What “The Sixties” tries hard to overlook

Deb Galatine, a la Facebook. #wakeupCNN

“CNN, The Sixties— totally & unethically ignores what has been learned since the “President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992″ released thousands of documents that were unavailable to the Warren Commission as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976. CNN— deliberately misleads the public by ignoring current forensics and trajectory analysis that prove a shot from the front. CNN— using tactics reminiscent of the USSR’s Cold War era Tass News Agency tries & convicts Lee Oswald of JFK’s murder.”

29 comments

  1. Shane McBryde says:

    If I’m convinced of nothing else it’s Oswald’s incredulity with respect to the charges made against him. Nobody was more flabbergasted than Oswald at all that was swirling on around him.

    The audio of the “experts” didn’t seem to match the facts of the footage they were showing. The footage was of a guy screaming he’s innocent and that he’s being railroaded.

    The audio was from a bunch of 3rd tier self appointed nobody’s 50 years later trying to convince you he’s guilty. They weren’t even there! I mean it’s a real joke in my eyes.

    You gotta remember Bugliosi was never anything more than an assistant da for the city of LA. law schools crap out ADAs every day. CNN plays him up like he was former mayor or something.

    • Jonathan says:

      You hit the mark. Your first paragraph is demonstrably accurate:

      “If I’m convinced of nothing else it’s Oswald’s incredulity with respect to the charges made against him. Nobody was more flabbergasted than Oswald at all that was swirling on around him.”

      1) Oswald was framed.

      2) He was shocked and confused as he learned he’d been framed.

      3) The frame has become history and was intended to become history. It was central to the assassination. It ensured a tidy public ending.

    • mball says:

      The look on Oswald’s face when some reporter tells him that he’s going to be charged with JFK’s murderr is the classic “Oh Sh*t” look.

    • Mitch says:

      Bugliosi was a pretty amazing prosecutor, that’s why he’s played up. He convicted like 300 of 303 cases or something. Add to that he was a successful author before writing about the assassination.

      He is wrong on the assassination, obviously (he drops the ball repeatedly in his book), but he still should command some respect.

      • Paulf says:

        The vast majority of prosecutors win almost every case. That’s not to say he wasn’t good, but his record isn’t all that remarkable in relation to peers. Most criminal charges result in plea deals. Prosecutors usually only go to court when the evidence is strong.

      • Jonathan says:

        Mitch, all prosecutors, state and federal, have nearly perfect batting averages. They pad their averages heavily with plea bargains. The cases they take to court, the ones in which the defendant rejects a bargain or no bargain is offered, are overwhelmingly slam dunks, not infrequently because of corrupt police practices that don’t come to light.

        Prosecutors having records like Bugliosi are a dime a dozen.

  2. anonymous says:

    “What The Sixties tries hard to overlook”

    I bring up Todashev’s Killer because it reminds one of the The Sixties footage where a stringer informs a sock puppet of LHO killers name – the sock puppet’s mike is open – and he covers it, looking scared…

    “deliberately misleads by ignoring current trajectory analysis that prove a shot from the front.”

    Bill Hicks jokes about Lone Nutter Physics and the Lone Nutter Sixth Floor Museum:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DjxAMytTnU

    It was amusing to see the prepubescent Dan Rather. I read somewhere that CBS had brought an army to cover the Dallas campaign stop – I wonder if they had a tip?

    • Lee Stephenson says:

      Good point …. Walter and Dan both made careers that day.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Re the CBS coverage that day, you have to remember this was a long planned visit, meant to be a prelude to the 1964 presidential campaign. IIRC, it was first announced this trip would be made in June or July of ’63. It was meant to be a big media event, hence the heavy on ground media presence. Cronkite was already a CBS heavyweight (anchor of their just recently expanded to 30 minutes nightly newscast) and was in NY City when the news of the assassination hit. Rather was already an up and comer due to his coverage of a hurricane in ’61 or ’62 from Houston. He was a native Texan, so only natural to have him in Dallas for that trip. Both of them toed the line afterwards to their eternal shame, but I can’t believe they were in on what was to occur.

  3. John McAdams says:

    CNN— deliberately misleads the public by ignoring current forensics and trajectory analysis that prove a shot from the front.

    There is no such analysis and forensics. The efforts of amateurs trying to prove conspiracy don’t count.

    What are you invoking here? Tink’s invisible second head shot?

    Mantik’s “I don’t publish in peer reviewed outlets” claims about x-ray fakery?

    • Paulf says:

      John:

      By your standards, there is no evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor and shot the rounds that fired Kennedy. Or did you prove it and I’m just not aware?

    • You have cited this as a quote: “I don’t publish in peer reviewed outlets.” Please cite your source for this. That certainly does not sound like me.

      Furthermore, Plast. Reconstr. Surg. has just agreed to publish my response to their article “The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Revisiting the Medical Data.” A reference number has been assigned to my response. Stay tuned. David W. Mantik

      • John McAdams says:

        Have you published any peer reviewed articles in scientific journals where you outline your theory of x-rays alteration?

        If so, you can easily post citations, right?

        Nice that a journal let you write a response to a peer reviewed article. But you’ve been at this 20 years. What peer reviewed articles have you already published?

        • Victor says:

          Mr. McAdams,

          Without knowing exactly quite what motivated you to invoke David Mantik’s name and work in a response on this particular thread, I thought that it would interest you to learn that his Letter to the Editor (a summary of the JFK medical evidence), ‘Re: Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 132: 1340, 2013 “The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Revisiting the Medical Data’ has been accepted for publication in the January 2015 issue of that journal. While there are space limitations imposed on his letter, you may rest assured that he has maximized the opportunity extended to him.

          Mantik’s forthcoming summary of the JFK medical evidence will no doubt be illuminating for your Marquette students to consult, as it will be substantially more informative and edifying than the meager and inadequate coverage assigned by you in your syllabus (at http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/documents/4191SyllabusMcAdams.pdf). Indeed, sophisticated and well-briefed readers of this forum may speculate on why you steer your students away from any substantive information regarding the variety of falsifications in the medical evidence (e.g., the radiopaque occipital patch as well as the visually convincing but photometrically preposterous 6.5 mm cylindrical cross-section observed on the outer skull table), which Dr. Mantik’s scientific examinations have turned up. I feel certain that even with this publication by Mantik your citations of his work are unlikely to make their way into your syllabus.

          • John McAdams says:

            Mantik’s forthcoming summary of the JFK medical evidence will no doubt be illuminating for your Marquette students to consult, as it will be substantially more informative and edifying than the meager and inadequate coverage assigned by you in your syllabus (at http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/documents/4191SyllabusMcAdams.pdf).

            What you are calling “meager and inadequate” is the assessment of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

            These were real experts.

            I also assign my students the HSCA authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays.

            I teach my students to look for the most reliable evidence. Amateurish buff stuff claiming alteration doesn’t qualify.

          • Victor says:

            Mr. McAdams,
            Dr. Mantik took his graduate education in physics at Illinois, Wisconsin, and Stanford. As a physicist, he certainly learned to kick the tires before accepting a data set, and put his training to good use when evaluating the NARA autopsy material. He noticed many invalidating anomalies which escaped the attention of the FPP, not least of which is the emulsion-covered image of a scribing on an autopsy x-ray purported to be original. How do you represent this to your students, and do you know of any observers who dispute Mantik’s observations after having themselves viewed the x-rays in the National Archives?

          • John McAdams says:

            As a physicist, he certainly learned to kick the tires before accepting a data set,

            But he has no credentials at all in the forensic examination of x-rays. He’s not even a radiologist, but a radiation oncologist.

            The only thing he has ever published in any peer reviewed journal is a letter to the editor. Contrast this with Lattimer, who was a urologist, but published multiple articles in peer reviewed journals.

            And contrast Mantik with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (and their radiological consultants) who had impressive credentials.

            So you are demanding that I take a hobbyist’s word over that of real experts.

  4. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’m no fan of the MSM’s lack of attention to the pursuit of the truth in the JFK assassination.
    But I’d like to point out that some newspaper journalists in particular did some worthy work. The weekend it happened we had TV (mostly black and white), radio and newspapers.
    Initial reports were of frontal shot(s), people rushing up the knoll.
    Many leads were followed up but ignored by police.
    Presidential aide Malcolm Kidluff pointed at his temple
    (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=malcolm+kilduff&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=4AA1D004E27A512257D34AA1D004E27A512257D3
    NOTE: WATCH the last few seconds (if nothing else).
    Future dallas Mayor Wes Wise as a reporter brought important information out, e.g. the Mather story.
    Former Dallas then in 63 national reporter Seth Kantor’s telling the Truth to the Warren omission and book are seminal in the history of assassination research.
    Some years later Fort Worth native and former Star Telegram reporter (and President of the Fort Worth Press Club) Jim Marrs would write a book called Crossfire, which became the movie JFK, which inspired the ARRB.
    I appreciate the work of these Journalist’s.
    Along with the work of so many since.

  5. JG says:

    Laughable.

    Oswald claimed he was a patsy then a few hours later he claimed to be totally ignorant of what was going on.
    Fail.

    • Jonathan says:

      Laughable: a badly rusted rifle with a rusted firing pin

      Laughable: that the FBI and DPD inventories don’t match

      Laughable: that Barrett waited until Bentley was dead to call him a liar

      Laughable: that on 11-23-63, J. E. Hoover said to LBJ the case against Oswald wasn’t very strong

      Laughable: that the head X-rays and photos show an intact rear skull, while even Humes agreed to ARRB the rear of the head was blasted out

      Laughable: that W.C. defenders have done what no court ever did, establish Oswald’s guilt

      At some point the laughing’s got to stop. I propose it’s at the point one realizes the Warren Commission consisted of seven members, three of whom were dissenters, one of whom was feeding information to the FBI (Ford), one of whom was a liar by profession (Dulles), one of whom was a close friend of the liar’s (Mcloy), and one of whom was bound and determined at the outset not to find a conspiracy (Warren). That’s no joke. That’s a national stain.

      • Jean Davison says:

        “…even Humes agreed to ARRB the rear of the head was blasted out”

        Could you please give me that direct quote, Jonathan?

        • Jonathan says:

          You have to piece it together. Here’s part 1 (Q is Jeremy Gunn, A is Humes):

          “Q. Now, when this 10 by 17 centimeters of bone is missing, does that mean that it was present nowhere in the autopsy room during the autopsy?

          A. Not until later when part of it was brought to me, which I described, I believe, in the written report.

          Q. So would it–

          A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I’m talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn’t have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.

          Q. So then from the first time that you saw the President’s head without the pieces of skull fragment that came in later, the approximate measurements of the missing scalp would be roughly 10 centimeters to 17 centimeters?

          A. By 17, right.”

          Jonathan’s note: 17 centimeters according to Boswell’s drawing necessarily means parts of the top of the head and the back of the head were blasted away.

          Here’s part 2, as to the location of the defect Humes could not close:

          “Q. You mentioned that there was a rubber dam in the embalming process. Where was that located?

          A. Well, it was not in the embalming process. When they got finished embalming, we had to put–we didn’t have to, but we helped them put the scalp back together and the skull. And the defect that remained in the skull–I can’t now measure it specifically–was three or four or five centimeters, something like that. And we used a rubber dam to cover that part of the skull defect.

          Q. And where was that located?

          A. Well, I can’t–it was part of this large defect, and I can’t tell you now exactly where it was.

          Q. When you say part of this large defect, you mean in the parietal area?

          A. Right.

          Jonathan’s note: The right parietal bone encloses part of the right top and part of the right rear of the brain.

          Humes elsewhere tells the ARRB (a) the cerebellum, which sits low in the back of the cranium, was disturbed, and (b) the scalp was lacerated into the occipital region.

          Taking Humes’s ARRB testimony at face value, one has no choice but to decide certain so-called autopsy photos are fakes.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Jonathan,

          Humes said he wasn’t sure whether the “17 cm” was correct, or his “13 cm” from the autopsy report:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=788&relPageId=85

          The exit wound extended into the *upper* back of the skull (even the Rydberg drawing shows that). That’s not seen in the back-of-head photo because very little scalp was missing, just bone. (Starting near the bottom here to p. 93):

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=788&relPageId=91

          Humes said that the scalp was badly lacerated but that there were no tears “whatsoever” over the occipital bone itself:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=788&relPageId=95

          Humes also agreed that the photos appeared authentic. He certainly didn’t say the back of the head was blasted out.

      • Shane McBryde says:

        @Jonathon

        I find that succinct point by point style exhilarating. It’s what’s needed more of. I mean there are so many points to be made it’s almost overwhelming, but just nail down a few just like you did really tends to drive the point right on through. It’s like we all should have about 5 – 10 solid irrefutable points to lay out there that even a child could see the illogic in the Warren Commission’s case.

      • Paul Turner says:

        It certainly is a national stain. James Tagaue, in his book LBJ And The Kennedy Killing, , makes numerous references to what obviously was the goal of the WC: “We are here to close doors, not open new ones”. But we can’t really blame the WC for operating under that theme-Jedgar Hoover ordered them to do that.

  6. Avinash says:

    Disgraceful.Even after 50 years poor Oswald is still being accused of a crime he did not commit.Time for justice.

  7. Shane McBryde says:

    This article from Salon.com is talking about the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand 100 years ago which touched off WW I.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/anatomy_of_an_assassination_two_fateful_days_that_sparked_decades_of_horror/

    It’s so easy now to look back on that and accept it for the conspiracy involving the Serbian intelligence services that it was. I wonder if 50 years from now we’ll clearly see JFK’s assassination for what it was.

  8. Bugliosi’s career description is, I think, overrated. I did a lot of research on this for Reclaiming Parkland. But it was edited out of the final copy. Here it is:

    http://feralhouse.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Prosecutor-revised.pdf

    As you can see, there are a lot of questions today about his handling of the whole Tate/LaBianca case, which made his career. Aaron Stovitz, the original lead prosecutor, never bought the whole “Manson as mastermind” Helter Skelter scenario. And if you read this, you can see why.

    When he was running against for DA, Van De Kamp called him on his prosecutorial record. He was not able to back it up with documents.

    If you read RP, you will see that his win in London at that exceedingly ersatz mock trial, was really more about Spence’s lack of preparation, the records being classified, and the curtailed scenario of the trial, than anything else. If Spence had been properly prepared, with the declassified record, the case VInce presented would have been blown up piece by piece. As I do in the book.

    I guess they are showing this very poor show JFK show because Hanks produced it and he also produced the SIxties. More evidence of what a poor historian he is. I mean, in my book, I point out, for example, how can one do a mini series about WW 2 in Europe–which he did– and not even mention Operation Barbarossa? The German invasion of Russia. Incredible.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      What I find incredible is the false statements you made about NSAM 263 and the notation of John Newman’s book in the senior Air Force officer thread.

      More incredible is that when I posted evidence proving your statements to be false you disappeared.

      Is this what you call dealing with it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more