Peter Jennings & the JFK assassination
Canuck
assassination for the second time, which I had taped. Possibly because he
had become an American citizen the year before (although retaining his
Canadian citizenship too), I suspect Mr. Jennings was inclined to support
the Establishment's contention that the Warren Commission came to the
correct conclusions. In other words, he was hopelessly biased from the
outset, and willing to accept the conclusions of people like Gerald Posner
and Priscilla McMillan, without hesitation (even President Clinton seemed
to believe Posner's every word).
In regard to Tippit's murder, Posner stated on the program that the
evidence against Oswald was "ironclad", which I don't believe to be the
case (read Henry Hurt's chapter on the subject). As I have stated
previously, Jack Tatum, the eyewitness interviewed by the HSCA (and who
appeared on the 1993 Frontline special; he died two years ago btw), saw
the killer fire a fourth shot into Tippit's head after walking around the
rear of the police car, in what the HSCA described as a "coup de grace".
Tatum, who believed the killer was Oswald (even though he saw him from
inside his car a block past the scene), believed it was a mob hit, and
that is why he decided not to come forward on Nov. 22, 1963. It certainly
appeared to be mob-related, given the unnecessary and ceremonial fourth
shot. It also doesn't sound like the actions of someone like Oswald, who
certainly had no experience killing people in the past, and who likely
would have taken off immediately, without delay.
There is still the question of why Tippit got out of his car in the first
place without contacting the dispatcher, and why he didn't take his
revolver out to protect himself, UNLESS he recognized the person whom he
had stopped to talk to, possibly someone he had gotten to know at the
Carousel Club, and whom he likely trusted.
None of this and other conflicting evidence at the Tippit scene was
discussed by Jennings (or Posner), and even Tatum's reaction and the
HSCA's description were not mentioned.
I will probably come back to this subject later after I watch more of the
Jennings report.
- Peter R. Whitmey
jwrush
"Canuck" <prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123646337.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I started watching the late Peter Jennings' 2003 special on the JFK
> assassination for the second time, which I had taped. Possibly because he
> had become an American citizen the year before (although retaining his
> Canadian citizenship too), I suspect Mr. Jennings was inclined to support
> the Establishment's contention that the Warren Commission came to the
> correct conclusions. In other words, he was hopelessly biased from the
> outset, and willing to accept the conclusions of people like Gerald Posner
> and Priscilla McMillan, without hesitation (even President Clinton seemed
> to believe Posner's every word).
>
> In regard to Tippit's murder, Posner stated on the program that the
> evidence against Oswald was "ironclad", which I don't believe to be the
> case (read Henry Hurt's chapter on the subject).
Henry Hurt's book contained lies. Notice that he's never appeared on TV over
the years to talk about it.
rob.s...@gmail.com
cave into the MSM loonies out there.
Rob
TexExtra
Canuck
I had no trouble contacting Mr. Hurt several times in the late 1980s and
early 1990s. He was a regular contributor to Reader's Digest at that
time, and with a family to support, couldn't afford to become pre-occupied
with the JFK assassination. According to the late Mary Ferrell, he also
became quite burned out by the subject, especially because of one chapter
in regard to a suspect that turned out to have no substantiated connection
to the case. Mary tried to persuade Henry to drop that chapter.
As for the Tippit chapter, what "lies" has Mr. Hurt included? Perhaps he
simply presented a different point of view than yours?
- Peter R. Whitmey
Martin Shackelford
It wasn't Jennings' finest hour, but he had plenty of other fine hours by
which to be remembered. ABC had some much more open-minded coverage of the
MLK and RFK assassinations at times, for example, under his guidance.
Maybe bucking the journalistic establishment, includng his close friends,
on JFK was just too much of a hurdle.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
he's lying" argument persuasive. More apples and oranges. He got the story
wrong in terms of Easterling. The rest of his research has stood up well,
from what I've seen.
Martin
jwrush
I'll try to find the book and re-read the Tippit chapter. The reason Mr.
Hurt got suddenly "burned out" on the JFK case was because a small town
reporter down in Mississippi caught him red-handed lying about the
Easterling hoax. For example, he said he sent FBI Director William Webster
a registered letter to let the FBI know for the first time about the
Easterling story. Turns out that Hurt already knew that the FBI already
knew about the Easterling story. If I recall correctly, it was a local
Sheriff Gene Walters told him and tried to warn Hurt that Easterling had
been reading books about major crimes and "confessing" to being a part of
them for years. Hurt knew this. Hurt knew that the FBI had already
thoroughly investigated Easterling *before* Hurt sent that registered
letter to William Webster.
Also, when Easterling told the story about his involvement in the
assassination, he made up a wild story about the assassin "pissing" out of
the window right after he fired the last shot from the 6th floor window.
It was things like that that told Hurt, the FBI, the Sheriff, and that
small town reporter that Easterling was nuts and was lying. Hurt knew this
and he knew the Easterling story was a hoax.
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:ddeht5$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>I don't find the "he's never been on television talking about, therefore
>he's lying" argument persuasive. More apples and oranges. He got the story
>wrong in terms of Easterling. The rest of his research has stood up well,
>from what I've seen.
>
> Martin
>
He's never been on television because he got caught lying in the book and
he had to stop talking about it.
Peter Fokes
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>It wasn't Jennings' finest hour, but he had plenty of other fine hours by
>which to be remembered. ABC had some much more open-minded coverage of the
>MLK and RFK assassinations at times, for example, under his guidance.
>Maybe bucking the journalistic establishment, includng his close friends,
>on JFK was just too much of a hurdle.
>
>Martin
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/11/Jennings-Order-050811.html?ref=rss
Named to the Order of Canada just days before his death.
PF
Gerry Simone (W)
fetched and that's why he may not appear on TV.
However, parts of the book are very good.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42f9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jwrush
"Gerry Simone (W)"
<addfornos...@addfornospambelmontconcreteaddfornospam.com> wrote in
message news:5pKdnY3Ay95...@look.ca...
> Well, I wouldn't say lies, but the story on Easterling sounds too far
> fetched and that's why he may not appear on TV.
>
> However, parts of the book are very good.
Ok, remember Hurt's story about the big house fire in New Orleans, and all
the fire hoses that ran across the streets? Something about blocking traffic
as a diversion used to sneak Oswald out of New Orleans? He showed a photo of
half a page of the New Orleans Fire Department log for that day and it
listed that fire? Remember?
I went to the New Orleans public library, I found that same old fire log, I
photographed the other side of the page, and it showed that the fire was not
a house fire at all but a small furniture fire and it was put out with one
"booster" hose. That's the small 1-1/2 inch hose that is carried rolled up
on back of a fire truck that carries a little water just for small fires
like that. There were no hoses run across any streets, and Hurt knew it
because he saw the same fire log page I saw. Gary Mack published this
information in one of his newsletters and Hurt threatened to sue us, but he
couldn't because my research revealed his hoax.
What Hurt did was make up the story about the diversion fire and he looked
up in the old fire log to find any kind of fire that fit the date he wanted
to use. He showed only one side of the fire log, listing a fire on a
particular day and time, and then he lied about all the big fire hoses
running across the streets. The fire log itself showed that there were no
big hoses running across the street during that fire. Gary Mack published my
story about that and some other stuff in an issue of his newsletter back in
the '80s.
Martha
Citations?
Thanks
<
>
>
>
rob.s...@gmail.com
information in one of his newsletters and Hurt threatened to sue us,
but he
couldn't because my research revealed his hoax."
Gary? No way!
/sarcasm
Peter Fokes
>Gary Mack published this
>information in one of his newsletters and Hurt threatened to sue us, but he
>couldn't because my research revealed his hoax.
Got some proof of Hurt's threat?
PF
jwrush
<rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123856862.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ask him. Gary actually published on of my "conspiracy hoax" articles in one
of his newsletters, and that is why I like Gary today, even though we
disagree about some issues.
jwrush
"Martha" <ma...@comteck.com> wrote in message
news:42fc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
You mean you want me to cite the network TV shows he never appeard on? Geez,
its a really long list.
jwrush
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:6ijpf1d9q99lvuia1...@4ax.com...
Gary might still have some of the letters. I think he got at least one. Ask
him. I don't know where mine are. In some box in the garage.
Canuck
reaction? I believe he has a listed phone number still.
- Peter R. Whitmey
Canuck
behalf, who was informed of the honour during his last days with us. -
Peter R. Whitmey
Canuck
interviewed, and, of course, they had nothing but negative things to
say about Oswald, but the program gave the viewer the impression they
were a couple at the time, when, in fact, they were going through a
divorce, and Michael only visited on the weekends to see his kids and
to work out in the garage (since they were still married the recent
book should be entitled THE PAINES' GARAGE shouldn't it?). Lee was
understandably concerned about the cozy relationship developing between
his wife and Ruth (ten years older), who was accused of being a lesbian
in FAREWELL AMERICA. She likely was at least attracted to Marina as a
young friend with common interests, short of being a sexual attraction,
but could conceivably been bi-sexual (maybe Michael Paine was a closet
homosexual himself; just a thought). Anyway, the ABC special certainly
didn't go into any details related to the Paines' strained relationship
and Ruth's obsessive attitude towards Marina (whom she continued
writing to after the assassination to no avail, even telling her how
much she loved her).
This is the problem with two hour (minus many commercial minutes)
coverage of a subject like the JFK assassination. It can't be done
properly, so why bother, unless it's an attempt to close the case once
and for all (of course, Posner is interviewed throughout along with
PJM, who, as we know, both believe Oswald did it, without an apparent
shadow of a doubt).
- Peter R. Whitmey
Gary Combs
Mr. Peter Fokes,
Of all the anchors, yes, I prefered Peter Jennings. Though we didn't
agree on all news, for the most part we did. Afterall, he was the news
anchor, and I was dependent on the anchors. The internet is changing that
somewhat IMO. May his soul rest in peace, and to his family and friends,
may GOD bless. With the assassination of Kennedy and Peter, the the less
said, the better, again IMO.
gc
Anthony Marsh
Of course you don't claim that Gary Mack is one of the KGB dupes. Nor do
you chastise him for being the one who originally brought up the
acoustical evidence. I haven't seen you accusing him of creating a hoax.
How convenient.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Gerry Simone (W)
You deserve credit for your homework.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42fb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jwrush
> You called his bluff and made your point. I didn't know that.
>
> You deserve credit for your homework.
I just lucked onto that story. I happened to live in the same small town
that Easterling lived in, and when Easterling saw a couple of my reports
about Oswald on local TV, around '81-'83, he called me and started telling
me his wild story. He wanted me to help him sell the story to NBC. He said
it was worth a lot of money.
I think he mentioned the local Sheriff, who I knew from my TV work, so I
went down and talked to him about it. He said all the local law enforcement
people already knew about Easterling because he had been reading books about
various crimes and "confessing" to being part of the crimes for years. I
think Sheriff Walters said his first "confession" involved the bombing of
some American airliner back in the 1950's when some guy tried to collect
insurance on a relative killed in the bombing.
Easterling told me several times that the guy who shot the President from
the 6th floor window was not Oswald. I think he said he was a "Cuban". He
said after the guy shot the President, he "pissed out of the window" before
he left the window. He told me that several times. So with a story like
that, any reporter could tell this guy Easterling was just plain nuts. I've
been trying to find some of my old Easterling tapes. I made audio recordings
of some of our telephone conversations. If I can find them I'll quote some
of what he told me.
You know how rough and tough Easterling looked in the photos of him in
Hurt's book? Well, I finally met him in person and he looked about 5 ft 2
inches to me. A little guy.
Steve
JW Rush writes:
> Ask him. Gary actually published on of my "conspiracy hoax" articles in one
> of his newsletters, and that is why I like Gary today, even though we
> disagree about some issues.
Tony wrote:
Of course you don't claim that Gary Mack is one of the KGB dupes. Nor do
you chastise him for being the one who originally brought up the
acoustical evidence. I haven't seen you accusing him of creating a hoax.
How convenient.
Steve writes:
Just because Gary brought up something that he thought was going to help
the case doesnt automatically mean that Johann, (or anyone else for that
matter) should claim he was a "dupe for the KGB", or part of the hoax just
because Johann is naming nams of people who *were* part of the acoustics
hoax. Gary can't be accused of being a part of the hoax because Gary was
doing the right thing, and Johann knows this in the same way I thought I
was doing the right thing when I presented the evidence that I found that
questioned the acoustics findings. You, among others' reaction to what I
did finalized what I had been suspecting for quite some time, which was,
that very few of you want the "truth" (as you and these others call it) to
"come out", you would rather argue everything that disproves theories, and
make accusations against people you do not know from Adam for their
finding evidence that disproves a conspiracy theory that you might
cherish. This is how you perpetuate the case of the death that will never
die.
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:Q%aLe.46$Pm3.37@trndny08...
During the first couple of months after I first met Gary in 1981, he thought
I might be a secret CIA disinformation agent, and I thought he might be a
danged commie. But we talked on the phone several times and we met again in
1982, and by then I figured he was just an honest guy who was wrong on
certain issues, and I think he felt the same way about me. That's why it was
easy for us to work together later to expose the Hurt hoax after Hurt's book
came out, since we both agreed on that issue. Gary and I still feel the same
way about each other and we could still work together on other projects if
we found a project that we both agreed on. We currently disagree about the
acoustics evidence, just as we did 24 years ago.
Anthony Marsh
>
> JW Rush writes:
>
>
>>Ask him. Gary actually published on of my "conspiracy hoax" articles in one
>>of his newsletters, and that is why I like Gary today, even though we
>>disagree about some issues.
>
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> Of course you don't claim that Gary Mack is one of the KGB dupes. Nor do
> you chastise him for being the one who originally brought up the
> acoustical evidence. I haven't seen you accusing him of creating a hoax.
> How convenient.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
>
> Just because Gary brought up something that he thought was going to help
> the case doesnt automatically mean that Johann, (or anyone else for that
> matter) should claim he was a "dupe for the KGB", or part of the hoax just
> because Johann is naming nams of people who *were* part of the acoustics
Yes, it does, because that is his style. That is is raison d'etre.
> hoax. Gary can't be accused of being a part of the hoax because Gary was
> doing the right thing, and Johann knows this in the same way I thought I
> was doing the right thing when I presented the evidence that I found that
> questioned the acoustics findings. You, among others' reaction to what I
No, according to Rush, anyone who is questioning the official story is
not doing the right thing. Come to think of it, that is also what you say.
> did finalized what I had been suspecting for quite some time, which was,
> that very few of you want the "truth" (as you and these others call it) to
> "come out", you would rather argue everything that disproves theories, and
> make accusations against people you do not know from Adam for their
> finding evidence that disproves a conspiracy theory that you might
> cherish. This is how you perpetuate the case of the death that will never
> die.
>
>
Oh I see. So it doesn't bother you at all that our President was murdered?
Anthony Marsh
That's nice. I have worked with WC defenders. I have cooperated with WC
defenders to debunk wacky theories. The point is that you have a habit of
making personal attacks on people ONLY because they are conspiracy
believers. Which you do not extend to Gary Mack. So that brings up the
question if you really perceive him as a conspiracy believer or you think
he is secretly on your side and that's why you give him a pass. And you
accuse anyone who promote the acoustical evidence as being involved in a
hoax, yet give Gary Mack a pass, when he was probably the first person who
pushed it. Why?
jwrush
No I don't.
Which you do not extend to Gary Mack. So that brings up the
> question if you really perceive him as a conspiracy believer or you think
> he is secretly on your side and that's why you give him a pass.
Maybe we are both secret agents. Maybe we were the ones who tripped him when
he fell recently.
And you
> accuse anyone who promote the acoustical evidence as being involved in a
> hoax,
Some people were involved in a hoax.
yet give Gary Mack a pass, when he was probably the first person who
> pushed it. Why?
Because Gary admitted on his Gallery record that the 1978 gunshots were
"superimposed" over the real Dallas recording, and he played both versions
of the recording, both with and without gunshots.
I consider that to be the only example of honesty in the entire "four
gunshot" case. Other guys like Groden and Blakey played their 1978 four
gunshots on national television networks and they tried to pretend they were
recorded in 1963. But Gary did not. I think he was mistaken about his
belief, but I don' t consider him to be a hoaxer. Blakey and Groden are
hoaxers.
Anthony Marsh
Only in your imagination.
> yet give Gary Mack a pass, when he was probably the first person who
>
>>pushed it. Why?
>
>
> Because Gary admitted on his Gallery record that the 1978 gunshots were
> "superimposed" over the real Dallas recording, and he played both versions
> of the recording, both with and without gunshots.
>
That was not the point I was making. I said nothing about the Gallery
article. I mentioned that it was Gary Mack who thought up this entire
concept of shots being on the DPD tape and you gave him a pass instead
of attacking him, and accusing him of a hoax, which you have done to
everyone else associated with the tape. So, my question is why.
BTW, was it Gary's record or was that put out by the magazine Gallery?
And Blakey "admitted" during the HSCA presentation, if you had been
listening carefully, that the 1978 gunshots were added to the Zapruder film.
> I consider that to be the only example of honesty in the entire "four
> gunshot" case. Other guys like Groden and Blakey played their 1978 four
> gunshots on national television networks and they tried to pretend they were
> recorded in 1963. But Gary did not. I think he was mistaken about his
> belief, but I don' t consider him to be a hoaxer. Blakey and Groden are
> hoaxers.
>
No, they don't.
jwrush
I just told you why and you just ignored what I told you. That's your
problem, not mine.