Banned JFK video

The Esotericist

Getting the message to Garcia
Valued Senior Member

Actually, it was Central Television for the ITV that gave the best info to the American public about who killed Kennedy. It only ran once on American TV, then the relatives of the LBJ estate legally maneuvered to not have it shown again on TV. For a while, the first six parts were played every year on the History channel.

You can send away and get the first six episodes on disc from Netflix. Or watch all nine on-line. The last three I could only find on youtube. You could probably buy them somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy
The ninth documentary in the series, titled "The Guilty Men," directly implicates former U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson and created an outcry among Johnson's surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, journalist Bill Moyers, ex-President Jimmy Carter, Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), and the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel. They subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.

The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." Conspiracy author Barr McClellan, interviewed in the documentary, complained that although the historians examined the evidence, they did not interview him or Turner.[4]

All three new documentaries by Turner ("The Guilty Men," "The Smoking Gun" and "The Love Affair") were then permanently withdrawn by the History Channel, though they were originally slated to be viewed at least annually on the History Channel until the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination (November, 2013).[citation needed]

In another episode that has warranted discussion, French prisoner Christian David was interviewed by author Anthony Summers. In the interview, David says he was approached to become one of three French criminals hired to carry out the assassination of Kennedy, but that he refused. David acknowledges that deceased French mobster Lucien Sarti was one of the men who carried out the assassination.

E. Howard Hunt placed LBJ at the top of a conspiracy list connected to Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey, David Morales and "French Gunman Grassy Knoll" in his death bed confession to his son. [5][6]

Malcolm Liggett, a retired economics professor, sued A&E regarding the episode "The Smoking Guns," which claimed Liggett was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Liggett and A&E reached a settlement, which required that a letter by Liggett be read on the show History Center.[7]

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, "The Guilty Men" Complete Episode 9
 
The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired.
 
The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired.

If you want a group of men you don't know do your thinking for you, feel free. . .

I've watched them. I've seen them with my own eyes. Plus, I've done lots of research on my own into the official version, and other accounts. I'll decide what's credible for myself.

BTW, do you know who headed up and chaired the Warren commission? Seems he got a pretty swell job for following orders, didn't he?
 
The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired.

LOL but other stuff on history channel is like 100% credible and stuff.
 
If you want a group of men you don't know do your thinking for you, feel free. . .

Nope.

I've watched them. I've seen them with my own eyes. Plus, I've done lots of research on my own into the official version, and other accounts. I'll decide what's credible for myself.

Yeah, your posts are so inciteful, I'm sure you know more than the rest of the world about a lot of things.

BTW, do you know who headed up and chaired the Warren commission? Seems he got a pretty swell job for following orders, didn't he?

Yeah, I do know who chaired the Warren Commission (In a similar vein, do you know who is buried in Grant's tomb?)

No, you twit, he didn't get a swell job for following orders.

In fact he had a swell job when he was asked to head up the commission.

In fact he had a job so swell that he was appointed to it for life so he wasn't beholden to anyone.

Indeed, he had already been Attny General of California and Governor of California for 3 consecutive terms (only man to ever have done this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

But if this is your idea of "doing a lot of research", well ROTFLMAO.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
Yeah, your posts are so inciteful, I'm sure you know more than the rest of the world about a lot of things.
Ah good, I see you're beginning to see the depth and breadth of my knowledge and wisdom. :) Keep reading, clarity and appreciation are not far behind if you are at all intelligent. Acceptance of truth goes thru several stages, you're just in the first stage. Hang in there.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
 
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
~Vladimir Lenin

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
~Vladimir Lenin

Television keeps the masses occupied. What if everyone decided they wanted to make something of their lives? Television keeps the competition down and keeps more criminals off the street. What if everyone decided to go to law school or medical school? It would sure make it tough on the rest of us. ~Jim Urbanovich

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. ~Edward R. Murrow
 
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Yes we see that quote from many people who spout conspiracy nonsense, but here's the thing just because your conspiracy nonsense gets and deserves ridicule doesn't make it Truth.

Arthur
 
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

Well then that statement must not be true. Really takes a linear brain to make a statement like that, poor Schopenhauer.
 
Really? So you accept truth as self evident before you try to negate it through either you mind or your words?

Interesting logical thought process...
 
Really? So you accept truth as self evident before you try to negate it through either you mind or your words?

Interesting logical thought process...

Now you are being deceptive. That was only one part of it.

Is the truth always ridiculed and (or) violently opposed?
 
Maybe not outright in spoken language, but to anaylze the truth our mind always looks for the faults. I'm not so much interested in the ridicule or voilent part as the "opposed" part. If you don't oppose something before you accept it as truth there should be a major lack of confidence in said truth.

Deception is part of truth. It may not always hold a whole answer but it fits many lives and experiences. Something to not forget.
 
Maybe not outright in spoken language, but to anaylze the truth our mind always looks for the faults. I'm not so much interested in the ridicule or voilent part as the "opposed" part. If you don't oppose something before you accept it as truth there should be a major lack of confidence in said truth.

Deception is part of truth. It may not always hold a whole answer but it fits many lives and experiences. Something to not forget.

So the quote is NOT true even by your own admission.

No ridicule, no violent opposition as requirement.

Not only that but before accepting something does not equate to opposition.
 
So the quote is NOT true even by your own admission.
How so?
No ridicule, no violent opposition as requirement.
In literature we have a specialized device called a hyperbole. Is opposition a requirement to truth? No, but it prevents ignorance and I am promoting that factor mainly.

Not only that but before accepting something does not equate to opposition.

Correct. Ignorance before something is accepted is not opposition, but neither is blind acceptance. The importance of opposition is that it decreases the chances of blind acceptance.

Ridicule is just good fun human nature.
 
Back
Top