Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"The Men Who Killed Kennedy" -- Possibly THE Most Misleading Series Of JFK-Related Programs Ever Broadcast On Television

71 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 10:22:10 PM4/12/06
to
The "Man" Who Killed Kennedy Was Lee Harvey Oswald ..... The Plural,
"Men", In "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Is Not Required At All

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The multi-part A&E documentary series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
(1988/1995/2003), is more of the same unsupportable pro-conspiracy
tripe that has circulated for decades with regard to President John F.
Kennedy's 1963 assassination. It's kind of hard for me to believe that
the otherwise-first-class TV organizations of "A&E" and "The History
Channel" could even lend their good names to this type of
purely-conjecture-based nonsense.

And one of the three 2003 "add-on" segments of "TMWKK", the part
subtitled "The Love Affair" (which is not available on VHS or DVD), is
positively one of the worst hunks of made-up dreck I can possibly
imagine. That part of the documentary purports that Judyth Vary-Baker
was having a love affair with JFK's killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, around
the time of President Kennedy's death in late 1963.

That ridiculous "TMWKK" chapter also wants the gullible public to
swallow the far-fetched notion that Oswald not only didn't have
anything to do with JFK's murder, but that Oswald himself was trying to
SAVE the President from being killed in the hours leading up to 12:30
PM on 11-22-63! Mr. Oswald was quite the humanitarian it would seem. He
evidently didn't want to harm President Kennedy at all -- he, to the
contrary, wanted to RESCUE him from an assassin's bullet. What a great
guy! (Somebody please lead me to the puke bucket....because I think I'm
going to hurl after having alluded to such sickening CT-created hogwash
pertaining to "Saint Oswald"!)

Footnote To The "Love Affair" Chapter -- Even if Judyth DID know Lee
Oswald in some fashion, circa 1963, that by no means all of a sudden
makes Oswald blameless in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders. And why
anyone with a speck of common sense would think that Judyth's sappy,
sentimental attachment to Mr. Oswald would magically wipe out the Mount
Everest of physical and circumstantial evidence that reveals Oswald to
be a double-killer is the type of strange thinking that perhaps only a
trained psychiatrist would have an explanation for.

The other two add-on parts to this A&E series, aired in 2003 -- "The
Smoking Guns" and "The Guilty Men" -- are certainly no more credible
than the baloney-filled and laughably-absurd "Love Affair" chapter,
either.

"The Guilty Men" segment deserves nothing but rancor as well, for its
wholly-specious theory which suggests that JFK's Vice-President, Lyndon
B. Johnson, was somehow pulling the assassins' strings and had ordered
the "hit" on JFK in '63. There's not a grain of evidence to back up
such vile claims, of course. And "The History Channel" itself was even
pressured to issue an apology for the content of that particular
program a short time after it initially aired in November 2003.

And in April of 2004, "THC" broadcast a special program for the purpose
of refuting the "Guilty Men" episode. The cable network also said that
that Johnson-bashing program would never be aired again, nor would it
ever be released on a home-video format. (So much for the 'accuracy' of
"The Guilty Men".)


But, no matter how many new installments of "TMWKK" series of programs
that are produced, it won't turn Lee Harvey Oswald into an innocent
"Patsy". Not even close.

Because......

The physical evidence does not now, nor has it ever, supported
"conspiracy" in the murder of John F. Kennedy. Simple as that. The
multitude of "Conspiracy Theorists" have PUT the "Conspiracy" in this
case. Simple as that, too.

Can any CTer provide ONE single solid hunk of physical evidence to
support the notion that President Kennedy was murdered as the result of
a conspiracy? Or even a good piece of circumstantial evidence for that
matter -- apart from shadows in grainy photographs, or unproven
allegations of evidence-planting and photo-fakery, manipulation of
records, witness coercion, and unsupported rumors of vast numbers of
witnesses (including ALL THREE primary autopsy doctors -- Humes, Finck,
and Boswell) who all supposedly just flat-out lied to the various
post-assassination Government panels?

How about just one bullet fragment in the record somewhere that doesn't
lead straight back to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

How about....anything....that can bolster the current non-existent
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE status of the "Conspiracy-Theory Case" in either the
JFK murder or the J.D. Tippit slaying?

Anything?

Didn't think so. Because nothing's there.

Simple as that (too).

-------------

Another valid inquiry which has no believable or credible answer from a
"CT" point-of-view is this:

How could these assassination plotters be so fantastically clever one
minute, and so utterly stupid, bumbling, and reckless the next?

The best answer to that, of course, is the simplest one --- It's
because they (the "plotters") weren't there in the first place -- and
what SEEMS like cunning cleverness and great "plotting" one minute
(e.g., the planting of literally ALL of the "Oswald Did It Alone"
evidence) .... and recklessless beyond belief the next minute (e.g.,
the gunning down of Oswald on Live TV in a crowded police basement)
.... is really just exactly what the evidence says it is ----

Two acts of total randomness, born out of pure happenstance,
circumstance, and perfect opportunity to act upon these impulses (both
on Oswald's part re. JFK and Tippit, and on Ruby's part re. Oswald's
death).

Yet again -- Simple as that.

-------------

Slick-talking "pro-conspiracy" people (claiming to know things the
Lone-Nut dumbbells on the other side of the aisle don't know, or just
simply can't bring themselves to "see") have drilled stuff into the
heads of weak-minded people who MAKE A CHOICE to believe the wilder
"conspiracy" side of things (like the "Badge Man" hooey that makes up a
portion of TMWKK), rather than to TRUST THE EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE.*

* = Another good (non-JFK) example of this being the O.J. Simpson
murder trial. In the O.J. instance, ALL of the blood evidence was
miraculously "tainted" and deemed utterly worthless by the defense (and
the idiotic jury of 12 bought this foolhardy premise -- hook, line, and
"planted glove"), even though we KNOW the defense was full of stinky
crap (and Vincent Bugliosi explains why in incredible detail during the
6-Tape O.J. Trial video series he made in 1999, which comes highly
recommended by this writer). Vincent's O.J. video program is worthy
even for JFK buffs, because many of the ridiculous claims of
"conspiracy" and "evidence tampering" and "planting of evidence" can
apply directly to the JFK case as well.

A smooth-talking lawyer, in many people's minds, is hard to fight and
hard to disagree with (when their arguments SEEM to be valid and
authentic). But NOTHING will suddenly change someone else's blood into
O.J. Simpson's plasma (which is the tall tale that the defense was
feeding the jury during the Simpson trial). And it was blood that was
found AT THE MURDER SCENE no less!

Likewise, there's just too much evidence telling us Oswald pulled the
trigger on JFK and J.D. Tippit to believe anything else (especially
Tippit, of course; that's one murder case that's as water-tight as can
be, no matter what some silly CTer wants to spoon-feed the masses to
try and convince them otherwise).

-------------

Re. the "1-Man Plot" involving nobody but Lee Harvey Oswald........

I, myself, am of the opinion (given what Oswald could have known with
100% certainty re. JFK's motorcade route in the days/weeks leading up
to 11-22-63) that Lee Oswald did not plan the assassination more than a
few days in advance (6 days tops, given the newspaper reports about the
motorcade).

This lack of preparation shows up in many post-assassination ways re.
Oswald -- e.g.: his lousy escape "plan" (if he even had one in
advance). He had no car; he couldn't drive (very well); and he
obviously wasn't bound to ask co-worker Wes Frazier, or anyone, for a
ride away from the murder scene within minutes of the shooting. This
left him with the only viable means of locomotion for getting the heck
out of Dodge/(Dealey Plaza) -- i.e., public transportation and just
hoofing it all over the place (both of which he engaged in on November
22).

I'm also of the opinion (given the evidence) that Oswald almost
certainly HAD to be of the following pre-November 22 mindset -- "If I
get a chance to kill JFK...OK; if not...so be it".

HOW could he possibly have been of any other mindset/frame-of-mind in
the hours/minutes leading up to 12:30 PM on 11-22-63? I say he couldn't
have been of a "I must kill him today no matter what!" frame-of-mind.

Why? -- Because it's obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT suicidal.
He proved that multiple times following the shooting. He fought for his
life, and freedom. He fought for it by going to get his handgun at
1:00, and fought for it by killing J.D. Tippit (in a "kill or be
caught" mindset, IMO). And he certainly fought for his life in the
Texas Theater, where he hit a policeman in the face and attempted to
shoot the officer.

Oswald wasn't a total dunce. He was smart enough to conceal that rifle
in a makeshift bag for several hours inside the Depository without a
single person seeing him with it. He was smart enough to NOT be seen by
Bonnie Ray Williams while (more-than-likely) hiding inside his
"Sniper's Nest" just before 12:30. And he was smart enough to ditch the
rifle well enough so it wouldn't be found for 52 minutes after the
shooting. Plus, he was smart enough to not "tip his hand" as he
confronted his boss and a Dallas cop just two minutes after the
shooting occurred (enabling Oswald to "free" himself for the moment and
get out of the building).

Which means that he was also smart enough to HAVE to realize that his
last-minute plan to kill the President all by himself (in total
secrecy) probably would not be an easy task -- nor did he even think,
IMO, that he would have any such golden, unimpeded opportunity to get
the job done from the Depository's 6th Floor that day.

This explains to my satisfaction the rather slipshod, jerry-rigged
activity Oswald engaged in during the minutes following his cowardly
act of shooting the President of the United States in the back (and in
the back of the head).**

** = Although, in Oswald's murderous mind, the decision to wait until
JFK's car had turned the corner of Houston and Elm was actually a very
smart move by LHO. Because it almost totally eliminated the risk of
being fired upon with lightning-like speed by any of the President's
Secret Service guards in the follow-up car (who all had their backs to
Oswald throughout the entire shooting). A very smart "delay" on
Oswald's part.

As I said, Oswald was no dunce. That fact was proven yet again after
his arrest, when he shouted "I'm just a patsy!" on Live television.
Those four words have sent CTers scurrying in all directions, looking
for (non-existent) "evidence" to try and prove Oswald was right when he
uttered his well-timed "Patsy" motto.

But please also remember that the "Patsy" declaration came out of
Oswald's mouth just one second after he spouted a provable lie about
having been "taken in" by the Dallas police because of his Russian
ties. That was obviously a lie, and Oswald (plus everybody else with
half a brain cell) knew WHY it was a lie -- because he had actually
been "taken in" on suspicion of killing Officer Tippit, and Oswald knew
this beyond all doubt.

So, it makes me wonder just WHY the "Let's Free Oswald" conspiracy
brigade insists upon attaching so much credibility to Oswald's "I'm
just a patsy" whitewash, which were words that IMMEDIATELY followed a
known LIE. If he was lying one moment (and he was) -- then why would
anyone think he would suddenly do an about-face and start telling the
TRUTH the following moment?

Oswald's post-12:30 actions on the afternoon of 11-22-63 fit perfectly
with the idea of a Lone-Nut Communist (practically on the spur of the
moment) taking his gun to work the day he knew he might have a chance
to change history.

And as it turned out -- he did change it. And I'm guessing that Lee
Harvey Oswald was just as shocked as everybody else that he actually
got a chance to pull that trigger on a completely-vacant 6th Floor that
November afternoon.

-------------

It seems to me that many conspiracy theorists would rather look
ANYWHERE for the "true killers" of John Kennedy except the one place
where the true killer really resided -- on the 6th Floor of the TSBD
(where a man who was positively identified as Lee Harvey Oswald was
actually seen squeezing off his last of three rifle shots in the
direction of the President's limousine).

Every single discrepancy in the case, and every gaffe made by the
Dallas Police or the FBI (and there were some mistakes, as can be
expected in any criminal case), have been blown up by CTers to
Herculean importance and isolated from the "whole" of the JFK case in
an attempt to prove that somebody else besides Oswald committed the two
murders that LHO was charged with on November 22nd. (Although,
implacably, the identity of this "somebody else" is never, ever
revealed by conspiracists. We're just supposed to take it on "faith", I
guess, that there was "somebody else", despite a complete lack of
physical evidence to bolster such "somebody else" allegations.)

And by isolating those individual items that CTers claim "don't add up
to LHO's guilt", the theorists have succeeded in some circles in
turning a relatively-simple murder case (two cases including Tippit's,
which is and was a no-brainer in favor of Oswald's guilt from Day 1)
into a convoluted, complicated case of massive conspiratorial
proportions, with Oswald not only being innocent of BOTH murders -- but
with many CTers also wishing to absolve Lee Oswald of ALL connection
with even the massive "plot" they advocate. Totally and outrageously
ridiculous.

A few examples of what I'm talking about -- re. the "isolation" of
certain evidence that makes CTers scream "frame up" and "conspiracy",
etc. ----

1.) The Tippit murder weapon being identified initially as an
"automatic" weapon, instead of what it turned out to be -- Oswald's
non-automatic revolver.

2.) The rifle in the TSBD being innocently mis-labelled a "Mauser"
initially by police, instead of what we later know it really was --
Oswald's "Carcano".

3.) The ONE single witness at the Tippit scene who said she saw two men
involved in the shooting of Officer Tippit -- instead of what we later
KNOW occurred: Oswald, ALONE, was at the scene of the murder, per the
multiple witnesses who do not back up Acquilla Clemmons' claim of two
killers.

4.) JFK's head moving violently backward after the fatal head shot --
which is probably the single biggest example of "isolating" a
particular item in the case which has CT promoters telling us that it
"proves conspiracy", instead of examining ALL the possibilities of why
JFK's head did what it did on November 22 -- with a PROVEN possibility
being: a head can go backward, toward the source of the gunfire, when
shot from behind. That fact has been proven by people WAY more
qualified than I (or the CTers) to make such an assessment. But staunch
theorists in the popular "It Couldn't Have Been Oswald" club stand firm
by their "I just don't believe it" stance.

5.) Oswald's not being out of breath or excited when confronted by
Officer Baker in the lunch room after the shooting. This, to many
CTers, is somehow virtual PROOF that Oswald was innocent. IMO, the
CTers who espouse that belief just aren't looking at the situation in
the proper context and light. For, if Oswald had just shot the
President on the 6th Floor, he would have no doubt somewhat EXPECTED
the building to be crawling with cops a very short time after the shots
rang out.

He HAD to know that the building from which he was shooting would be
surrounded quickly -- therefore, he wasn't the least bit surprised to
see a gun-toting policeman in that lunch room when he (Oswald) was in
there. In my "LN" view, Oswald's calm demeanor spells "Guilt" way more
than it does "Innocence" -- because any totally-innocent person in that
same situation IS going to be scared to death and ask: "What the hell
is going on? I didn't do anything!". But Oswald didn't do this; and
didn't NEED to do this ... because he already KNEW what had just
happened, and knew who had caused the turmoil. And he also knew that
his employment status in the building would "clear" him for the time
being.

See what I mean about isolating certain things and removing them from
the bigger picture? The CTers are experts at doing this and then
attaching the word "conspiracy" around each item as if that single item
itself proves the whole "CT case". Well, it does not.

What "proves" that Oswald was guilty of being a double-murderer in
November of 1963 (even without the benefit of a trial, which,
unfortunately, we'll never see) is the TOTALITY OF THE DAMNING EVIDENCE
AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD. And this "totality" is overwhelming in scope
-- as any CTer would be able to see if the Oliver Stone-like blinders
(as well as the "Men Who Killed Kennedy"-believing blinders) could be
blasted from their eyeballs.

David Von Pein
November 2005

aaronhi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 9:56:08 AM4/13/06
to
If the History Channel tried to made a meaningful documentary on the
JFK assassination, filled with gems of evidence from sources like Peter
Dale Scott's and Harrison Livingstone's books, they would be run out of
business and the producers and writers would die in "car accidents".

Aaron Hirshberg

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:28:02 AM4/13/06
to
In article <1144894930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>The "Man" Who Killed Kennedy Was Lee Harvey Oswald ..... The Plural,
>"Men", In "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Is Not Required At All


And yet, gutless coward that you are, you refuse to defend any of these
statements.

The American judicial system long ago was founded on an adversarial process, and
if *YOU* ever ended up in court, you'd scream loudly for your own counsel.

But the truth didn't -have- counsel during the WC proceedings. It was
specifically disallowed. So the lawyers on the staff could say or do *anything*
with no dissent allowed, nor the requirement that they *support* and defend
their statements and actions.

Davey-Boy is following in this hallowed tradition of gutless cowardice.

He refuses to defend his own statements.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

tomnln

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 4:11:33 PM4/13/06
to
Thank GOD !

It was beginning to look like Nobody is old enough to Remember the America I
was Born & Raised in.

The America that allowed the accused to have Counsel that was allowed to
Cross Examine those who testify against him, to Insure the testimony was
TRUE.

The America that allowed the accused to have Counsel that was allowed to
Challenge
Evidence to Ensure it was True.

I remind you that Oswald's Mother wrote a letter to Earl Warren asking for
that Exactly.
Earl Warren DENIED her Request.

For the sake of "Continuity" All these Felon Supporters MUST be subjected to
the
SAME Code of Justice that they "Advocate for Others".

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e1ln5...@drn.newsguy.com...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:29:20 PM4/13/06
to

You mean like their UFO documentaries? Hey, it puts the kids through
college.

>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:37:47 PM4/13/06
to
>>"Davey-Boy is following in this hallowed tradition of gutless cowardice."

And Ben-Kook is following is the lovely tradition of attempting to
exonerate a known killer, based on 100% guesswork and public opinion,
with said judgement based on 0% of the official, verifiable evidence.

Nice work, Ben.

You really SHOULD be proud of that accomplishment. Have it engraved on
your headstone.

Ben no doubt must align with Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, when Marguerite
uttered probably the most ludicrous and hilariously-outrageous
statement ever said about her lovely little darling killer, Lee H.
Oswald.........

"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his
country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald; circa
late 1963/early 1964

I'm guessing that Ben believes that "Marguerite The Undeniable Kook"
was, indeed, tellin' it like it was when she uttered those LOL words at
the cemetery where her wonderful, heroic son was buried.

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:45:34 PM4/13/06
to
Tomnln,

>It was beginning to look like Nobody is old enough to Remember the America I
>was Born & Raised in.


Oh, you mean the America where Tom Rossley accuses anyone who disagrees
with his wacky, nutcase ideas of being felons, felon supporters,
traitors, terrorists, fagots, atheists, pedophiles, etc.,all on a whim
and at his discretion?

Is that your America?

Todd

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 7:17:18 PM4/13/06
to

Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip... and run away...


In article <1144967867....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> Davey-Boy is following in this hallowed tradition of gutless cowardice.
>
>And Ben-Kook is following is the lovely tradition of attempting to
>exonerate a known killer, based on 100% guesswork and public opinion,


No, actually, based on the evidence that you've refused to respond to. Anyone
can review the posts I've made on the topic. For although it's certainly not
essential (for a CT'er) to believe that LHO fired nothing that day, there *is*
evidence tending to show exactly that.

LNT'ers have been denying for quite some time, for example, that Guinn had
numerous test runs to use as a comparison on the cheek caste at Oak Ridge... and
EACH AND EVERY TIME, the test subjects cheek caste showed heavy deposits -
completely opposite from the LHO results. This exculpatory series of tests was
buried by the WC.

LNT'ers keep asserting that no-one saw LHO after 11:50 or so... yet time and
time again, we merely list the eyewitness testimony and statements of those who
did indeed see LHO, who was *NOT* on the 6th floor during the time of these
sightings.

LNT'ers keep asserting that eyewitnesses *saw* LHO firing the rifle, yet time
after time, CT'ers correctly point out that not only do the descriptions *NOT*
match, but that Brennan *refused* to ID Oswald during a lineup. And his later
given reason of "personal security" was suggested *TO HIM* by an agent...

In fact, as we can 'time-stamp' one sighting of a SN assassin at 12:15 - and we
also have an eyewitness that places LHO in the lunchroom at the time, LNT'ers go
running away in despair.

But none of this matters to those of faith - they will place their hand over the
WCR, and say "I believe... I believe... I believe..." And a truly wondrous
miracle happens... they *do* believe.

Davey-boy will snip all of this, and refuse to answer - since there really *is*
no answer... this is all based on evidence, testimony, and historical fact.


>with said judgement based on 0% of the official, verifiable evidence.


When you have to lie, all you've shown is your willingness to lie.


>Nice work, Ben.


Thankyou. But *any* honest person can note that you're a gutless coward who
keeps snipping and running. I'm only *mentioning* this fact.


>You really SHOULD be proud of that accomplishment. Have it engraved on
>your headstone.


Honesty is not much of an accomplishment... rather, I consider it to be a
fundamental character issue... which should be implicit in a human being.


>Ben no doubt must align with Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, when Marguerite
>uttered probably the most ludicrous and hilariously-outrageous
>statement ever said about her lovely little darling killer, Lee H.
>Oswald.........
>
>"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his
>country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald; circa
>late 1963/early 1964
>
>I'm guessing that Ben believes that "Marguerite The Undeniable Kook"
>was, indeed, tellin' it like it was when she uttered those LOL words at
>the cemetery where her wonderful, heroic son was buried.

Why bring irrelevancies into the mix? Why not merely defend your own words?

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 7:51:16 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"Why bring irrelevancies into the mix {re. Marguerite Oswald's stupid-as-all-get-out cemetery declaration}?"<<<

Only because I can. And because it's so much fun. And because that
appallingly-pathetic remark by Marguerite reminded me so much of
Benjamin "Not Sherlock" Holmes.

Let's listen to it again, shall we. It's too funny to waste on just one
single post here.......

"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his

country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite O.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 9:45:50 PM4/13/06
to
In article <1144972276.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Why bring irrelevancies into the mix?
>
>Only because I can.


And perhaps because you're too gutless a coward to respond to any of the
substantive refutations of your misleading statements and outright lies.


>And because it's so much fun. And because that
>appallingly-pathetic remark by Marguerite reminded me so much of
>Benjamin "Not Sherlock" Holmes.


Gutless coward, aren't you?

0 new messages