22-11-2013, 12:35 AM
I'm just watching the Piers Morgan program on CNN that I recorded last week. Dr. Jones also said the exact same thing about the throat wound and the head wound. And guess what? Morgan immediately jumped out his chair and exclaimed "Holy sh*t! You just exploded the single-bullet theory and the entire lone assassin conclusion of the Warren Commission! Another CNN exclusive!" OK, I made that last part up. There was no detectable reaction to Jones' statement by Morgan - and to be fair Jones either does not realize the implications of what he said or he's a guy to avoid at all costs when playing poker.
This is why journalism, particularly TV journalism, at least in this country, is a joke and has been for a long time. They are so invested in the official story that they are unable or unwilling to raise even the slightest bit of skepticism about it or even investigate information that calls it into question. The usual pattern is to mention alternative explanations by using the pejorative term "conspiracy theories" (why don't they ever refer to the lone assassin explanation as a "lone nut theory"?) ignoring the facts that conspiracies to commit political assassination are hardly unknown, even in our own country (Hello CNN - Abraham Lincoln?) and our country actually had an executive assassination program! They only do this to set up some defender of the lone assassin faith to knock down the suggestion that there could be any other explanation or that the official story is riddled with holes. In this case, CIA sock puppet Hugh Aynseworth was there to do the honors but no one thought to invite Mark Lane or Oliver Stone or Jim DiEugenio or any other researcher to provide a different perspective.
Morgan asked the other guest, Julian Read, if he thought there was a conspiracy but studiously avoided asking Jones who was the guy who actually saw the wounds. I don't know what he would have said of course but wouldn't a responsible journalist have at least asked the question?
This is why journalism, particularly TV journalism, at least in this country, is a joke and has been for a long time. They are so invested in the official story that they are unable or unwilling to raise even the slightest bit of skepticism about it or even investigate information that calls it into question. The usual pattern is to mention alternative explanations by using the pejorative term "conspiracy theories" (why don't they ever refer to the lone assassin explanation as a "lone nut theory"?) ignoring the facts that conspiracies to commit political assassination are hardly unknown, even in our own country (Hello CNN - Abraham Lincoln?) and our country actually had an executive assassination program! They only do this to set up some defender of the lone assassin faith to knock down the suggestion that there could be any other explanation or that the official story is riddled with holes. In this case, CIA sock puppet Hugh Aynseworth was there to do the honors but no one thought to invite Mark Lane or Oliver Stone or Jim DiEugenio or any other researcher to provide a different perspective.
Morgan asked the other guest, Julian Read, if he thought there was a conspiracy but studiously avoided asking Jones who was the guy who actually saw the wounds. I don't know what he would have said of course but wouldn't a responsible journalist have at least asked the question?