 is that it gives oswald 2.5 seconds more to fire 3 shots , this is because the 6 seconds scenario is a problem , even expert shooters struggled with it and oswald at best qualified BARELY as a medium shot and ONLY after intensive training . so the 6 second sequence simply must be lengthened to make the lone nut shooting scenario seem more plausible  .


at 1.05 in the video ALL THO THE NARRATOR SAYS THE BULLET ENTERED JFKs BACK the red line clearly shows the bullet entering THE NECK at the level of the shirt collar . all lone nut videos have the bullet entering here ON THE NECK , the fact is that the wound was on jfks BACK several inches below shoulder level and just to the right of the spine . there are corresponding holes in jfks jacket and shirt and also an autopsy photo to support this , where as there is NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to support any wound on the right of jfks neck . the only reason that its falsely claimed that the wound was on the neck is because they need the entry wound above the exit wound in the throat , after all mr oswald was supposedly 6 floors above wasnt he ? lol . so he had to be shooting downward , that necessitates a high entry and lower exit . so a low back wound was no good , so they moved it up , that is THEY LIED AND SAID IT WAS UP THERE but it never was .



you can see in the video that the red line is on the side of jfks neck just under the level of the ear and traveling down to the throat in front , the narrator states that this shows a bullet exiting the throat , NO IT DOESNT , the wound indeed was on the BACK but the video shows the single bullet theory which starts with an entry wound high on the right side of the neck . we now know that to be false , as the wound was on the back NOT ON THE NECK . that directly contradicts the single bullet theory right from the start .

at about 1.16 in the video the animation has the third shot hitting jfk very high on the upper right side of the head .

the warren commission DID NOT say the entry wound on jfks head was that high up , in fact the pathologists stated that the entry wound was LOW on the back of the head just off center to the right , and just to the right of the EOP which is the external occiptial protuberance . that is a bump on the lower part of the back of your head CENTRAL and about the level and on a line between the middle of your two ears . lets have a look






in the above photo jfks head is pushed back a bit ITS NOT STRAIGHT UP , to show that note the thick folds on his neck . also the photo was clearly taken from a view to jfks right . so central in the picture is actually a bit more to the left in the above photo , its the angle of the camera .  now look at the photo at the hairline where the hair on the low back of the head meets the neck LOOK IN THE CENTER of that hair line SEE THE WHITE MARK ? well thats the bullet wound entry according to the pathologists and the warren commission . so the pathologists who performed the autopsy NEVER said the head entry wound was where this video FALSELY places it .

so why does the video say the head entry wound was so much higher up ? (4 to 5 inches higher up in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot ) , well its the same scenario as the BACK wound which is that if a wound is by the EOP IT WAS TOO LOW , remember mr oswald was supposedly 6 floors above , so they need a high entry and a lower exit , and they didnt have that . they had a LOW entry on the lower back of the head and a higher exit on the front right . so they not only moved the BACK wound and said it was higher up on the neck when it was AS WE SEE ABOVE not on the neck but on the BACK several inches lower , they also moved the head wound UP from the LOWER back of the head UP some 4 to 5 inches to the crown of the head .

the clark panel (headed by ramsay clark) were responsible for this outrageous lie . they even had pathologist dr humes who performed jfks autopsy tell them in no uncertain terms that THEY WERE WRONG and he VEHEMENTLY protested that jfk had NO entry wound all the way up there that the wound was down by the EOP where he said it was . naturally humes was ignored . the hsca then came along and carried on what they knew was a lie . so this video claims a head entry wound position that is in complete contradiction to the warren commission and even in contradiction to the very pathologists that performed jfks autopsy . even the most intelligent and well researched lone nut believers will try and get you to swallow this utter BS .

at 1.34 in the video it shows a man behind the fence shooting at jfk . the first problem THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS is that in the video the limo has driven well passed the knoll steps while the shots rang out THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE .



the above photo was taken either a split second before or just as the head shot was fired . its clear to see that the knoll steps are quite a bit in front of and to the right of the limo , the men on the steps are clearly seen showing the distance jfk was back from the knoll steps . the above video FALSELY has the limo having driven passed the knoll steps with a still live and upright jfk . the shooter is not aiming up elm street at jfk but aiming in a straight line right at the RIGHT SIDE OF JFKS HEAD . this is a deliberate attempt at deception , the point of which is to FALSELY infer that such a shot had to exit the left side of jfks head and hit jackie , this FALSE image and wholly inaccurate and untrue scenario then allows the video maker or whom ever to FALSELY assert that NO SHOT COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM THE KNOLL because such a shot would have to have left an exit wound on the left side of jfks head . and such a shot would have injured jackie . when in FACT the moormon photo above shows a pretty clear line of sight from the knoll (from over the heads of the men on the steps by the trees where witnesses saw a puff of smoke to jfks head , and all tho jackie is very close she is not in that line of sight nor does she obstruct it .

in essence here the video shows a false picture of the limo well past the knoll steps with jfk still waiting to be hit in the head  . you have to understand the mentality at hand here , which is that they must try and DEBUNK everything they dont like even if they have to use patently false information to do it . they dont want a knoll shot because that means conspiracy . so you get the old LN nonsense where they HAVE TO try and debunk any notion of a knoll shot , so they come up with a scenario to show that a knoll shot couldnt have happened even tho its a patently false scene they show . the whole point of this is so they can say FALSELY that a knoll shot entering the right side of the head had to travel in a straight line and exit on the left side of the head and hit jackie kennedy who was sat there , and as she wasnt hit that debunks a knoll shot . the fact that they are showing a patently false picture and inaccurate shooting scenario doesnt matter , the want you to believe something that is not true THATS IT . and they know that a great many people will NEVER check the accuracy of what they claim (many believe this nonsense without question ) so they will get away with this false information . this is why its so important to check EVERYTHING .

is it not amazing that such a short video less than 2 minutes long can be so inaccurate , unfactual , not to mention deceptive ? .