Assassination of the assassination
I watched a show a few days ago that I'd saved for about a month on my PVR. I taped it because the visual snippets were impressive but hadn't watched it because the dialogue associated with those brief images was annoying. The show is called "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy" (2003). Since I have no method of transferring the show to my hardrive (which I did in my old setup; previous home) I decided to clear it off my PVR. I watched the show from front to back but was unable to prevent some serious responses being shouted at the screen.
This piece by Jennings (Senior Editor) was inundated with gross distortions and skillfully missing information. Ironically, this was the very thing that they vehemently accused everyone else of doing. What I love about the assassination is that it's a lightning rod for illuminating evil from good, truth from lies, openness from deceit so that one might understand the state of the world. Not dissimilar from Christ’s resurrection in terms of the degree of the war over the actual events which transpired. Reflecting on this I surmise that this is the case for all incidents, amplified to the degree
of what is at stake. With Kennedy’s assassination the stakes are exceedingly high as the machinations of evil can be seen in broad daylight. It is the likes of Jennings who hopes we close our eyes.
The only good I can say about the two hour show is that there were two items that additional light was shed on that were of significance. Oswald was a better shot than I had previously been informed. They actually showed the Marine shooting records with his scores from rapid fire shooting at 200 yards. This was impressive until they decided to weaken their argument by extending the implications beyond their capacity. The repeatedly mentioned that Kennedy was 75yds from Oswald when he was shot at. This is supposed to impress us how close he was relative to 200yds?! They failed to mention at any point that it was a moving vehicle (target) so there would be necessarily 3 distances at
which shots were fired. (from their count). The results on a driving range with a stationary target would be quite different than on a moving target with trees in obscuring your view. This kind of attempt to extend the import of the facts makes me question the whole scenario as simply a means to push their desired viewpoint.
The other item of interest was the death of Office J.D. Tippet. I knew it was pretty solid that Oswald shot him but there was more evidence to confirm that in the show. So while I don't think Oswald took the fatal shot, he's still a murderer. I never really thought much about Oswald’s participation because it became irrelevant due to other overwhelming evidence. It’s fairly obvious to me now, and already had been, that someone took some shots from the area of the Depository, to at least set Oswald up or it may have been Oswald himself.
These items represent about 4 minutes of the 120 minutes of viewing. The rest was simply a blatant and subtle attempt to continue the brainwashing of the viewers to Jennings desired result. Three particular points make this abundantly clear to me.
One is the total lack of refutation of evidence
provided by the witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Of the 104 people who were in ear shot of the assassination, 35 (minimum) said they heard them coming from the knoll area. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm) Like the Warren commission report they were not really included in the discussion! I don’t see how the choice to leave this unanswered means anything less than a severe prejudice. The report simply focuses on the shots from the depository and leaves it at that.
A second item was the death of Danny Ferry who had supposedly been part of a meeting between Clay Shaw and Oswald. In the dialogue Jennings says his death was through “natural causes”. This was over a picture of Ferry with the newpaper article in the background. If you freeze the screen and read the article (HD) his death was an “apparent suicide” and the cause was “brain hemorrhage”. So from Jennings perspective, a natural cause of death is blowing your brains out or having someone blow them out for you?! So while Ferry’s manner of death was never part of my consciousness up to this point, the asinine and clumsy attempt by Jennings to bury the facts will forever imbed it in my memory. And of course the entire line of discussion is meant to discredit Jim Garrison, or better put, Oliver Stone’s representation of Garrison.
The final item, before I summarize, was the mention of the autopsy reports which de facto makes Oliver Stone a liar. The dialogue runs that the x-rays and autopsy ‘prove’ that the shots came from behind. In the least, this is a gross misrepresentation of the readily available details of the autopsy(s) and surrounding events. There are enormous questions raised by the variances in the presentation of the President’s body from the time he died on the table at Parkland Memorial to the autopsy slab at Bethesda Naval Hospital. An entire book was written by the resident physician at Parkland memorial providing direct evidence to contradict Hume’s conclusions. David Lifton’s phone call interview of the attending Physician, Malcolm Perry, where he described the maximum length of the tracheotomy as being significantly less than the opening encountered by Hume’s at Bethesda. Or the absurd fact that the autopsy photos had been ‘flipped’ in a number of cases and the right side description being applied to the left side of his head. (thank god for Kennedy’s nose scar) Anyway, the lack of any depth of investigation into these issues ends any idea that Jennings was remotely objective.
(for proof that there is more to the autopsy than Jennings one line acceptance of Hume’s pre-burned notes - http://www.jfkresearch.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf - 125 pages that show the complexity and deceit at work)
What was particularly insidious was their vicious raping of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And it
wasn’t just Jennings. Jack Valente and a host of other respected individuals popped up one after another to denounce Stone’s treatment of the subject. They took a single snippet from a Stone interview where he said he used ‘dramatic license’ in the film and proceeded to lynch him with it. Then they bemoaned and lamented over the fact that this type of movie ends up being imbedded in the thoughts of the American people instead of the truth of what happened. This piece of subtle propaganda was an amazing thing to behold.
From where I sit, Stone used about 10% of the license that Jennings used in making this report. (documentary?) At least Stone is honest about it. Jennings continues to operate under the shroud of journalistic objectivity all the while making a ‘movie’ of his own. The reason Stone’s film is in the minds of the American people is because it was already there. Evidence available from the day the assassination occurred has never been fully explained. The bullet fragments absolutely never added up. The motorcade vehicle being washed before any serious forensics could be completed. A mysterious pristine bullet found on a stretcher that supposedly rammed into
Connelly’s wrist after passing through the President, all the ‘grassy knoll’ information etc. ad infinitum. So while Jennings and his team lament the American public’s ‘brainwashing’ by Stone’s film (28 yrs after the fact) , I am hopeful the same public will discard Jennings’s tripe as the real attempt to control their minds.
Jennings audience is to those who don’t want to know what happened or those who prefer his comforting, assured persuasions as opposed to the harsh reality of the facts. Anyone who has even done a surface investigation into this incident would have problems with the presentations in this “report”. I’m not sure of his motivations, but Jennings has a serious stake in convincing as many as he can that Oswald acted alone. There’s a Titanic sized load of evidence that simply doesn’t add up to that conclusion. I still think the search for the truth is fairly simple - present all the facts then attempt to put some plausible scenario together that explains everything you know. It is patently obvious that Jennings doesn’t even know what that is.
This piece by Jennings (Senior Editor) was inundated with gross distortions and skillfully missing information. Ironically, this was the very thing that they vehemently accused everyone else of doing. What I love about the assassination is that it's a lightning rod for illuminating evil from good, truth from lies, openness from deceit so that one might understand the state of the world. Not dissimilar from Christ’s resurrection in terms of the degree of the war over the actual events which transpired. Reflecting on this I surmise that this is the case for all incidents, amplified to the degree
of what is at stake. With Kennedy’s assassination the stakes are exceedingly high as the machinations of evil can be seen in broad daylight. It is the likes of Jennings who hopes we close our eyes.The only good I can say about the two hour show is that there were two items that additional light was shed on that were of significance. Oswald was a better shot than I had previously been informed. They actually showed the Marine shooting records with his scores from rapid fire shooting at 200 yards. This was impressive until they decided to weaken their argument by extending the implications beyond their capacity. The repeatedly mentioned that Kennedy was 75yds from Oswald when he was shot at. This is supposed to impress us how close he was relative to 200yds?! They failed to mention at any point that it was a moving vehicle (target) so there would be necessarily 3 distances at
which shots were fired. (from their count). The results on a driving range with a stationary target would be quite different than on a moving target with trees in obscuring your view. This kind of attempt to extend the import of the facts makes me question the whole scenario as simply a means to push their desired viewpoint.The other item of interest was the death of Office J.D. Tippet. I knew it was pretty solid that Oswald shot him but there was more evidence to confirm that in the show. So while I don't think Oswald took the fatal shot, he's still a murderer. I never really thought much about Oswald’s participation because it became irrelevant due to other overwhelming evidence. It’s fairly obvious to me now, and already had been, that someone took some shots from the area of the Depository, to at least set Oswald up or it may have been Oswald himself.
These items represent about 4 minutes of the 120 minutes of viewing. The rest was simply a blatant and subtle attempt to continue the brainwashing of the viewers to Jennings desired result. Three particular points make this abundantly clear to me.
One is the total lack of refutation of evidence
provided by the witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Of the 104 people who were in ear shot of the assassination, 35 (minimum) said they heard them coming from the knoll area. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm) Like the Warren commission report they were not really included in the discussion! I don’t see how the choice to leave this unanswered means anything less than a severe prejudice. The report simply focuses on the shots from the depository and leaves it at that.A second item was the death of Danny Ferry who had supposedly been part of a meeting between Clay Shaw and Oswald. In the dialogue Jennings says his death was through “natural causes”. This was over a picture of Ferry with the newpaper article in the background. If you freeze the screen and read the article (HD) his death was an “apparent suicide” and the cause was “brain hemorrhage”. So from Jennings perspective, a natural cause of death is blowing your brains out or having someone blow them out for you?! So while Ferry’s manner of death was never part of my consciousness up to this point, the asinine and clumsy attempt by Jennings to bury the facts will forever imbed it in my memory. And of course the entire line of discussion is meant to discredit Jim Garrison, or better put, Oliver Stone’s representation of Garrison.
The final item, before I summarize, was the mention of the autopsy reports which de facto makes Oliver Stone a liar. The dialogue runs that the x-rays and autopsy ‘prove’ that the shots came from behind. In the least, this is a gross misrepresentation of the readily available details of the autopsy(s) and surrounding events. There are enormous questions raised by the variances in the presentation of the President’s body from the time he died on the table at Parkland Memorial to the autopsy slab at Bethesda Naval Hospital. An entire book was written by the resident physician at Parkland memorial providing direct evidence to contradict Hume’s conclusions. David Lifton’s phone call interview of the attending Physician, Malcolm Perry, where he described the maximum length of the tracheotomy as being significantly less than the opening encountered by Hume’s at Bethesda. Or the absurd fact that the autopsy photos had been ‘flipped’ in a number of cases and the right side description being applied to the left side of his head. (thank god for Kennedy’s nose scar) Anyway, the lack of any depth of investigation into these issues ends any idea that Jennings was remotely objective.(for proof that there is more to the autopsy than Jennings one line acceptance of Hume’s pre-burned notes - http://www.jfkresearch.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf - 125 pages that show the complexity and deceit at work)
What was particularly insidious was their vicious raping of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And it
wasn’t just Jennings. Jack Valente and a host of other respected individuals popped up one after another to denounce Stone’s treatment of the subject. They took a single snippet from a Stone interview where he said he used ‘dramatic license’ in the film and proceeded to lynch him with it. Then they bemoaned and lamented over the fact that this type of movie ends up being imbedded in the thoughts of the American people instead of the truth of what happened. This piece of subtle propaganda was an amazing thing to behold.From where I sit, Stone used about 10% of the license that Jennings used in making this report. (documentary?) At least Stone is honest about it. Jennings continues to operate under the shroud of journalistic objectivity all the while making a ‘movie’ of his own. The reason Stone’s film is in the minds of the American people is because it was already there. Evidence available from the day the assassination occurred has never been fully explained. The bullet fragments absolutely never added up. The motorcade vehicle being washed before any serious forensics could be completed. A mysterious pristine bullet found on a stretcher that supposedly rammed into
Connelly’s wrist after passing through the President, all the ‘grassy knoll’ information etc. ad infinitum. So while Jennings and his team lament the American public’s ‘brainwashing’ by Stone’s film (28 yrs after the fact) , I am hopeful the same public will discard Jennings’s tripe as the real attempt to control their minds.Jennings audience is to those who don’t want to know what happened or those who prefer his comforting, assured persuasions as opposed to the harsh reality of the facts. Anyone who has even done a surface investigation into this incident would have problems with the presentations in this “report”. I’m not sure of his motivations, but Jennings has a serious stake in convincing as many as he can that Oswald acted alone. There’s a Titanic sized load of evidence that simply doesn’t add up to that conclusion. I still think the search for the truth is fairly simple - present all the facts then attempt to put some plausible scenario together that explains everything you know. It is patently obvious that Jennings doesn’t even know what that is.
