Not all SPAM comes via e-mail...

"The great mass of people more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a minor one."

Adolf Hitler

About 10 years ago, my good friend, the late Bill MacDowall, an assassination researcher in Scotland, told me to always be wary of anything that was published, revealed or made public around the time of any anniversary of the assassination, and especially those that were evenly divisible by 5.

The week before the 40^th anniversary of the assassination has shown that Bill was absolutely correct.

The media, in what appears to have been another concerted effort to force the 'lone gunman' scenario down our collective throats, has put anything and everything they could find, dig up or create on the air or in print, including the re-introduction of some claims that even earlier government studies had rejected.

The controversy surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy remains what it has been since virtually day one. It remains that way mainly because the media, for whatever reasons, was incorrect 40 years ago and now they can’t back off that initial stance. So, what they invariably present is always overwhelmingly pro-lone gunman, biased and slanted. The recent set of so-called 'documentaries' or 'investigative reports' were basically nothing more than a rehash of what they have been offering as proof for many years.

I am certainly not surprised. There has been no new information to support the claim of the lone gunman for many years, despite all the 'work' of the Assassination Records Review Board.

I am disappointed, though. I am disappointed because, even 40 years after the fact, even though the controversy has raged unabated all that time, even though the bulk of the people in this country have ALWAYS believed that there was more than one man involved in the assassination, I continue to hear so many of these supposedly unbiased programs refer to everything related to Lee Harvey Oswald as ‘proof’ and everything that points to conspiracy as ‘speculation’.

I have watched the methodology for many years and I have always been impressed by the subtlety of how the ‘evidence’ is presented; how, in many cases, if I didn’t KNOW as much as my 13 years of research has taught me about this case, I might actually believe what was presented.

However, it is because I do KNOW, that I am able to see what they do and how they do it, despite all the work of the plethora of talking heads who are pictured as so knowing.

I will attempt to point some of the methods out to you, so that next time you see or hear something about the assassination, you’ll know what to look for as a sign of whether or not its unbiased.

I must admit that I have NOT seen everything this week. But, I have seen enough to know where each show I did get a glimpse of was heading, and I have heard enough from others to do the same for most of those I didn’t see. The methods and, indeed the personalities aren’t new.

I’m not going to try and get into every point or even every show. I‘ll just going to cover some, but when I do you will probably recognize the same methods used throughout the week. If you can, look back through your own thoughts…or better yet, tapes…and verify what I’m going to point out.

These situations weren’t unique to just the major networks. This week, I have watched documentaries on COURT TV, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL and even PUBLIC TELEVISION that are as biased as anything Nazi Germany ever used to indoctrinate the masses in the 1930’s.

(To see a review of the Peter Jennings' ABC special click HERE)

As I watched all these programs, I was first off intrigued that the words “Oswald” and “assassin” were seldom, if ever, joined by words like “alleged” or “accused”, despite the fact that no one has ever been convicted of the assassination. The rifle, Warren Commission Exhibit 139, was always referred to as the ’murder weapon’…they went out of their way to allow not even a remote possibility that, just perhaps, they could be wrong. In fact, they could not even mention what MIGHT be wrong with believing in CE 139 as the ‘murder weapon.’

These not-so-subtle descriptions made me feel like I was watching a sales presentation, rather than an unbiased review of an historical, and eminently controversial event. History has unfortunately become histrionics, all to continue to support what most now know to be a totally discredited viewpoint; a viewpoint they present as fact, implying that anyone who feels otherwise has been duped.

Both John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo have gotten much fairer and more even-handed treatment to date from the media than Lee Oswald ever did…even after 40 years of controversy.

In order to maintain the viewpoint of the producer, these ‘documentaries’ all conveniently omitted showing the public why there are differences of opinion on most of the evidence, nor did they present the ‘case’ from both sides and let you decide for yourself...they couldn't do that and still support the lone gunman, because to do so would show how absurd that conclusion is.

To rebut just about every one of these specials, I could just refer you to the main work of this website. After I had viewed some of these shows, I went back and re-read my own work, to see if I had to strengthen or better explain anything I had previously written in light of what was ‘presented’. Much to my supreme satisfaction, they brought up next to nothing that I hadn’t already addressed when I first put my thoughts and observations down on paper beginning over 10 years ago.

That proved to me that, despite the new packaging, all that was delivered was just the same old SPAM.

First off, lets deal with something seen on the CourtTV special. One would like to think that anything on CourtTV would adhere to a basic rule of a court case…the right to cross-examine.  

That did not happen. The best we got was Dr. Cyril Wecht showing what he believed to be the path of the legendary ‘Magic Bullet’, followed by a ‘scientific’ review of why Dr. Wecht is wrong, based on the 1991 computer re-creation done by the Failure Analysis, Inc (FA) firm as part of the background work for the American Bar Association ‘mock’ trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Lets preface anything further on this by pointing out 2 things here. #1 is that THIS ISN’T NEW. The evaluation discussed is over 12 years old.

Secondly, it was obviously NOT persuasive since the outcome of the trial where it was presented was a hung jury (7-5 to convict…virtually a dead heat and almost 42% short of the votes needed to convict).

So, what else was wrong with it…nothing from Failure Analysis’ side. The problem was and is that any scientific or logical review and conclusions are only as good as the data they start with. And it is that data which is the basis for the controversy.

This case is wrought with conflicting evidence and testimony at every turn. For everything the pro-lone gunman side can show you, the ‘other side’ can show you at least one and in most cases many legitimate reasons to doubt it...its just they we don't get to stand there next to 'lone gunman' supporters on national television and show why they are full of what Julius Caesar would have undoubtedly called 'horsis crapus'.

Let’s look at the FA analysis.

The first key here is the starting point…a path from the 6^th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository to President Kennedy.

Where did it hit him?

For the scenario outlined in the program to have any chance of working…no matter how remote…the entrance wound must be NO LOWER than the base of the neck.

Remember, the bullet’s flight is DOWNWARD from the TSBD. What the angle is, is again dependent on where the limousine was when it hit. The closer it was, the sharper the downward angle.

But the key point is that it’s always downward. Therefore, the entry wound must be above the exit wound. If its not, even if it did come out the throat, it had to be traveling UPWARD.

Is there irrefutable proof that it did hit JFK in the neck? NO.

In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that it hit him in the back…eyewitnesses, FBI reports, the autopsy face sheet and the most damning…Kennedy’s own jacket AND shirt.

We also NOW know (which wasn’t known in 1991 when FA did their analysis) that former President Gerald R. Ford, a member of the 7-man Warren Commission, insisted that the wording of where that shot hit the president be changed from ‘in the back’ to read ‘in the base of the neck.’

Now, does that prove it wasn’t in the neck…No. But it’s sure enough to make that point less than reliable and certainly enough to have been brought up by CourtTV, if honesty was to be a factor in their presentation. Instead, they just showed the graphic…with the NECK as the starting point and purposely IGNORED all the evidence that contradicts that placement…one-sided and convenient, just like the actions of the salesman of an inferior product would most likely do.

They also showed a piece where the most recent acoustics conclusions were deemed incorrect…again, another talking head ‘expert’. This is one of the media’s most used and abused methods of misleading the public.

The general public is not usually an ‘expert’ in the matters that the media cover in depth. So that you will believe the story and analysis being done, they parade out people with more in-depth knowledge than the general public and classify them as ‘experts’.

Many times, in hindsight at least, these ‘experts’ do not seem to know any more about what is going on than we do (witness the invasion of Iraq). But, because they have the proper pedigree, including in many cases, a lot of ‘alphabet soup’ after their names, the media realizes that a ‘non-expert’ would naturally tend to believe them. While in some cases this may be warranted, in my personal dealings with too many such people in regards to the assassination, the “Ph.D.” after the name could better have signified “piled higher and deeper.”

The fact is that, especially in the case of the assassination, the viewpoint the ‘expert’ will expound and explain is always the viewpoint of the producers of the show and, therefore, almost always the viewpoint of the network running the show. That does not necessarily make it the correct viewpoint.

In most cases, the general public doesn’t know enough to judge the validity of the ‘experts’ opinion and too many times, that opinion is taken at face value due to the pedigree rather than the facts...and the media both knows and exploits this.

While I may not be an ‘expert’ and I do not have a lot of alphabet soup after my name (the “Jr.” doesn’t count), I have studied the assassination’s facts and myths in depth for over 10 years.

I am therefore the network’s nightmare, because I KNOW the ‘facts’ and I see how and where these shows slant what they do. To me, it is quite obvious and blatant. To the general public, it is usually effective, because they do not have a basis to question or challenge.

Getting back to the ‘new’ acoustics information laid out in the CourtTV special. To be honest at this point, I haven’t analyzed/seen the bench notes and other supporting research and documentation, but one of the things that troubled me immediately was that the conclusion was made for CourtTV and had not been submitted to any journal, nor peer-reviewed for its accuracy and the validity of the scientific method used…again, we the public, were told to accept what was said, because an ‘expert’ told us.

(Dr. Donald Thomas, whose conclusions were disputed by the CourtTV special, has since reviewed the evidence and methodology though. His revealing article is available exclusively on this website)

THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL attempted to prove that Oswald could have made it to the 2^nd floor lunchroom in time to be confronted by Dallas Police officer Marrion Baker.

To begin with, they used the ‘high end’ amount of time…90 seconds from the firing of the last shot. Baker himself felt like he got there long before that and one witness, who Baker passed on the way in, said he entered within 10 seconds of the final shot.

They did admit to using a ‘similar’ building. We don’t know how ‘similar’ though. Were there the same numbers of steps on the stairs per floor? Was the 6^th floor layout exactly the same as the TSBD? We don’t know; we have to take their word.

We do know that the place where the rifle was found was surrounded by boxes stacked 2-3 high that day…THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL only put them 1 high. The “6^th floor” they used had individual boxes sporadically placed along the ‘path’, rather than the stacks and stacks of boxes we see in the film and photographs taken on the real 6^th floor that day. The ‘snipers’ nest was markedly less defined, and more easily maneuvered through, too.

One must ask why do it this way? Why not build an EXACT replica of the 6^th floor of the TSBD, the stairs and the lunchroom? After all, it was the 40^th anniversary and we are all interested in the truth, aren’t we?

They also did nothing to show how Oswald could have wiped all his fingerprints from the weapon before placing it in the hiding place and their ‘Oswald’ made no effort at all to cover up the area. Dallas Police photographs of the area where the weapon was found clearly showed some of the second level of boxes being pulled over to ‘hide’ the weapon.

Another glaring point is that they did not even mention, nor try to account for the fact that Oswald, when confronted by Baker was drinking a Coke. That could only have happened had he had time to get to the drink vending machine, find and insert change (there were no paper money changers on vending machines in 1963) and open the bottle with the opener attached to the machine (no twist tops, either), then return to where Baker initially saw him!

Finally, the entire set up of this particular episode, as they say in court, “Assumes facts not in evidence”.

They set out to prove that OSWALD could have made it from the 6^th floor to where Baker confronted him within the specified time frame.

If they had been interested in finding the TRUTH rather than simply ratifying the Warren Commission conclusions, they should have sought to prove that any SHOOTER from the 6^th Floor COULD NOT have exited the building before Baker confronted Oswald.

By doing it the way they did, they placed OSWALD, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PERSONS on the 6^th floor, when there is NO EVIDENCE that he was there during the shooting sequence, and branded him as the shooter.

Here you see a classic example of the subtle ways the media attempts to reinforce the “Oswald alone” scenario, rather than searching for the truth.

They also tried to show us that the shots from the 6^th floor of the Texas School Book Depository were possible…but only IF the shooter was an ‘expert’ marksman (the man they used was successfully shooting clay pigeons from the hip) and only then if the shooting sequence was expanded to 8 seconds from the 6 seconds originally allocated by the Warren Commission. This is accomplished by ‘assuming’ that the first shot was fired well before the Warren Commission placed it and ‘assuming’ that it, the shot that any gunman would have had the most time to line up, missed.

Interestingly, every expert the Warren Commission used to re-create the shooting, HIT the target on the first shot...so did, it appears, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL expert...under the 'newest' scenario, Oswald missed.

They were at least honest enough to admit that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle they used misfired around 25% of the time…and that was after they’d had a gunsmith put it in perfect working condition.

The conveniently and deliberately hidden truth on this part of the assassination controversy is that there is no proof Oswald ever fired any weapon found on November 22, 1963, nor is there proof he ever had a rifle serviced by a professional gunsmith. And, I am virtually certain that he was not anywhere near as good a shot as the man who ‘duplicated’ the shooting sequence for THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL, who I might add also had hours of practice with his weapon prior to the attempts…Oswald, unless he could be 2 places at one time, has never been documented to have had ANY practice with CE 139.

In addition, though THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL stated that it went out of its way to re-create a shooting area similar to Dealey Plaza and the TSBD, I did not notice the same downward slope that exists on Elm St. from the TSBD to the ‘triple-underpass’. This may have been an oversight, but somehow, based on how everything else was handled, I doubt it.

Maybe I just didn't see the slope...

I also did not see the shooter cramped into a corner like any shooter from the ‘sniper’s window’ would have been. Such lack of room can often impair the ability of a marksman, as would the natural reaction to the sound of the weapon discharging 3 times INSIDE, without ear protectors on.

They can also never adequately duplicate the extreme pressure and indeed fear for one’s life that any lone gunman would have felt. He had no way of knowing whether someone on the ground might return fire and he had to have known that if they did, he would be seriously outgunned, since after allegedly firing 3 shots, the recovered weapon only had 1 left in it.

So ask yourself, why weren’t these differences mentioned? It certainly wasn’t due to time constraints, either during the show or insufficient lead-time. One would think they knew that the 40^th anniversary followed the 39^th after last November. Its doubtful it had anything to do with a lack of funds, either.

It certainly was not because they ‘didn’t know’.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they didn’t want YOU to know. They wanted to show only the one side of the story. By doing so, they tried to make it seem stronger and they attempted to dispel the controversy by either not addressing it or by obfuscating it.

The question then becomes “why?”

When these documentaries present themselves in a way where facts are conveniently and knowingly overlooked and avoided and there is never an effort to moderate any part of the controversy by comparing the viewpoints and what evidence supports them, it behooves us to find out why.

Until we demand honesty from the media, what we will continue to get is a slanted, one-sided sales presentation…and it’s obviously not done that way accidentally.

Back to The Kennedy Assassination for the Novice