"JFK: 3 SHOTS THAT CHANGED AMERICA"
David Von Pein
http://history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=488302
http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=110292
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/10/tv-alert-jfk-3-shots-that-changed.html
================================================
"Just hours before his death, John F. Kennedy appeared before a
crowd in Fort Worth, Texas in what would be his final speech,
delivering one last homage to American freedom.
"This poignant moment is part of a vast historical record of
sights and sounds captured on camera during those catastrophic days.
The Zapruder film is only the beginning; much more archival material
of the events surrounding the assassination exists.
"This two-part special uses unique, rarely seen and heard
footage to document the Kennedy assassination and the nearly 50 years
of speculation and controversy that changed America.
"This material comes from a range of sources including
eyewitness home movies, Dallas police dispatch radio recordings, and
raw news footage. Part 1 is a shocking, unflinching look at the
assassination of the President and the days that followed."
-- The History Channel (History.com)
================================================
Part 1 of The History Channel program "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed
America" was quite good. The producers of the documentary just let the
events unfold as they happened on live television and radio. No
narration. No talking heads. And no commentary at all. I liked it.
But there were two pieces of film and videotape that were conspicuous
by their absence -- the Zapruder Film and Walter Cronkite's famous
"President Kennedy died at 1 PM Central Standard Time" announcement.
The four-hour special debuted on The History Channel on October 11 and
12, 2009.
============================
RELATED MATERIAL:
www.JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com
www.YouTube-Playlists.blogspot.com
============================
Robert
> http://history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=488302
>
> http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=110292
>
What I found interesting was the FACT LHO constantly asked for a
lawyer/reprensentation and NO one got him one! In fact, the media
seemed more concerned by the fact he did NOT get to shower when he
asked to then the FACT he had asked for a lawyer like a hundred times
and did NOT get one!
The DPD is on film VIOLATING HIS CIVIL LIBERTIES and NO one has had a
problem with this on the LNer side for 45 years!
Just because "Miranda" laws didn't come into play for a few years does
NOT mean the suspect did NOT have those rights in 1963. The police
were just SIMPLY NOT made to inform the suspect at the time of arrest
in 1963, but LHO knew his rights.
How about the funny, disgusted comment by Curry on 11/23/63 when asked
by the media if he has confessed? He said "NO, he has not
confessed." And then he said dejectedly and disgustedly, "He JUST
DENIES EVERYTHING!"
The way he said it was like "We know this guy is guilty and he won't
play along" instead of "Wow, this guy might be innocent and we have
only been looking into this for 23 hours!"
It rang of comedy as he was so mad that a person who could be innocent
wouldn't just admit they did it! Even IF you are guilty, and we KNOW
LHO was NOT, where does it say YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT?
I love how some of the newsmedia mentioned conspiracy and so did the
DPD as they said they could NOT rule out anyone else's involvement or
knowledge of the crime -- that is UNTIL SUNDAY CAME, then they knew
without a doubt it was LHO alone!
What changed beyond LHO being gunned down while the DPD were "armed to
the teeth in riot gear" as they swore "no one would get to LHO!"
Funny how Ruby got "lucky" at 11:20 AM when all reports said LHO would
be moved around 10:00 AM, huh?
bigdog
his right. He wanted a Communist New York lawyer name John Abt who was
away and never got the message that Oswald wanted to be represented by
him. The local bar association confered with Oswald and were satisfied
that his right to counsel was not being violated. He was offered help
and turned it down.
> The DPD is on film VIOLATING HIS CIVIL LIBERTIES and NO one has had a
> problem with this on the LNer side for 45 years!
>
That's because people who are informed know his rights were not
violated except by Jack Ruby.
> Just because "Miranda" laws didn't come into play for a few years does
> NOT mean the suspect did NOT have those rights in 1963. The police
> were just SIMPLY NOT made to inform the suspect at the time of arrest
> in 1963, but LHO knew his rights.
>
> How about the funny, disgusted comment by Curry on 11/23/63 when asked
> by the media if he has confessed? He said "NO, he has not
> confessed." And then he said dejectedly and disgustedly, "He JUST
> DENIES EVERYTHING!"
>
> The way he said it was like "We know this guy is guilty and he won't
> play along" instead of "Wow, this guy might be innocent and we have
> only been looking into this for 23 hours!"
>
He said that because he did know Oswald was guilty and because Oswald
wouldn't play along. The evidence, even before the crime lab reports
came in was already damning to Oswald. A person who saw that evidence
and had an IQ above your average turnip could see that.
> It rang of comedy as he was so mad that a person who could be innocent
> wouldn't just admit they did it! Even IF you are guilty, and we KNOW
> LHO was NOT, where does it say YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT?
>
Oswald was guilty and only dumbfucks like you think otherwise. LHO
didn't have to admit it and if he hadn't been shot by Ruby would
easily have been convicted and sentence to the electric chair, which
would have been a better fate than he deserved. Burning at the stake
would have been more appropriate. I'd have been more than happy to
light the match.
> I love how some of the newsmedia mentioned conspiracy and so did the
> DPD as they said they could NOT rule out anyone else's involvement or
> knowledge of the crime -- that is UNTIL SUNDAY CAME, then they knew
> without a doubt it was LHO alone!
>
> What changed beyond LHO being gunned down while the DPD were "armed to
> the teeth in riot gear" as they swore "no one would get to LHO!"
>
> Funny how Ruby got "lucky" at 11:20 AM when all reports said LHO would
> be moved around 10:00 AM, huh?- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes he was lucky. If Ruby was supposed to whack Oswald, why wasn't he
in the garage by the appointed time? It is one of the delicious
ironies that Oswald's request to get a sweater before he was moved
ended up costing him his life. I do hope the worthless little
motherfucker suffered excruciating pain before he finally lost
consciousness.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bigdog, you are 100% correct. The loonies in the conspiracy camp
always twist the fact around their love for Oswald and make it sound
as if Oswald was denied a lawyer. This comes from either their
ignorance, their selective research, or their dishonesty (I opt for
the third explanation.) Oswald only wanted Apt because he was an
ACLU attorney, and innocent people rarely need the ACLU. It is the
first rule of Law School that when a client demands an ACLU attorney
they are guilty and want to worm their way out of their actions due to
a technicality. Oswald fits that mold perfectly.
Incidently, Robert you big dummy. Did you spot any hidden gunmen in
any of the archival footage shown last night. Any DPD officers
planting evidence? Any multiple rifles removed from the building?
You are such a big dummy, Robert.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Additionally, Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" comment is revealed in its
true light when ALL of his previous comments are included in the
segment. Oswald NEVER said he was set up for the crimes by others,
ever, never. He said he was arrested because he lived for a time in
Russia and THAT is why he considered himself a patsy. Conspiracy nuts
always lift his "patsy" comment out of context because leaving it IN
context destroys yet one more plank in their wobbly house of cards
bolstering their insane hopes of a conspiracy.
Robert you are such an idiot.
David Von Pein
A SHORTCUT TO BECOMING AN "LNer" -- WATCH THE LIVE TV COVERAGE OF
11/22/63:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03
aeffects
sheeeeet shithead, you can't even find a shortcut to get your canine
blowup dog de-nutted..... give us a break shithead....
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Oct 12, 4:08=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://history.com/shows.do?action=3Ddetail&episodeId=3D488302
>>
>> http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=3D110292
>>
>> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/10/tv-alert-jfk-3-shots-that-change...
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "Just hours before his death, John F. Kennedy appeared before=
> a
>> crowd in Fort Worth, Texas in what would be his final speech,
>> delivering one last homage to American freedom.
>>
>> sights and sounds captured on camera during those catastrophic days.
>> The Zapruder film is only the beginning; much more archival material
>> of the events surrounding the assassination exists.
>>
>> footage to document the Kennedy assassination and the nearly 50 years
>> of speculation and controversy that changed America.
>>
>> eyewitness home movies, Dallas police dispatch radio recordings, and
>> raw news footage. Part 1 is a shocking, unflinching look at the
>> assassination of the President and the days that followed."
>>
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> Part 1 of The History Channel program "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed
>> America" was quite good. The producers of the documentary just let the
>> events unfold as they happened on live television and radio. No
>> narration. No talking heads. And no commentary at all. I liked it.
>>
>> But there were two pieces of film and videotape that were conspicuous
>> by their absence -- the Zapruder Film and Walter Cronkite's famous
>> "President Kennedy died at 1 PM Central Standard Time" announcement.
>>
>> The four-hour special debuted on The History Channel on October 11 and
>> 12, 2009.
>
>
>What I found interesting was the FACT LHO constantly asked for a
>lawyer/reprensentation and NO one got him one! In fact, the media
>seemed more concerned by the fact he did NOT get to shower when he
>asked to then the FACT he had asked for a lawyer like a hundred times
>and did NOT get one!
Can you document just three examples?
>The DPD is on film VIOLATING HIS CIVIL LIBERTIES and NO one has had a
>problem with this on the LNer side for 45 years!
>
>Just because "Miranda" laws didn't come into play for a few years does
>NOT mean the suspect did NOT have those rights in 1963. The police
>were just SIMPLY NOT made to inform the suspect at the time of arrest
>in 1963, but LHO knew his rights.
>
>How about the funny, disgusted comment by Curry on 11/23/63 when asked
>by the media if he has confessed? He said "NO, he has not
>confessed." And then he said dejectedly and disgustedly, "He JUST
>DENIES EVERYTHING!"
>
>The way he said it was like "We know this guy is guilty and he won't
>play along" instead of "Wow, this guy might be innocent and we have
>only been looking into this for 23 hours!"
>
>It rang of comedy as he was so mad that a person who could be innocent
>wouldn't just admit they did it! Even IF you are guilty, and we KNOW
>LHO was NOT, where does it say YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT?
>
>I love how some of the newsmedia mentioned conspiracy and so did the
>DPD as they said they could NOT rule out anyone else's involvement or
>knowledge of the crime -- that is UNTIL SUNDAY CAME, then they knew
>without a doubt it was LHO alone!
>
>What changed beyond LHO being gunned down while the DPD were "armed to
>the teeth in riot gear" as they swore "no one would get to LHO!"
>
>Funny how Ruby got "lucky" at 11:20 AM when all reports said LHO would
>be moved around 10:00 AM, huh?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
ONE KOOK SAID:
>>> "The DPD is on film VIOLATING HIS [LHO's] CIVIL LIBERTIES and NO one has had a problem with this on the LNer side for 45 years!" <<<
THEN ANOTHER KOOK SAID:
>>> "Yeah, isn't that something! How come David Von Pein (and many other LN'ers) won't even mention this and many other violations of law with the Dallas PD, the FBI, the CIA, The Warren Report's refusal to let a lawyer represent LHO, etc.?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Once again, we're treated to conspiracy kooks who have decided to
believe the lies spouted by the double-murderer himself--Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Oswald tells the world he has been denied legal representation, so the
CTers decide to believe him. Wonderful.
But the fact is that Oswald told H. Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar
Association that Nichols' services were not required. Nor were the
services of the Dallas Bar Association.
And another fact is: Captain Fritz of the DPD informed Oswald that he
could call a lawyer at any time. Fritz even told him that the DPD
would do it for him!
So, it would be nice if the Anybody-But-Oswald kooks would please stop
pretending that poor Lee Harvey was being "denied legal assistance",
because it's just not true.
========================================
JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you say anything to him [Lee Oswald] about an
attorney the first time you talked to him?"
CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an
attorney, and I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time
he wanted it. I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked,
any attorney he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he
wanted an attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and
he said that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he
liked."
========================================
H. LOUIS NICHOLS (DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION) -- "When I got there he [Lee
Oswald] was lying on a bunk, and then he stood up when I came in and
then he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. .... I said, "Well, I
have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer." .... I said,
"What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the
Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?" He said, "No, not
now." He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some
of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody
to represent me." I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it
clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar
Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now." And he
said, "No." I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was
doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do
anything right now. So I left."
========================================
Walt
Oswald didn't want just any old lawyer......and he particularly didn't
want one selected by the Dallas authorities.
When Oswald had the opportunity he called out to the agency he was
working for.... " I do request that someone come forward to my legal
defence"
That wasn't a plea for legal representation so much as it was a plea
for his handler to pull some strings and get him released without
blowing his cover.
David Von Pein
>>> "When Oswald had the opportunity he called out to the agency he was working for.... "I do request that someone come forward to my legal defence" [the actual quote was: "I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance"]. That wasn't a plea for legal representation so much as it was a plea for his handler to pull some strings and get him released without blowing his cover." <<<
LOL.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9e37d906b513336c
>>> "Part two [of the 2009 History Channel program, "JFK: 3 SHOTS THAT CHANGED AMERICA"] gave ample coverage to the various conspiracy theories which sprouted up over the years, again without comment. They neither disputed nor endorsed any of them." <<<
Indeed.
In fact, in the latter portions of Part 2 of the History Channel
program, the talking heads for the conspiracy POV dominate the
documentary almost entirely -- from Oliver Stone, to Bob Groden, to
Jim Garrison, to Mark Lane, and other CTers.
As far as I remember, only one "lone assassin" author can be heard
voicing an opinion at all during the latter portions of Part 2 of the
program, and that's a short video clip featuring "Conspiracy Of One"
author Jim Moore. (Arlen Specter and David Belin are also shown in a
clip from the 1967 BBC-TV program, "The Death Of Kennedy". But I think
that clip came a little earlier in Part 2 of the show.)
But we didn't hear from Gerald Posner or Dale Myers or Gerald Ford or
John Lattimer or any other "LN" authors. And we also didn't hear from
Vincent Bugliosi (and the History Channel certainly could have culled
a video or audio clip with Vince; he made hundreds of personal
appearances in 2007 after his book came out).
Yes, it's true that conspiracy authors and conspiracy theorists in
general outnumber lone-assassin believers by a count of about 3 to 1,
but LNers are probably outnumbered by a count of about 25 to 1 in Part
2 of the History Channel's very good 4-hour documentary, "JFK: 3 Shots
That Changed America".
So, conspiracy theorists who might feel compelled to berate the
History Channel for any kind of a "Lone Nut" bias during its two-part
2009 documentary should watch the program again--particularly the last
hour of Part 2. Because there is most certainly no shortage of
"conspiracy" talk during those sixty minutes of the program.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3443c9a0971d7af
lazu...@webtv.net
Pein..no Posner, Bugliosi, Myers, Lattimer etc. and a lot of Garrison,
Groden, Lane...I only caught a few minutes of the end of pt. 2-pt. 1
wasn't bad...anyway, my problem is after the cter's are shown, looks
like they went into Jennings, Rather, Brokaw for the final word who know
nothing about the Assassination and look absurd with their definite
pronouncements...I will admit reluctantly, Posner, Buglosi, Myers etc.
know a helluva lot more than the newsguys, and I would like to add I
still have some respect for Cronkite and Brokaw, but Rather and
Jennings..no way Jose!....