Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK

[John Corbett]

I had been watching ABC earlier this evening when I fell asleep. When I woke up, I realized ABC was rebroadcasting Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK which I had seen earlier although I can't remember exactly when. My best guess is it was last fall, possible around the anniversary of the assassination. They had a typical cast of LN defenders as well as skeptics. Dale Meyers and Oliver Stone both had significant participation in the program. It had a little bit for everybody, both from the LN viewpoint and the CT side. There was nothing new about any of it. The same issues and arguments were being made that I have seen in 35 years of discussing the JFKA online. Those of us on the LN side see no mystery to what happened. All the forensic evidence points to LHO and nobody else. The CTs raise the same questions that have been asked and answered ad infinitum. It wasn't a program that was going to change anybody's mind one way or the other. Those of us on the LN side are confident we know how the assassination went down and those on the opposing side keep raising the questions but never any real evidence. All this program might have done was possibly introduce a new generation of viewers to the issues surrounding the assassination without providing any definitive answers. The case will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. That isn't a problem for those of us on the LN side of the debate. We know who killed JFK. 

[Richard Smith]

I had been watching ABC earlier this evening when I fell asleep. When I woke up, I realized ABC was rebroadcasting Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK which I had seen earlier although I can't remember exactly when. My best guess is it was last fall, possible around the anniversary of the assassination. They had a typical cast of LN defenders as well as skeptics. Dale Meyers and Oliver Stone both had significant participation in the program. It had a little bit for everybody, both from the LN viewpoint and the CT side. There was nothing new about any of it. The same issues and arguments were being made that I have seen in 35 years of discussing the JFKA online. Those of us on the LN side see no mystery to what happened. All the forensic evidence points to LHO and nobody else. The CTs raise the same questions that have been asked and answered ad infinitum. It wasn't a program that was going to change anybody's mind one way or the other. Those of us on the LN side are confident we know how the assassination went down and those on the opposing side keep raising the questions but never any real evidence. All this program might have done was possibly introduce a new generation of viewers to the issues surrounding the assassination without providing any definitive answers. The case will never be explained to everyone's satisfaction. That isn't a problem for those of us on the LN side of the debate. We know who killed JFK.

The problem with these types of shows - which I believe are targeted to people who know little or nothing about the case - is that they feel the need to be balanced.  If you were airing a show on whether the Earth was flat or round, you really don't promote knowledge by giving equal time to those peddling flat Earth nonsense.  In addition, to get viewers, they need to spice up these programs.  If they just came out and said the obvious that Oswald did it, there was no conspiracy, good night, the ratings would be low.  So they have to entertain all the nutty theories to make it more interesting. Cuba, the Mob, CIA etc. The net result is that anyone who casually views this kind of program walks away with the impression that there may be doubt about Oswald's guilt. 

[John Corbett]

The problem with these types of shows - which I believe are targeted to people who know little or nothing about the case - is that they feel the need to be balanced.  If you were airing a show on whether the Earth was flat or round, you really don't promote knowledge by giving equal time to those peddling flat Earth nonsense.  In addition, to get viewers, they need to spice up these programs.  If they just came out and said the obvious that Oswald did it, there was no conspiracy, good night, the ratings would be low.  So they have to entertain all the nutty theories to make it more interesting. Cuba, the Mob, CIA etc. The net result is that anyone who casually views this kind of program walks away with the impression that there may be doubt about Oswald's guilt.

On the 40th anniversary, ABC did a similar program hosted by Peter Jennings who passed away a few years later. It was very much a pro-LN presentation. They looked much more extensively at Dale Meyers' computer animation and addressed some of the objections the CTs had about the WC conclusion.

The program I watched last night allowed some questionable statements to be made by some of the CT participants. The one that almost got me to jump out of my seat was when one of them claimed that Oswald threatened to kill JFK while in Mexico City. There is no evidence I am aware of that Oswald made any such statement. How would Oswald even know that a few months later fate would hand him a golden opportunity to achieve infamy?

[Martin Weidmann]

The only honest answer would be: we don't know!

Anybody who is interested in this case is working on second hand information and a story put together by talented lawyers. Some of us believe it, some of us have doubts about it and others simply don't believe it at all.

But no matter in which group you are, one thing is for sure; you have never been able to investigate the case with full access to all the evidence (so, not only what the WC published), so all you have is an opinion.

That, by itself is no problem. People have opinions about all sorts of things. There are still some idiots who think Trump is good for the country (yes, that's my opinion), but it gets tricky when opinions are being presented as fact, when the person doing that really hasn't got a clue about his opinion being right or wrong.

Is it possible that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit? Yes, of course that's possible!. Is it possible that Oswald was indeed a patsy as he said? Again, yes, that's possible! Is it possible there was a conspiracy prior to the fact? Sure, despite the absence of evidence, it's still possible! And is it possible that there was a conspiracy after the fact, to wrap the case around an already dead Oswald? Yes, given the track record of the DPD and Henry Wade in the sixties, that's possible also.

And all this, in my opinion, makes the question asked in the opening post obsolete.

[Lance Payette]

On the 40th anniversary, ABC did a similar program hosted by Peter Jennings who passed away a few years later. It was very much a pro-LN presentation. They looked much more extensively at Dale Meyers' computer animation and addressed some of the objections the CTs had about the WC conclusion.

The program I watched last night allowed some questionable statements to be made by some of the CT participants. The one that almost got me to jump out of my seat was when one of them claimed that Oswald threatened to kill JFK while in Mexico City. There is no evidence I am aware of that Oswald made any such statement. How would Oswald even know that a few months later fate would hand him a golden opportunity to achieve infamy?

I believe the evidence for Oswald's supposed statement is Gus Russo's G2 sources, about which Ben Cole knows more than I. Russo's work also makes clear that JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans were an open secret within both anti-Castro and pro-Castro communities to which Oswald would have had acess. Moreover, Castro's warnings against U. S. assassination attempts and possible retaliation by him had been published just days before (September 9). Oswald would not have known that Fate would hand him a golden opportunity less than two months later, but the statement is not implausible. Russo makes a very solid case that all this was in fact Oswald's motivation regardless of whether he was part of anything that might technically qualify as a conspiracy. To quote dear old Ronnie, "There you go again" with your assertions of "no evidence" when what you really mean is "no evidence I will consider because I will not consider anything that might counter my LN dogma."

[John Corbett]

I believe the evidence for Oswald's supposed statement is Gus Russo's G2 sources, about which Ben Cole knows more than I. Russo's work also makes clear that JFK's and RFK's imminent anti-Castro plans were an open secret within both anti-Castro and pro-Castro communities to which Oswald would have had acess. Moreover, Castro's warnings against U. S. assassination attempts and possible retaliation by him had been published just days before (September 9). Oswald would not have known that Fate would hand him a golden opportunity less than two months later, but the statement is not implausible. Russo makes a very solid case that all this was in fact Oswald's motivation regardless of whether he was part of anything that might technically qualify as a conspiracy. To quote dear old Ronnie, "There you go again" with your assertions of "no evidence" when what you really mean is "no evidence I will consider because I will not consider anything that might counter my LN dogma."

So you think Russo's speculation constitutes evidence. That's a strange position for an attorney of 40 years to take.

Anybody who claims to know Oswald's motivation is speculating. IOW guessing. Does Russo offer any real evidence that was Oswald's motive? Does that even matter to you? Or is the fact that it makes for an interesting story a good enough reason to believe it?

[Lance Payette]

You are failing even the Pretend Lawyer bar exam, which is difficult to do. Russo is a highly respected researcher and author. The evidence for what he says comprises (1) his interviews with former G2 operatives and (2) his considerable investigation into JFK's and RFK's plans and the extent which they were known in the pro- and anti-Castro communities. You have such a flexible concept of "evidence" that I wish you'd find a different term. When Russo speculates, that is simply informed speculation - but it is evidence-based.