Tag Archives: John F Kennedy

Call Now: 877-352-0773

Do You Remember The Times Jewish Conspirators Assassinated US Presidents And Other World Leaders?

Assassinated US PresidentsDo You Remember The Times Jewish Conspirators Assassinated US Presidents And Other World Leaders?

By Jack Allen

When I started to notice in our current time, that there seems to be one group of people that seems not to have any regard for human life what so ever. I started to have questions. Let us look at Israel for an example and see all the crimes they do. Yes, we can call this a Jewish state and we can see innocent Palestinian children, women and being killed daily and their property being taken away. There is a Genocide going on just like the Ukrainian Holocaust (Holodomor) and the Armenian Holocaust that Jews were behind. We know Stalin and his Bolshevik Jews were the biggest mass murderers in history.

Now let us look at the Jewish Neocons and Zionist Puppet Politicians in the US today, they have a crazy war and death lust. They don’t care if innocent people are killed along with whoever they say is a terrorist around the world. They just create lies and do false flags to manipulate the public to support their Satanic evil.

If you see any politician around the world that is pushing for wars that seem to benefit Israel or the Central Bank scheme you know that politician is a Zionist puppet. So with that said, let us look at some scary history about assassinations and see an interesting common denominator.

Former Jews and Honorable Jews have pointed out this same information throughout the years, so all Jews of course are not responsible for the actions of others in their group. This is just about exposing evil, that if not stopped will destroy the planet.

The Satanic system that these evil people are trying to build through assassinations and usury schemes needs to be exposed.

Things are getting worse not better with these control freaks and nations are being dismantled by forced immigration and multiculturalism . There is an attempt to create a debt slave worldwide population that will be manipulated and controlled every moment of their lives. Maybe this video about the Talmud has the answer.

The Talmud Unmasked~ The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Non-Jews



Video: Judaism = Zionism = Satanism? Judaism Exposed! Texe Marrs


JEWISH POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS

The Jewish conspirators have committed several major political assassinations. These assassinations change history and destabilize nations.

* King Louis of France and Marie Antoinette in 1793

JUDEO MASONRY INCITES THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 came about under the influence of Judeo Masonry and the subversive society behind it known as the Illuminati. This is now an established fact.

Seeing that the Jews obtained emancipation in France only 2 years after the Revolution and that the new Social Order imposed by the Revolution summed up in the catch-cry “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” (an impossible and contradictory ideology), was based upon Jewish Anti-Christian principles unheard of in Christian Europe, it is necessary to see what relationship the wealthy Jews of the time had with regard to the outbreak. Source

Thus the Jewish financiers behind the 1789 French Revolution are as follows:

Chaim Veitel Ephraim (1703-1775): Berlin, Court Jew to Frederick the Great.

Daniel Itzig (1722-1799): Berlin, Court Jew to Frederick William II.

Hertzel Cerfbeer (1730-1793): France, Jewish financier of the French army.

Mayer Amschel Rothshchild (1744-1812): Frankfurt, Jewish Money Lender.

Benjamin Goldsmid (1755-1808): London, William Pitt’s financier.

Abraham Goldsmid(1756-1810): London, Benjamin Goldsmid’s brother.

Moses Mocatta(1768-1857): London, partner of the Goldsmids and uncle of Sir Moses Montefiore.

These Jews & All Of Their Jewish Compatriots Are Guilty Of The Righteous Blood
Of The Holy Monarchs Of France, King Louis XVI & Queen Marie Antoinette!

Source

* American president Abraham Lincoln in 1865

John Wilkes Booth Was Jewish

John Wilkes Booth was a Jew.

Quote

John Wilkes Booth, assassin of Lincoln, was half Jewish.

Booth’s Sister says they are half Jewish

In the book, John Wilkes Booth – A Sister’s Memoir by Asia Booth, it is revealed that John Wilkes Booth’s father, Junius Brutus Booth, was Jewish.
The passage reads: “Born in 1796 to a highly educated clan of Jewish lawyers and silversmiths on his father’s side”

 

The Lone Assassin Myth is Born Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that links the following parties to the Bank of Rothschild: Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his eight co-conspirators, and over seventy government officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy. When Booth’s diary was recovered by Stanton’s troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out. These pages, containing the aforementioned names,were later found in the attic of one of Stanton’s descendants.From Booth’s trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild.

When the war ended, the key to the code was found in Benjamin’s possession.Theassassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton’s troops.”Booth” was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, three days after escaping from Washington. He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett, who fired without orders. Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance to identify himself. It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final identification. Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the real John Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton’s assistance.

Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband’s death, began screaming, “Oh, that dreadful house!” Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House. Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild’s during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.

* People’s Will group, killed Russian Czar Alexander in 1881.

Alexander II, Russian Tsar, Murdered by Jewish Terrorists

Source

The Jews had been running commercial life in Poland. Since 1792, Poland had been governed by Russia. The Russian governors had occasionally taken action against their crimes. This aroused considerable resentment. How about a little revolt?The tsar, Nicholas I, put down one of many Jewish rebellions in 1831.
(Henri Troyat, Zar Alexander II., Societaets-Verlag, 1990, p.31) The Jews didn’t let a little military defeat discourage them, so they had another go at Nicholas I. He became ill in 1855. Word was that the Jews had poisoned him. And so he died. (id., pp. 33-34)He was succeeded by his silly son, who became known as Tsar Alexander II. A war had been raging in the Crimea. Alexander II ended the war with a peace deal. Russia didn’t have to do much. They just had give up their role as the protector of Christians in the Ottoman empire. (id., p. 46) Up to that time, the Ottoman empire was forced to treat Christians with some respect. Now all that would change as the Jewish donmah from Saloniki would proceed to kill millions of Christians ending with the slaughter of 1915.

In 1861, the Jews started another revolution in Poland. (id., p. 80) A Jew, Jaroschinski, who was a tailor, tried to shoot the Russian governor in Poland, Grand Prince Konstantin. Another Jew put a bullet through the jaw of the tsar’s representative Lueders. (id., p. 84) (pic: Wikipedia)

The Jew Jaroschinski and several other terrorists were executed. (id., p. 85) The Jews in general were irritated by these developments. So they launched a general uprising in January 1863. (id., p. 85) Needless to say, the Jewish press in France took the part of the rebels. They called the Russians bloodthirsty barbarians. (id., p. 88)

And how did Tsar Alexander II react? He weakened the aristocracy, and thought to give more democracy “for the people”. (id., p. 107) But what really sealed his fate was the abolition of the tax farming system on liquors. This was a Jewish business. When the tax farming operations were phased out in favor of an excise tax in 1863 (Ben Eklof, John Bushnell, Larisa Georgievna Zakharova, Russia’s Great Reforms, 1855-1881, Indiana University Press, 1994, p. 110), the Jews knew that this tsar had to go.

The Jews were just campaigning for “democracy”, right? And they quite their agitation? Not at all. As we learned here, Jews regard any compromise as weakness. The Jew Pissarew was working as a literary critic at the Russkoje Slowo. He advocated revolutionary action. (Troyat, p. 110)

It must be noted here that the Russian peasants did not support revolutionary efforts. They demonstrated a solid faith in the Tsar. (Peter Waldron, The End of Imperial Russia, 1855 – 1917, MacMillian Press, 1997, p. 22) Unfortunately, this faith was not merited. Even though Alexander II was a weak man who made stupid decisions, he still had some intelligent advisers. Like Prince Basil Dolgorukow. In 1862, Prince Dolgorukow advised the tsar that his weakness and concessions to the Jews would end in his demise. The prince recommended arresting 50 of the worst Jews.

The tsar didn’t want to follow this wise advice. (Troyat, p. 112)

So how can we tell if the prince was right or not?

Well, just look at what happens next: In 1866, a Jew tried to shoot the tsar while he was out walking. The Jew claimed that the tsar hadn’t given the people enough land. (id., pp. 114 – 115)

Prince Dolgorukow had been right all along.

So the tsar took the wise advice now?

No, he just showed how foolish he was. The tsar’s response to the attempted killing was to dismiss Prince Dolgorukow. (id., p. 117) The prince had to go, but the tsar retained a number of Jews (most baptized) on his staff (id., p. 122)

The prince had told the tsar what the problem was, but Tsar Alexander didn’t want to hear the truth. Instead, he pretended that he was puzzled, and wanted to know what the cause was. (id., p. 118)

The shooting was a wake-up call, but the tsar just ignored it. How much longer before Prince Dolgorukow’s prophecy came into fulfillment?

On June 6, 1867, the tsar was visiting in Paris. The Jew Beresowskij squeezed off two shots, but both missed the mark. (id., p. 144) In 1879, an explosion hit the tsar’s baggage train. (id., picture 20) The Jews on his staff had apparently tipped the Jewish bombers, but a last-minute change in schedule was apparently not passed on. In April 1879, the Jew Solowjew tried to shoot him. (id., picture 21)

Alexander II, Russian Tsar

* Charles Guiteau, killed American President James Garfield in 1881.

After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.

 

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 10.46.32 AMJames A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers. In 1881 he said the following:
“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.
President James A. Garfield

 

President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881.

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 10.50.42 AM

He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 10.50.56 AM

 

* Leon Czolgocz, killed American president William McKinley in New York state in 1901.

Do You Remember When President McKinley Was Assassinated By Jews To Usher In Federal Reserve Act of 1913?

In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records. However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed. It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.

In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt. This caused a massive run on the banks. In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans. The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was “necessary” so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.

It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.

Congress voted on the Rothschild’s Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 between the hours of 1:30 AM and 4:30 AM.

A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.

The president that signed the law that created the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson, later sounded like he very much regretted the decision when he wrote the following:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men … [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

* Gavril Princip, killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in 1914.

World War I begins when Austria-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated by Jewish student Gavrilo Princip and a group of co-conspirators. William Pelley claims that the assassins were financed by Jewish businessman Herbert Samuel of Britain, owner of Shell Oil. Over 10 million Europeans are killed in this war. World War I is a disasterous war and it starts the decline of the European people. World War I is supported by Jews such as Nathan Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, Ernest Cassel, Louis Brandeis, Chaim Weizmann, Theodore Bethmann, Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

* Sverdlov, killed Russian Czar Nicholas II and his family in 1918.

* Carl Weiss, killed US senator Huey Long in 1935.

* US Government, killed president Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua in 1956.
* US Government, killed president Patrice Lumumba of the Congo in 1961.

* US Government, killed president Ngo Diem of Vietnam in 1963.

* American president John F. Kennedy in 1963

THE ISRAELI CONNECTION

Why would Israel have an interest in participating in the JFK assassination conspiracy? That was the burning question.

It was just about the time that I had begun to take a second look at the Lansky connection to the Kennedy assassination that several new works about the covert relationship between the United States and Israel were released providing never-before revealed information.

These books, cited extensively in Final Judgment, made it all too clear that John F. Kennedy-before his death-was in a pitched battle with Israel. In fact, Kennedy was at war.

This was something that long-time JFK assassination researchers had no reason to know about. Much of the material had long been classified. It was a secret-a deep, dark secret.

Some of JFK’s communications with then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion are still classified. Not even top-level intelligence officials with special security clearance have been allowed access to these potentially explosive documents.

This discovery made me realize that there was a lot more to the Kennedy relationship with Israel and a lot more about the JFK assassination than we had ever been told.

* American senator Robert Kennedy in 1968
Shocking Info in this book!

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 11.48.33 AM
* US Government, killed Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973.
Shocking Info in this book!

Zionist Henry Kissinger pressed Nixon to overthrow the democratically elected Allende government because his “‘model’ effect can be insidious,” documents show

On 40th anniversary of coup, Archive posts top ten documents on Kissinger’s role in undermining democracy, supporting military dictatorship in Chile

Kissinger overruled aides on military regime’s human rights atrocities; told Pinochet in 1976: “We want to help, not undermine you. You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

Revelations:

  • On September 12, eight days after Allende’s election, Kissinger initiated discussion on the telephone with CIA director Richard Helm’s about a preemptive coup in Chile. “We will not let Chile go down the drain,” Kissinger declared. “I am with you,” Helms responded. Their conversation took place three days before President Nixon, in a 15-minute meeting that included Kissinger, ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream,” and named Kissinger as the supervisor of the covert efforts to keep Allende from being inaugurated. Since the Kissinger/Helms “telcon” was not known to the Church Committee, the Senate report on U.S. intervention in Chile and subsequent histories date the initiation of U.S. efforts to sponsor regime change in Chile to the September 15 meeting.
  • Kissinger ignored a recommendation from his top deputy on the NSC, Viron Vaky, who strongly advised against covert action to undermine Allende. On September 14, Vaky wrote a memo to Kissinger arguing that coup plotting would lead to “widespread violence and even insurrection.” He also argued that such a policy was immoral: “What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets .… If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat to us, e.g. to our survival. Is Allende a mortal threat to the U.S.? It is hard to argue this.”
  • After U.S. covert operations, which led to the assassination of Chilean Commander in Chief of the Armed forces General Rene Schneider, failed to stop Allende’s inauguration on November 4, 1970, Kissinger lobbied President Nixon to reject the State Department’s recommendation that the U.S. seek a modus vivendi with Allende. In an eight-page secret briefing paper that provided Kissinger’s clearest rationale for regime change in Chile, he emphasized to Nixon that “the election of Allende as president of Chile poses for us one of the most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere” and “your decision as to what to do about it may be the most historic and difficult foreign affairs decision you will make this year.” Not only were a billion dollars of U.S. investments at stake, Kissinger reported, but what he called “the insidious model effect” of his democratic election. There was no way for the U.S. to deny Allende’s legitimacy, Kissinger noted, and if he succeeded in peacefully reallocating resources in Chile in a socialist direction, other countries might follow suit. “The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on — and even precedent value for — other parts of the world, especially in Italy; the imitative spread of similar phenomena elsewhere would in turn significantly affect the world balance and our own position in it.”The next day Nixon made it clear to the entire National Security Council that the policy would be to bring Allende down. “Our main concern,” he stated, “is the prospect that he can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success.”
  • In the days following the coup, Kissinger ignored the concerns of his top State Department aides about the massive repression by the new military regime. He sent secret instructions to his ambassador to convey to Pinochet “our strongest desires to cooperate closely and establish firm basis for cordial and most constructive relationship.” When his assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs asked him what to tell Congress about the reports of hundreds of people being killed in the days following the coup, he issued these instructions: “I think we should understand our policy-that however unpleasant they act, this government is better for us than Allende was.” The United States assisted the Pinochet regime in consolidating, through economic and military aide, diplomatic support and CIA assistance in creating Chile’s infamous secret police agency, DINA.
  • At the height of Pinochet’s repression in 1975, Secretary Kissinger met with the Chilean foreign minister, Admiral Patricio Carvajal. Instead of taking the opportunity to press the military regime to improve its human rights record, Kissinger opened the meeting by disparaging his own staff for putting the issue of human rights on the agenda. “I read the briefing paper for this meeting and it was nothing but Human Rights,” he told Carvajal. “The State Department is made up of people who have a vocation for the ministry. Because there are not enough churches for them, they went into the Department of State.”
  • As Secretary Kissinger prepared to meet General Augusto Pinochet in Santiago in June 1976, his top deputy for Latin America, William D. Rogers, advised him make human rights central to U.S.-Chilean relations and to press the dictator to “improve human rights practices.” Instead, a declassified transcript of their conversation reveals, Kissinger told Pinochet that his regime was a victim of leftist propaganda on human rights. “In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here,” Kissinger told Pinochet. “We want to help, not undermine you. You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

* Yigal Amir, killed Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

Zionist Israeli killed own prime minister

 

Popular Media From The Web

Call Now: 877-881-5420

Top Trending News From The Web

Music Promotion - Music By The Truth Tale (Some Songs Maybe PG)

JFK Assassination: Creepy Ted Cruz Admits His Dad Killed JFK And He May Might Not Be Joking

CruzJFK3Ted Cruz Admits His Dad Killed JFK

[News] WTF – National Enquirer links Ted Cruz’s Dad to JFK Assassination?

Ted Cruz’s Father With Lee Harvey Oswald : Video JFK assassination Day

Wayne Madsen: Ted Cruz’s Father Was Associated with CIA’s anti-Castro Operations in the 1960’s

Mossad connection to JFK Conspiracy

Israeli Mossad Did 9/11 and Assassinated JFK – John Lear

Ted Cruz fired back at Donald Trump, calling him a “pathological liar” after Trump accused his father of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Cruz took his response one step further by proclaiming that “While I’m at it, I guess I should go ahead and admit, yes, my Dad killed JFK, I am secretly Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in my backyard,” the senator joked while speaking to reporters in Indiana. Elliot Hill and Joya Mia Italiano take a closer look at Ted Cruz’s new approach to handling Donald Trump’s attacks on the Lip News.


Did Cruz Clan Collude With JFK Assassination Patsy?

Popular Media From The Web

Call Now: 877-881-5420

Top Trending News From The Web

Music Promotion - Music By The Truth Tale (Some Songs Maybe PG)

The Sins Of Controlled Media: How CBS News Aided the JFK Cover-up

How CBS News Aided the JFK Cover-up

Special Report: With the Warren Report on JFK’s assassination under attack in the mid-1960s, there was a chance to correct the errors and reassess the findings, but CBS News intervened to silence the critics, reports James DiEugenio.

By James DiEugenio – Latest Book

In the mid-1960s, amid growing skepticism about the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman findings on John F. Kennedy’s assassination, there was a struggle inside CBS News about whether to allow the critics a fair public hearing at the then-dominant news network. Some CBS producers pushed for a debate between believers and doubters and one even submitted a proposal to put the Warren Report “on trial,” according to internal CBS documents.

But CBS executives, who were staunch supporters of the Warren findings and had personal ties to some commission members, spiked those plans and instead insisted on presenting a defense of the lone-gunman theory while dismissing doubts as baseless conspiracy theories, the documents show.john-f-kennedy-35

Though it may be hard to remember – amid today’s proliferation of cable channels and Internet sites – CBS, along with NBC and ABC, wielded powerful control over what the American people got to see, hear and take seriously in the 1960s. By slapping down any criticism of the Warren Commission, CBS executives effectively prevented the case surrounding the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy from ever receiving the full airing that it deserved.

Beyond that historical significance, the internal documents – compiled by onetime CBS News assistant producer Roger Feinman – show how a major mainstream news organization green-lights one approach to presenting sensitive national security news while blocking another. The documents also shed light on how senior news executives, who have bought into one interpretation of the facts, are highly resistant to revisit the evidence.

Buying In

CBS News jumped onboard the blue-ribbon Warren Commission’s findings as soon as they were released on Sept. 27, 1964, just over 10 months after President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. In a special report, CBS and its anchor Walter Cronkite preempted regular programming and, with the assistance of reporter Dan Rather, devoted two commercial-free hours to endorsing the main tenets of that report.

However, despite Cronkite and Rather giving the Warren Report their public embrace, other people, who were not in the employ of the mainstream media, examined critically the report and the accompanying 26 volumes. Some of these citizens were lawyers and others were professors, the likes of Vincent Salandria and Richard Popkin. They came to the conclusion that CBS had been less than rigorous in its examination.

By 1967, the analyses challenging the Warren Report’s conclusions had become widespread, including popular books by Edward Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher and Josiah Thompson. Thompson’s book, Six Seconds in Dallas, was excerpted and placed on the cover of the wide-circulation magazine Saturday Evening Post. Lane was appearing on talk shows. Prosecutor Jim Garrison had announced a reopening of the JFK case in New Orleans. The dam was threatening to break.

The doubts about the Warren Report had even spread into the ranks at CBS News, where correspondent Daniel Schorr and Washington Bureau chief Bill Small recommended a fair and critical look at the report’s methodology and findings. Top prime-time producer Les Midgley later joined the effort.

CBS News vice president Gordon Manning sent the proposal on to CBS News president Richard Salant in August 1966, but it was declined. Manning tried again in October, suggesting an open debate between the critics of the Warren Report and former Commission counsels, moderated by a law school dean or the president of the American Bar Association. The idea was to give the two sides a chance to make their best points before the viewing public.

Zapruder Evidence

One month after Manning’s debate proposal, Life Magazine published a front-page story in which the Warren Commission’s verdict was questioned by photographic evidence from the Zapruder film (which the magazine owned). Life also interviewed Texas Gov. John Connally who disagreed that he and Kennedy had been hit by the same shot, a claim that undercut the “single bullet theory” at the heart of the Warren Report.

A frame from the Zapruder film capturing the first shot that struck President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.A frame from the Zapruder film capturing the first shot that struck President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. Texas Gov. John Connally, who was also wounded, is seated in front of Kennedy..

Without the assertion that a single bullet inflicted multiple wounds on Kennedy and Connally, who was riding in front of the President, the commission’s verdict collapses. The magazine story ended with a call to reopen the case. Indeed, Life had put together a small journalistic team to do its own internal investigation.

A few days after this issue appeared, Manning again pressed for a CBS special. This time he suggested the title “The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald,” with a panel of law school deans reviewing the evidence against Oswald in a mock trial, including evidence that the Warren Commission had not included. In other words, there would be a chance for American “jurors” to weigh the evidence that might have been presented against Oswald if he had lived and to make a judgment on his guilt. Again, this approach offered the potential for a reasonably balanced examination of the Kennedy assassination.

At this point, Manning was joined by producer Midgley, who had produced the two-hour 1964 CBS special. Midgley’s suggestion differed from Manning’s in that he wanted to title the show “The Warren Report on Trial.” Midgley suggested a three-night, three-hour series with one night given over to the commission defenders, one night including all the witnesses that the commission overlooked or discounted, and the last night including a verdict produced by legal experts. But the title itself suggested a level of skepticism that had not been part of the earlier proposals.

The Higher-ups Intervene

However, then CBS senior executives began to intervene. On Dec. 1, 1966, Salant wrote a memo to John Schneider, president of CBS Broadcast Group, telling him that he might refer the proposal to the CBS News Executive Committee (CNEC). According to information that a former CBS assistant producer Roger Feinman obtained during a legal hearing against CBS, plus secondary sources, CNEC was a secretive group that was created in the wake of Edward R. Murrow’s departure from CBS.

Murrow was a true investigative reporter who became famous through his reports on Sen. Joe McCarthy’s abuses and the mistreatment of migrant farm workers. The upper management at CBS did not like the controversies that these reports generated among influential segments of the American power structure. There was a perceived need to tamp down on such wide-ranging and independent-minded investigations. After all, the CBS executives were part of that power structure.

CBS News president Salant epitomized that blurring of high-level corporate journalism and America’s ruling class. Salant had gone to Exeter Academy, Harvard, and then Harvard Law School. He was handpicked from the network’s Manhattan legal firm by CBS President Frank Stanton to join his management team.

CBS News president Richard SalantCBS News president Richard Salant

During World War II, Stanton had worked in the Office of War Information, the psychological warfare branch. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower had appointed Stanton to a small committee to organize how the United States would survive a nuclear attack. From 1961-67, Stanton was chairman of Rand Corporation, a CIA-associated think tank.

The other two members of CNEC were Sig Mickelson, who had preceded Salant as CBS News president and then became a director of Time-Life Broadcasting, and CBS founder Bill Paley, who had also served in the World War II psy-war  branch of the Office of War Information and – after the war – let CIA Director Allen Dulles have the spy agency informally debrief CBS overseas correspondents.

When Salant turned the Warren Commission issue over to CNEC, the prospects for any objective or skeptical treatment of the JFK case faded. “The establishment of CNEC effectively curtailed the news division’s independence,” Feinman later wrote about his discoveries.

Further, Salant had no journalistic experience and was in almost daily communication with Stanton, whose background was in government propaganda.

Scaling Back

The day after Salant informed CNEC about the proposed JFK assassination special, Salant told CBS News vice president Manning that he was wavering on the mock trial concept. Salant’s next move was even more ominous. He sent both Manning and prime-time news producer Midgley to California to talk to two lawyers about the project.

One of the attorneys was Edwin Huddleson, a partner in the San Francisco firm of Cooley, Godward, Castro and Huddleson. Huddleson attended Harvard Law with Salant and, like Stanton, was on the board of the Rand Corporation. The other lawyer was Bayless Manning, Dean of Stanford Law School. They told the CBS representatives that they were against the network undertaking the project on the grounds of “the national interest” and because of the topic’s “political implications.”

CBS News vice president Manning reported that both attorneys advised the CBS team to ignore the critics of the Warren Commission or to appoint a special panel to critique their books, in other words, to put the critics on trial. Huddleson also steered the CBS team to cooperative scientists who would counter the critics.

On his return to CBS headquarters, Manning saw the writing on the wall. He knew what his CBS superiors really wanted and it wasn’t some no-holds-barred examination of the Warren Commission’s flaws. So, he suggested a new title for the series, “In Defense of the Warren Report,” and wrote that CBS should dismiss “the inane, irresponsible, and hare-brained challenges of Mark Lane and others of that stripe.”

Out on a Limb

Manning’s defection from an open-minded treatment of the evidence to a one-sided Warren Commission defense left producer Midgley out on a limb. However, unaware of what Salant was up to, on Dec. 14, 1966, Midgley circulated a memo about how he planned on approaching the Warren Report project. He proposed running experiments that were more scientific than “the ridiculous ones run by the FBI.” He still wanted a mock trial to show how the operation of the Commission was “almost incredibly inadequate.”

In response, Salant circulated an anonymous, undated, paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal to Midgley’s plan, which Feinman’s later investigation determined was written by Warren Commissioner John McCloy, then Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and the father of Ellen McCloy, Salant’s administrative assistant.

John J. McCloy, one of the Warren Commission members.John J. McCloy, one of the Warren Commission members.

In this memo, McCloy wrote that “the chief evidence that Oswald acted alone and shot alone is not to be found in the ballistics and pathology of the assassination, but in the fact of his loner life.” As many Warren Commission critics have noted, it was this approach – discounting or ignoring the medical and ballistics evidence, but concentrating on Oswald’s alleged social life – that was a fatal flaw of the Warren Report.

Despite the familial conflict of interest, Ellen McCloy was added to the distribution list for almost all memos related to the Kennedy assassination project and thus could serve as a secret back-channel between CBS and her father.

A Stonewall Defense

Clearly, the original idea for a fresh examination of the Warren Commission and the evidence that had arisen since its report was published in 1964 had been turned on its head. The CBS brass wanted a defense, not a critique.

Salant asked producer Midgley, “Is the question whether Oswald was a CIA or FBI informant really so substantial that we have to deal with it?” Midgley, increasingly alone out on the limb, replied, “Yes, we must treat it.”

As the initial plan for a forthright examination of the Warren Commission’s shortcomings was transformed into a stonewall defense of the official findings, there was still the problem of Midgley, the last holdout. But eventually his head was turned, too.

While the four-night special was in production, Midgley became engaged to Betty Furness, a former actress-turned-television-commercial pitchwoman whom President Lyndon Johnson appointed as his special assistant for consumer affairs, even though her only experience in the field had been selling Westinghouse appliances for 11 years on television. She was sworn in on April 27, 1967, which was about two months before the CBS production aired. Two weeks after it was broadcast, Midgley and Furness were married.

As Kai Bird’s biography of McCloy, The Chairman, makes clear, Johnson and McCloy were friends and colleagues. But there is another point about how Midgley was convinced to go along with McCloy’s view of the Warren Commission. Around the same time he married Furness, he received a significant promotion, elevated to executive editor of the network’s flagship news program, “The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.” This made him, in essence, the top news editor at CBS, a decision that required the consultation and approval of Salant, Cronkite and Stanton – and very likely the CNEC.

So, instead of a serious investigation into the murder of President Kennedy – at a time when there was the possibility of effective national action to get at the truth – CBS News delivered a stalwart defense of the Warren Commission’s conclusions and heaped ridicule on anyone who dared question those findings.

Shaping that approach was not only the influence of Warren Commission member John McCloy, an icon of the Establishment, but the carrots and sticks applied to senior CBS producers, such as Gordon Manning and Les Midgley, who initially favored a more skeptical approach but were convinced to abandon that goal.

Curious Consultants

Once McCloy was brought onboard, the complexion of CBS’s treatment of the JFK assassination changed. CBS hired consultants who were rabidly pro-Warren Report to appear as on-air experts while others would be hidden in the shadows. In addition to the clandestine role of McCloy, some of these consultants included Dallas police officer Gerald Hill, physicist Luis Alvarez and reporter Lawrence Schiller.

Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy.Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Officer Hill was just about everywhere in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. He was at the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald worked and allegedly shot the President from the sixth floor; Hill was at the murder scene of Officer J. D Tippit, who was allegedly shot by Oswald after he fled Dealey Plaza; and he was at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested.

Hill appeared in the CBS 1967 program show as a speaker. But Roger Feinman found out that Hill also was paid for six weeks work on the show as a consultant. During his consulting, Hill revealed that the police did a “fast frisk” on Oswald while in the theater. They found nothing in his pockets at the time, which begs the question of where the bullets the police said they found in his pockets later at the station came from. That question did not arise during the program since CBS never revealed the contradiction. (Click here and go to page 20 of the transcript.)

Physicist Luis Alvarez, who had a served as an adviser to the CIA and to the U.S. military in the Vietnam War, spent a considerable amount of time lending his name to articles supporting the Warren Report and conducting questionable experiments supporting its findings. As demonstrated by authors Josiah Thompson (in 2013) and Gary Aguilar (in 2014), Alvarez misrepresented some data in some of his JFK experiments. (Click here and go to the 37:00 mark for Aguilar’s presentation.)

Making Fun

The same year of the 1967 CBS broadcast, reporter Lawrence Schiller had co-written a book entitled The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report, a picaresque journey through America where Schiller interviewed some of the prominent – and not so prominent – critics of the report and caricatured them hideously.

Secretly, he had been an informant for the FBI for many years keeping an eye on people like Mark Lane and Jim Garrison, whom Schiller attacked despite discovering witnesses who attested to Garrison’s suspect Clay Shaw using the alias Clay Bertrand, a key point in Garrison’s case. The relevant documents were not declassified until the Assassination Records and Reviews Board was set up in the 1990s. [See Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, by James DiEugenio, p. 388]

This cast of consultants – along with McCloy – influenced the direction of the 1967 CBS Special Report. The last thing these consultants wanted to do was to expose the faulty methodology that the Warren Commission had employed.

Longtime CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite.Longtime CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite.

As in 1964, Walter Cronkite manned the anchor desk and Dan Rather was the main field reporter. Again, CBS could find no serious problems with the Warren Report.  The critics were misguided, CBS said. After all, Cronkite and Rather had done a seven-month inquiry.

‘Unimpeachable Credentials’ 

In the broadcast, Cronkite names the men on the Warren Commission as their pictures appear on screen. He calls them “men of unimpeachable credentials” but left out the fact that President Kennedy fired Commissioner Allen Dulles from the CIA in 1961 for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

When Cronkite got to the crux of the program, he said the Warren Commission assured the American people that they would get the most searching investigation in history. Then, Cronkite showed books and articles critical of the commission and mentioned that polls showed that a majority of Americans had lost faith in the Warren Report.

At that point, the network special revealed its purpose, to discredit the critics and reassure the public that these people could not be trusted.

Cronkite went through a list of points that the critics had raised, including key issues such as how many shots were fired and how quickly they could be discharged from the suspect rifle. On each point, Cronkite took the Warren Commission’s side, saying Oswald fired three shots from the sixth floor with the rifle attributed to him by the Warren Commission. Two of three were direct hits – to Kennedy’s head and shoulder area – within six seconds.

One way that CBS fortified the case for just three shots was Alvarez’s examination of the Zapruder film, Abraham Zapruder’s 26-second film of Kennedy’s assassination taken from Zapruder’s position in Dealey Plaza, a sequence that CBS did not actually show.

Alvarez proclaimed that by doing something called a “jiggle analysis,” he computed that there were three shots fired during the film. What the jiggle amounted to was a blurring of frames on the film (presumably because Zapruder would have flinched at the sound of gunshots).

Dan Rather took this Alvarez idea to Charles Wyckoff, a professional photo analyst in Massachusetts. Agreeing with Alvarez, at least on camera, Wyckoff mapped out the three areas of “jiggles.” The Alvarez/Wyckoff formula was simple: three jiggles, three shots.

But as Feinman found out through his legal discovery and hearings, there was a big problem with this declaration. Wyckoff had actually discovered four jiggles, not three. Therefore, by the Alvarez formula, there was a second gunman and thus a conspiracy.

President John F. Kennedy's motorcade enters Dealey Plaza in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, shortly before his assassination. (Zapruder film)President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade enters Dealey Plaza in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, shortly before his assassination. (Zapruder film)

Wyckoff’s on-camera discussion of this was cut out and not included in the official transcript. But it is interesting to note just how committed Wyckoff was to the CBS agenda, for he tried to explain the fourth jiggle as Zapruder’s reaction to a siren. As Feinman noted, how Wyckoff could determine this from a silent 8 mm film is puzzling. But the point is, this analysis did not support the commission. It undermined the Warren Report and was left on the cutting-room floor.

There were other problems with the Alverez-Wyckoff “jiggle” theory, since the first jiggle was at around Zapruder frame 190, or a few frames previous to that, which would have meant that Oswald would have had to be firing through the branches of an oak tree, which is why the Warren Commission moved this shot up to frame 210.

But CBS left itself an out, claiming  there was an opening in the tree branches at frame 186 and Oswald could have fired at that point. But that is patently ridiculous, since the opening at frame 186 lasted for 1/18th of a second. To say that Oswald anticipated a less than split-second opening, and then steeled himself in a flash to align the target, aim, and fire is all stuff from the realm of comic books super heroes. Yet, in its blind obeisance to the Warren Report, this is what CBS had reduced itself to.

Another way that CBS tried to bolster the Warren Report was to have Wyckoff purchase other Bell and Howell movie cameras (since CBS was not allowed to handle the actual Zapruder camera.) After winding up these cameras, CBS hypothesized that Zapruder’s camera might have been running a little slow, giving Oswald a longer firing sequence.

The problem with this theory, however, was that both the FBI and Bell and Howell had tested the speed of Zapruder’s actual camera. Even Dick Salant commented that this was “logically inconclusive and unpersuasive,” but it stayed in the program.

The Shot Sequence

But why did Rather and Wyckoff have to stoop this low? The answer is because of the results of their rifle firing tests. As the critics of the Warren Report had pointed out, the commission had used two tests to see if Oswald could have gotten off three shots in the allotted 5.6 seconds indicated by the Zapruder film.

These tests ended up as failing to prove Oswald could have performed this feat of marksmanship. What made it worse is that the commission had used very proficient rifleman to try and duplicate what the commission said Oswald had done. [See Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 108]

So CBS tried again. This time they set up a track with a sled on it to simulate the back of Kennedy’s head. They then elevated a firing point to simulate the sixth floor “sniper’s nest,” though there were differences from Dealey Plaza including the oak tree and a rise in the street in the real crime scene. Nevertheless, the CBS experimenters released the target on its sled and had a marksman named Ed Crossman fire his three shots.

Crossman had a considerable reputation in the field, but – even though he was given a week to practice with a version of the Mannlicher Carcano rifle – his results were not up to snuff. According to a report by producer Midgley, Crossman never broke 6.25 seconds (longer than Oswald’s purported 5.6 seconds) and – even with an enlarged target – he got only two of three hits in about 50 percent of his attempts.

Crossman explained that the rifle had a sticky bolt action and a faulty viewing scope. But what the professional sniper did not know is that the actual rifle in evidence was even harder to work. Crossman said that to perform such a feat on the first time out would require a lot of luck.

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly used to murder President John F. Kennedy.The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly used to murder President John F. Kennedy.

However, since that evidence did not fit the show’s agenda, it was discarded, both the test and the comments. To resolve that problem, CBS called in 11 professional marksmen who first went to an indoor firing range and practiced to their heart’s content, though the Warren Commission could find no evidence that Oswald practiced.

The 11 men then took 37 runs at duplicating what Oswald was supposed to have done. There were three instances where two out of three hits were recorded in 5.6 seconds. The best time was achieved by Howard Donahue on his third attempt after his first two attempts were complete failures.

But CBS claimed that the average recorded time was 5.6 seconds, without including the 17 attempts that were thrown out because of mechanical failure. CBS also didn’t tell the public the surviving average was 1.2 hits out of three with an enlarged target.

The truly striking characteristic of these trials was the amount of instances where the shooter could not get any result at all. More often than not, once the clip was loaded, the bolt action jammed. The sniper had to realign the target and fire again. According to the Warren Report, that could not have happened with Oswald.

There is also the anomaly of James Tague, who was struck by one bullet that the Warren Commission said had ricocheted off the curb of a different street, about 260 feet away from the limousine. But how could Oswald have missed by that much if he was so accurate on his other two shots? That was another discrepancy deleted by the CBS editors.

The Autopsy Disputes

CBS also obscured what was said by the two chief medical witnesses after the assassination by Dr. Malcolm Perry from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where Kennedy was taken after he was hit, and James Humes, the chief pathologist at the autopsy examination at Bethesda Medical Center that evening.

In their research for the series, CBS had discovered a transcript of Dr. Perry’s press conference that the Warren Commission did not have. But CBS camouflaged what Perry said on Nov. 22, 1963, specifically about Kennedy’s anterior neck wound. Perry said it had the appearance to him of being an entrance wound, and he said this three times.

Cronkite tried to characterize the conference as Perry being rushed out to the press and badgered. But that wasn’t true, since the press conference was about two hours after Perry had done a tracheotomy over the front neck wound. The performance of that incision had given Perry the closest and most deliberate look at that wound.

Perry therefore had the time to recover from the pressure of the operation and there was no badgering of Perry. Newsmen were simply asking him questions about the wounds he saw. Perry had the opportunity to answer the questions on his own terms. Again, CBS seemed intent on concealing evidence of a possible second assassin — because Oswald could not have fired at Kennedy from the front.

Commander James Humes, the pathologist, did not want to appear on the program, but was pressured by Attorney General Ramsey Clark, possibly with McCloy’s assistance. As Feinman discovered, the preliminary talks with Humes were done through a friend of his at the church he attended.

There were two things that Humes said in these early discussions that were bracing. First, he said that he recalled an x-ray of the President, which showed a malleable probe connecting the rear back wound with the front neck wound. Second, he said that he had orders not to do a complete autopsy. He would not reveal who gave him these orders, except to say that it was not Robert Kennedy. [Charles Crenshaw, Trauma Room One, p. 182]

The significance of the malleable probe is that, if Humes was correct, the front and back wounds would have come from the same bullet. However, we learned almost 30 years later from the Assassination Records Review Board that other witnesses also saw a malleable probe go through Kennedy’s back, but said the probe did not go through the body since the wounds did not connect. However, x-rays that might confirm the presence of the probe are missing. [DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 116-18]

Location of the Wounds

On camera, Humes also said the posterior body wound was at the base of the neck. Dan Rather then showed Humes the drawings made of the wound in the back as depicted by medical illustrator Harold Rydberg for the Warren Commission, also depicting the wound as being in the neck, which Humes agreed with on camera. He added that they had reviewed the photos and referred to measurements and this all indicated the wound was in the neck.

Even for CBS — and Warren Commissioner John McCloy — this must have been surprising since the autopsy photos do not reveal the wound to be at the base of the neck but clearly in the back. (Click here and scroll down.) CBS should have sent its own independent expert to the archive because Humes clearly had a vested interest in seeing his autopsy report bolstered, especially since it was under attack by more than one critic.

Autopsy photo of President John F. Kennedy.Autopsy photo of President John F. Kennedy.

The second point that makes Humes’s interview curious is his comments on the Rydberg drawings’ accuracy. These do not coincide with what Rydberg said later, not understanding why he was chosen to make these drawings for the Warren Commission since he was only 22 and had been drawing for only one year. There were many other veteran illustrators in the area the Warren Commission could have called upon, but Rydberg came to believe that it was his inexperience that caused the commission to pick him.

When Humes and Dr. Thornton Boswell appeared before him, they had nothing with them: no photos, no x-rays, no official measurements, speaking only from memory, nearly four months after the autopsy, Rydberg said. [DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 119-22] The Rydberg drawings have become infamous for not corresponding to the pictures, measurements, or the Zapruder film.

For Humes to endorse these on national television – and for CBS to allow this without any fact-checking – shows what a case of false journalism the special had become.

Limiting Access

CBS also knew that Humes said he had been limited in what he was allowed to do in the Kennedy autopsy, a potentially big scoop if CBS had followed it. Instead, the public had to wait another two years for the story to surface at Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw when autopsy doctor Pierre Finck took the stand in Shaw’s defense. Finck said the same thing: that Dr. Humes was limited in his autopsy practice on Kennedy. [ibid, p. 115]

The difference was that this disclosure would have had much more exposure, impact and vibrancy if CBS had broken it in 1967 rather than having the fact come up during Garrison’s prosecution, in part, because the press corps’ hostility toward Garrison distorted the trial coverage.

So, in the summer of 1967, CBS again had come to the defense of the official story with a four-hour, four-night extravaganza that again endorsed the findings of the Warren Commission.

At the time of broadcast, it was the most expensive documentary CBS ever produced. It concluded: Acting alone, Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. Acting alone, Jack Ruby killed Oswald. And Oswald and Ruby did not know each other. All the controversy was Much Ado about Nothing.

Unwinding the Back Story

In 1967, the clandestine relationship between CBS News President Salant and Warren Commissioner McCloy was known to very few people. In fact, as assistant producer Roger Feinman later deduced, it was likely known only to the very small circle in the memo distribution chain. That Salant deliberately wished to keep it hidden is indicated by the fact that he allowed McCloy to write these early memos anonymously.

As Feinman concluded, McCloy’s influence over the program was almost certainly a violation of the network’s own guidelines, which prohibit conflicts of interest in the news production, probably another reason Salant kept McCloy’s connection hidden.

In the 1970s, after Feinman was fired over a later dispute regarding another example of CBS News’ highhanded handling of the JFK assassination – and then obtained internal documents as part of a legal hearing on his dismissal – he briefly thought of publicizing the whole affair (which he eventually decided against doing).

But Feinman wrote to Warren Commissioner McCloy in March 1977 about the ex-commissioner’s clandestine role in the four-night special a decade earlier. McCloy declined to be interviewed on the subject, but added that he did not recall any contribution he made to the special.

But Feinman persisted. On April 4, 1977, he wrote McCloy again. This time he revealed that he had written evidence that McCloy had participated extensively in the production of the four-night series. Very quickly, McCloy got in contact with Salant and wrote that he did not recall any such back-channel relationship.

In turn, Salant contacted Midgley and told the producer to check his files to see if there was any evidence that would reveal a CBS secret collaboration with McCloy. Salant then wrote back to McCloy saying that at no time did Ellen McCloy ever act as a conduit between CBS News and her father.

However, in 1992 in an article for The Village Voice, both Ellen McCloy and Salant were confronted with memos that revealed Salant was lying in 1977. McCloy’s daughter admitted to the clandestine courier relationship. Salant finally admitted it also, but he tried to say there was nothing unusual about it.

Reassuring Americans

So, in 1967, CBS News had again reassured the American people that there was no conspiracy in President Kennedy’s murder, just a misguided lone gunman who had done it all by himself. Anyone who thought otherwise was confused, deceptive or delusional.

However, in 1975, eight years after the broadcast, two events revived interest in the JFK case again. First, the Church Committee was formed in Congress to explore the crimes of the CIA and FBI, revealing that before Kennedy was killed, the CIA had farmed out the assassination of Fidel Castro to the Mafia, a fact that was kept from the Warren Commission even though one of its members, Allen Dulles, had been CIA director when the plots were formulated.

Longtime CBS anchor Dan RatherLongtime CBS anchor Dan Rather

Secondly, in the summer of 1975, in prime time, ABC broadcast the Zapruder film, the first time that the American public had seen the shocking image of President Kennedy’s head being knocked back and to the left by what appeared to be a shot from his front and right, a shot Oswald could not have fired.

The confluence of these two events caused a furor in Washington and the creation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reopen the JFK case.

Having become a chief defender of the original Warren Commission findings, CBS News moved preemptively to influence the new investigation by planning another special about the JFK case.

CBS’s Sixty Minutes decided to do a story on whether or not Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald knew each other. After several months of research, Salant killed the project with the investigative files turned over to senior producer Les Midgley before becoming the basis for the 1975 CBS special, which was entitled The American Assassins.

Originally this was planned as a four-night special. One night each on the JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King and the George Wallace shootings. But at the last moment, in a very late press release, CBS announced that the first two nights would be devoted to the JFK case. Midgley was the producer, but this time Cronkite was absent. Rather took his place behind the desk.

In general terms, it was more of the same. The photographic consultant was Itek Corporation, a company that was very close to the CIA, having helped build the CORONA spy satellite system. Itek’s CEO in the mid-1960s, Franklin Lindsay, was a former CIA officer. With Itek’s help, CBS did everything they could to move their Magic Bullet shot from about frame 190 to about frames 223-226.

Yet, Josiah Thompson, who appeared on the show, had written there was no evidence Gov. Connally was hit before frames 230-236. Further, there are indications that President Kennedy is clearly hit as he disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at about frame 190, e.g., his head seems to collapse both sideways and forward in a buckling motion.

But with Itek in hand, this became the scenario for the CBS version of the “single bullet theory.” It differed from the Warren Commission’s in that it did not rely upon a “delayed reaction” on Connally’s part to the same bullet.

Ballistics Tests

CBS also employed Alfred Olivier, a research veterinarian who worked for Army wound ballistics branch and did tests with the alleged rifle used in the assassination. He was a chief witness for junior counsel Arlen Specter before the Warren Commission. [See Warren Commission, Volume V, pgs. 74ff]

For CBS in 1975, Olivier said that the Magic Bullet, CE 399, was not actually “pristine.” For CBS and Dan Rather, this made the “single bullet theory” not impossible, just hard to believe.

Apparently, no one explained to Rather that the only deformation on the bullet is a slight flattening at the base, which would occur as the bullet is blasted through the barrel of a rifle. There is no deformation at its tip where it would have struck its multiple targets. There is only a tiny amount of mass missing from the bullet.

In other words, as more than one author has written, it has all the indications of being fired into a carton of water or a bale of cotton. If CBS had interviewed the legendary medical examiner Milton Helpern of New York — not far from CBS headquarters — that is pretty much what he would have said. [Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 69.]

Rather realized, without being explicit, that something was wrong with Kennedy’s autopsy. He called the autopsy below par and reversed field on his opinion about pathologist Humes, whose experience Rather had praised in 1967. In the 1975 broadcast, Rather said that neither Humes nor Boswell were qualified to perform Kennedy’s autopsy and that parts of it were botched.

But let us make no mistake about what CBS was up to here. The entire corporate upper structure — Salant, Stanton, Paley — had overrun the working producers and journalists, including Midgley, Manning and Schorr. And those subordinates decided not to utter a peep to the outside world about what had happened.

Not only Cronkite and Rather participated in this appalling exercise, so too did Eric Sevareid, appearing at the end of the last show and saying that there are always those who believe in conspiracies, whether it be about Yalta, China or Pearl Harbor. He then poured it on by saying some people still think Hitler is alive and concluding that it would be impossible to cover up the assassination of a President.

But simply in examining how a major news outlet like CBS handled the evidence shows precisely how something as dreadful and significant as the murder of a President could be covered up.

Much of this history also would have remained unknown, except that Roger Feinman, an assistant producer at CBS News, had become a friend and follower of the estimable Warren Commission critic Sylvia Meagher. So, Feinman knew that the Warren Commission was a deeply flawed report and that CBS had employed some very questionable methods in the 1967 special in order to conceal those flaws.

When the assassination issue returned in the mid-1970s, Feinman began to write some memoranda to those in charge of the renewed CBS investigation warning that they shouldn’t repeat their 1967 performance. His first memo went to CBS president Dick Salant. Many of the other memos were directed to the Office of Standards and Practices.

In preparing these memos, Feinman researched some of the odd methodologies that CBS used in 1967. Since he had been at CBS for three years, he got to know some of the people who had worked on that series. They supplied him with documents and information which revealed that what Cronkite and Rather were telling the audience had been arrived at through a process that was as flawed as the one the Warren Commission had used.

Feinman requested a formal review of the process by which CBS had arrived at its forensic conclusions. He felt the documentary had violated company guidelines in doing so.

Establishment Strikes Back

As Feinman’s memos began to circulate through the executive and management suites – including Salant’s and Vice-President Bill Small’s – it was made clear to him that he should cease and desist from his one-man campaign. When he wouldn’t let up, CBS moved to terminate its dissident employee.

But since Feinman was working under a union contract, he had certain administrative rights to a fair hearing, including the process of discovery through which he could request certain documents to make his case. His research allowed him to pinpoint where these documents would be and who prepared them.

On Sept. 7, 1976, CBS succeeded in terminating Feinman. But the collection of documents he secured through his hearing was extraordinary, allowing outsiders for the first time to see how the 1967 series was conceived and executed. Further, the documents took us into the group psychology of a large media corporation when it collides with controversial matters involving national security.

Only Roger Feinman, who was not at the top of CBS or anywhere near it, had the guts to try to get to the bottom of the whole internal scandal.

And Feinman paid a high personal price for doing so. Feinman’s contribution to American history did not help him get his journalistic career back on track. When he passed away in the fall of 2011, he was freelancing as a computer programmer.

[This article is largely based on the script for the documentary film Roger Feinman was in the process of reediting at the time of his death in 2011. The reader can view that here.]

James DiEugenio is a researcher and writer on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and other mysteries of that era. His most recent book is Reclaiming Parkland.

Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/

Israel Killed John F. Kennedy For Trying To Stop The Israel Lobby In America

JFK killing a CIA plot funded by Israel and the mob

Michael Collins Piper: FINAL JUDGEMENT lecture [Mossad connection to JFK Conspiracy]


Popular Media From The Web

Call Now: 877-881-5420

Top Trending News From The Web

Music Promotion - Music By The Truth Tale (Some Songs Maybe PG)

Vice President Spiro Agnew Warned Of The Dangers Of The Jewish Cabal And Zionist Domination

AN IMPORTANT LETTER from former US Vice President Spiro Agnew to German-American writer and activist Hans Schmidt, written on September 24, 1982, reveals the extent to which Agnew opposed Zionist power.

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

Thank you for sending me your letter of August 26th and the enclosures. Having been for a long time in the vanguard of those who protest the domination of this country by Zionists, I am always encouraged to see that others share my outrage.

Even in the face of these horrible actions by the arrogant state of Israel, the broad spectrum of American opinion leaders seem to cling to the fallacy that Jews, because of the so-called Holocaust, can do no wrong. [Emphasis mine – CM] The 70 years of indoctrination that began with the years that immediately followed the Balfour Declaration have brainwashed the western world, and Zionist control of our news media has kept the fields green for Israel.

The vituperation of organized Jewry is zealous to say the least. As one who has endured 10 years of well-organized attacks in the media and in the courts, I can attest to that. One can assume only that Israel is more important to these people than their own country.

I also like President Reagan, but he must develop a more positive attitude on this subject. Reagan must be told that the tail cannot continue to wag the dog. The American people are prepared to follow a strong leader who will refuse to protect a welfare state that insults its donor.

Kind regards.

Sincerely,

Spiro T. Agnew

stranglehold_spiro_agnew_life_cover

Spiro Agnew …… Go Quietly Or Else

General Alexander Haig makes death threat to Agnew?

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 6.28.42 AM

The Set-Up

On October 10, 1973, Vice President Agnew resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering, part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme in which he accepted $29,500 in bribes while governor of Maryland. According to The New York Times, “Nixon sought advice from senior Congressional leaders about a replacement. The advice was unanimous. ‘We gave Nixon no choice but Ford,’ House Speaker Carl Albert recalled later”.

Ford was nominated to take Agnew’s position on October 12, the first time the vice-presidential vacancy provision of the 25th Amendment had been implemented. The United States Senate voted 92 to 3 to confirm Ford on November 27. Only three Senators, all Democrats, voted against Ford’s confirmation: Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, Thomas Eagleton of Missouri and William Hathaway of Maine. On December 6, the House confirmed Ford by a vote of 387 to 35. One hour after the confirmation vote in the House, Ford took the oath of office as Vice President of the United States. Ford’s brief tenure as Vice-President was little noted by the media as reporters were preoccupied by the continuing revelations about the Watergate scandal—a political scandal resulting from the discovery of a series of crimes committed during the 1972 presidential election and allegations of cover-ups by the White House.

Following Ford’s appointment, the Watergate investigation continued until Chief of Staff Alexander Haig contacted Ford on August 1, 1974, and told him that “smoking gun” evidence had been found. The evidence left little doubt that President Nixon had been a part of the Watergate cover-up. At the time, Ford and his wife, Betty, were living in suburban Virginia, waiting for their expected move into the newly-designated vice president’s residence in Washington, D.C. However, “Al Haig [asked] to come over and see me,” Ford later related, “to tell me that there would be a new tape released on a Monday, and he said the evidence in there was devastating and there would probably be either an impeachment or a resignation. And he said, ‘I’m just warning you that you’ve got to be prepared, that things might change dramatically and you could become President.’ And I said, ‘Betty, I don’t think we’re ever going to live in the vice president’s house.'”

Iran says Watergate a Jewish conspiracy against Nixon

In May of 2005, the Middle East Media Research Institute translated a news
story from Iranian television called “The Untold Story of the Watergate
Affair”:”Today, it has become clear that Nixon’s dispute with Israel and the
Zionist lobby was among the main causes for his downfall.  In fact, the
reporters who exposed the Watergate affair and blew it out of proportion
were Zionists, recruited to the ranks of the Zionist lobby.  By using
the media as its tool, Zionism tried to get one of its main opponents
out of the way.Nixon wrote in his memoirs: “One of the main problems I had to face was
the narrow mindedness and the pro-Israeli views.”

Nixon wrote: “In the 25 years since the end of World War II, these views
spread and grew stronger to the point that many people consider
refraining from supporting Israel to be anti-Semitism.  I tried to make
them understand that this is not true, but did not succeed.”

Indeed, Nixon did not succeed.  Along with Kennedy, he is considered a
victim of a major political coup carried out by the Zionist lobby.”


——————————–“Nixon apparently agreed.  In 1999 Slate’s Timothy Noah quoted from a
tape-recorded October 1972 conversation between Nixon and chief of staff
H.R. Haldeman:Haldeman: . . . We know who leaked it.Nixon: Somebody in the FBI?Haldeman: Yes, sir.  Mark Felt. . . .

Nixon: Is he Catholic?

Haldeman: [unintelligible] Jewish.

Nixon: Christ, put a Jew in there?”
———————————-

Source was a dead link at: http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redire … um=11&a=43

but found the above from here http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx … d-The-Jews

Looks like the Fifth Column set up Nixon. Mossad involved? Looks like Mossad-friendly CIA assets carried out the campaign. The Washington Post reporters who supposedly uncovered this conspiracy were Carl Bernstein (an obvious Zionist) and Bob Woodward (??).
Agnew

“A tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government.”

“The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.”

“Every time I criticize what I consider to be excesses or faults in the news business, I am accused of repression, and the leaders of various media professional groups wave the First Amendment as they denounce me. That happens to be my amendment, too. It guarantees my free speech as it does their freedom of the press. There is room for all of us ­ and for our divergent views ­ under the First Amendment.”

Ag 5

Agnew Was Outraged By ‘Zionist Domination’
By Kevin Alfred Strom
Exclusive to National Vanguard
AN IMPORTANT LETTER from former US Vice President Spiro Agnew (pictured) to German-American writer and activist Hans Schmidt, written on September 24, 1982, reveals the extent to which Agnew opposed Zionist power. The letter is photographically reproduced below and reads:

Dear Mr. Schmidt: Thank you for sending me your letter of August 26th and the enclosures. Having been for a long time in the vanguard of those who protest the domination of this country by Zionists, I am always encouraged to see that others share my outrage.

Even in the face of these horrible actions by the arrogant state of Israel, the broad spectrum of American opinion leaders seem to cling to the fallacy that Jews, because of the so-called Holocaust, can do no wrong. The 70 years of indoctrination that began with the years that immediately followed the Balfour Declaration have brainwashed the western world, and Zionist control of our news media has kept the fields green for Israel.

The vituperation of organized Jewry is zealous to say the least. As one who has endured 10 years of well-organized attacks in the media and in the courts, I can attest to that. One can assume only that Israel is more important to these people than their own country.

I also like President Reagan, but he must develop a more positive attitude on this subject. Reagan must be told that the tail cannot continue to wag the dog. The American people are prepared to follow a strong leader who will refuse to protect a welfare state that insults its donor.

Kind regards.

Sincerely,

Spiro T. Agnew

Agnew 3

 

“A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

“An intellectual is a man who doesn’t know how to park a bike.”

“I didn’t say I wouldn’t go into ghetto areas. I’ve been in many of them and to some extent I would say this; if you’ve seen one city slum, you’ve seen them all. Poverty and crime have the same effect everwhere.”

Agnew 2

Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland.
Agnew attended Forest Park Senior High School in Baltimore, before enrolling in the Johns Hopkins University in 1937. He studied chemistry at Hopkins for three years, before joining the U.S. Army and serving in Europe during World War II. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service in France and Germany.

Before leaving for Europe, Agnew worked at an insurance company where he met Elinor Judefind, known as Judy. Agnew married her on May 27, 1942. They eventually had four children: Pamela, James Rand, Susan and Kimberly.

Upon his return from the war, Agnew transferred to the evening program at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He studied law at night, while working as a grocer and as an insurance salesman. In 1947, Agnew received his LL.B. (later amended to Juris Doctor) and moved to the suburbs to begin practicing law. He passed the Maryland bar exam in June 1949.

Agnew, raised as a Democrat, switched parties and became a Republican. During the 1950s.

He entered politics himself in 1957, upon his appointment to the Baltimore County Board of Zoning Appeals by Democratic Baltimore County Executive Michael J. Birmingham. In 1960, he made his first elective run for office as a candidate for Judge of the Circuit court, finishing last in a five-person contest.

Agnew ran for election as Baltimore County Executive in 1962, seeking office in a predominantly Democratic county that had seen no Republican elected to that position in the twentieth century, with only one (Roger B. Hayden) earning victory after he left.

Agnew backed and signed an ordinance outlawing discrimination in some public accommodations, among the first laws of this kind in the United States.

Agnew ran for the position of Governor of Maryland in 1966. In this overwhelmingly Democratic state, he was elected after the Democratic nominee, George P. Mahoney, a Baltimore paving contractor and perennial candidate running on an anti-integration platform. Many Democrats opposed to segregation then crossed party lines to give Agnew the governorship by 82,000 votes.

As governor, Agnew worked with the Democratic legislature to pass tax and judicial reforms, as well as tough anti-pollution laws. Projecting an image of racial moderation, Agnew signed the state’s first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law. However, during the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in the spring of 1968, Agnew angered many African American leaders by lecturing them about their constituents in stating, “I call on you to publicly repudiate all black racists. This, so far, you have been unwilling to do.”

Agnew’s moderate image, immigrant background, and success in a traditionally Democratic state made him an attractive running mate for the 1968 Republican presidential nominee, Richard Nixon. In line with what would later be called Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Agnew was selected as a candidate because he was sufficiently from the South to attract Southern moderate voters, yet wasn’t identified with the Deep South.

At the 1968 Republican National Convention, Agnew’s nomination was supported in the West and Midwest within the Republican Party, and by Nixon himself. However, a small band of delegates started shouting “Spiro Who?” and tried to place “Rockefeller Republican” George W. Romney’s name in nomination. In the end, Nixon’s wishes prevailed, with Agnew receiving 1119 out of the 1317 votes cast.

Although considered something of a political joke at first – one Democratic television commercial featured hearty laughter as the camera panned to a TV with the words “Vice President Spiro Agnew?” on the screen – Agnew had the last laugh, as the Republican ticket carried 32 of the 50 states.

Agnew went from his first election as County Executive to Vice President in six years one of the fastest rises in U.S. political history. His Vice Presidency was the highest-ranking United States political office ever reached by either a Greek American citizen or a Marylander.

Agnew soon found his role as the voice of the so-called “silent majority”, characterized by scathing criticisms of political opponents, especially journalists. He attacked his adversaries with relish, hurling unusual, often alliterative epithets. By late 1969 he was ranking high on national “Most Admired Men” polls. He also inspired a fashion craze when one entrepreneur introduced Spiro Agnew watches (a take off on the popular Mickey Mouse watch); conservatives wore them to show their support for Agnew, while many liberals wore them to signify their mocking contempt.

Agnew was often characterized as Nixon’s “hatchet man” when defending the administration on the Vietnam War.

He did however speak out publicly against the actions of the Ohio National Guard that led to the Kent State shootings in 1970, even describing their action as “murder”. Agnew toned down his rhetoric and dropped most of the alliterations after the 1972 election, with a view to running for president himself in 1976.

Although Nixon initially liked and respected Agnew, as time went on he felt his vice-president lacked the intelligence or vision, particularly in foreign affairs, to sit in the Oval Office, and he began freezing Agnew out of the White House decision-making process. By some accounts, the notoriously thin-skinned President was also resentful that the self-confident Agnew was so popular with so many Americans.

By 1970, Agnew was limited to seeing the president only during cabinet meetings or in the occasional and brief one-on-one. Nevertheless, he became close friends with Frank Sinatra, Billy Graham and Bob Hope, and consorted with leaders around the globe. He also took in stride his own newfound fame, as his utterances often made newspaper front pages and were major stories on the evening network news broadcasts. Invitations for Agnew to give speeches across the country flooded into his office, and he became a top fundraiser for the Republican Party.

On October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion. Agnew was allowed to plead nolo contentre to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President. On October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion.

The Forgotten Spiro Agnew Rant on the “Jewish Cabal”

Spiro Agnew was Vice President of the United States under Nixon. He told Jewish Barbara Walters in an interview that the media was controlled by a “Jewish Cabal”.

In 1976, he briefly reentered the public spotlight and engendered controversy with anti-Zionist statements that called for the United States to withdraw its support for the state of Israel, citing Israel’s allegedly bad treatment of Christians, as well as what Gerald Ford publicly criticized as “unsavory remarks about Jews.”

Some Agnew quotes:

“The people who own and manage national impact media are Jewish and, with other influential Jews, helped create a disastrous U.S. Mideast policy. All you have to do is check the real policy makers and owners and you find a much higher concentration of Jewish people than you’re going to find in the population. By national impact media I am referring tot he major news wire services, pollsters, Time and Newsweek Magazines, thye New York Times, Washington Post, and the International Herald Tribune. For example, CBS’ Mr. (William) Paley’s Jewish. Mr. Julian Goodman, who runs NBC, and there’s a Leonard Goldenson at ABC. Mrs. Katherine Graham owns the Washington Post and Mr. Sulzberger the New York Times. They are all Jews!

You go down the line in that fashion…not just with ownership but go down to the managing posts and discretionary posts… and you’ll find that through their aggressiveness and their inventiveness, they now dominate the news media. Not only in the media, but in academic communities, the financial communities, in the foundations, in all sorts of highly visible and influential services that involve the public, they now have a tremendous voice.
Our policy in the Middle East in my judgment is disastrous, because it’s not even handed. I see no reason why nearly half the foreign aid this nation has to give goes to Israel, except for the influence of this Zionist lobby. I think the power of the news media is in the hands of a few people…it’s not subject to control of the voters, it’s subject only to the whim of the board of directors.”

A pro-Zionist article from Fair.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) states:

The mass distrust of the alleged Hebraic cabal behind the media was first politically exploited at the highest levels by Richard Nixon, who sincerely hated that imaginary clique. He often raved to H.R. Haldeman about those “satanic Jews” atop the networks and the New York Times.

Nixon’s button-man in the campaign was his felonious understudy, Spiro Agnew, whose paranoid attack on the news media–“a tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one”–was tacitly anti-Semitic. His animus became much more explicit after Agnew’s forcible retirement: “All you have to do is look around and see who owns the networks, who owns the Washington Post, the New York Times,” he declared in 1976. “As you look around in the big news business, you see a heavy concentration of Jewish people.”

Agnew’s assault on Big Media was both conceived and crafted by the young Pat Buchanan. Since then, Buchanan has ebulliently parlayed his media celebrity into a full-time political jihad against the media (among other targets), and has done so with a tang of anti-Semitism so pronounced that even William Buckley finally had to clear his throat.

Another article states:

He correctly pointed out that the student led anti-war movement was influenced by seditious elements and, while being a strong advocate of civil rights, cautioned against the extremism that some in the civil rights movement gravitated to. For this he was vilified by the press and turned into a punch line on such shows as Laugh In and the Smothers Brothers. But the Hollywood cultural elite and Eastern seaboard media now keep Agnew in a historical memory hole.

Spiro Agnew’s greatest service to the nation arguably was about challenging the media. He targeted the Washington Post, Newsweek and the New York Times, pointing out the concentration of power, the diversity of media they owned, and the unfairness of the use of corporate media power to drill home one point of view to the American people. This he said all the while pointing out how he understood that while the First Amendment protected them, it also protected him, and that the opposition’s shrill whining would not deter him.

To be true to the record, Spiro Agnew did make some unpleasant remarks occasionally that could be considered bigoted and callous. There can be no excuse for calling A reporter a ‘ Fat Jap.’ or saying, when asked to visit an underprivileged neighborhood ” You’ve seen one slum you’ve seen ’em all.” But Orthodox Jews appreciated him. The segment of the Jewish community that understood he was a friend, at least while in office welcomed his long time support for Israel. After leaving office, his expressed sympathies changed dramatically and he lobbied for Kuwaiti interests.
Oddly, Agnew’s wife, Elinor Isabel Judefind Agnew, known as Judy, was daughter of W. Lee Judefind, a chemist, and his wife, the former Ruth Elinor Schafer.
Agnew died suddenly on September 17, 1996, aged 77 at Atlantic General Hospital, in Berlin, Maryland in Worcester County (near his Ocean City home), only a few hours after being hospitalized and diagnosed with an advanced, yet to that point undetected, form of leukemia.

Agnew vents anti-Zionist, anti-Israel views on Today Show

Spiro Agnew and the Jews by William Safire

(PRESIDENT GERALD) FORD SAYS AGNEW IS WRONG ON JEWS; Criticizes Comments Made in Novel and Interviews 

Agnew Asserts He Is Not a Bigot; Defends Right to Criticize Israel

Popular Media From The Web

Call Now: 877-881-5420

Top Trending News From The Web

Music Promotion - Music By The Truth Tale (Some Songs Maybe PG)