And your point is?
Conspiracy theorists love to point to initial reports with "details" not found later, as if they contain some kernels of truth that were later covered up. Anyone who's worked a breaking news story (or for that matter followed a breaking news thread on FR) knows what a load of codswallop that is.
I've reported on a few breaking news stories and watched the wires on a lot more, and I can tell you that without exception they are a Charlie Foxtrot. There's a hysterical mixture of fact, rumor, best guesses, and eyewitness reports from folks who are flipped out and wouldn't be an authoritative source under the best of circumstances.
Unless you believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up the truth that TWA flight 800 was brought down by fartman's flatulence -- a "fact" reported on CNN's air by an "eyewitness" who turned out to be one of those jagoff Howard Stern callers.
If you commit a crime against your government, you are charged with conspiracy. Why would you rule out any conspiracy committed by a govt? That is naive. Just because it's cool to ridicule people who think for themselves, and conspiracy is a vehicle used not to think? Where have the ‘Perry Mason’ type thinkers gone?
Judging by my research, the JFK assassination is somewhat unique in that you cannot rely on any information from the mainstream media or govt. You must go directly to the evidence and judge for yourself, and if your willing to do that I assure you that you will find conspiracy. Your own House of Representatives determined that there was most likely a conspiracy, read up on that.
The UPI article I cited was fascinating, and was a complete account from people on the scene. I would hardly discount the comments of the SS there, it was they who reported shots from the knoll to the media. I applaud them for getting a report like that out!
Get a hold of the live NBC breaking broadcast that day, and listen to the interview with a witness that was 10ft away from JFK and facing the knoll. She reported shots from there also. If that isn't contributing evidence that would be considered I don't know what would, especially more so after seeing the direction of the shot from the right front on the Zapruder film.
***And your point is?
Conspiracy theorists love to point to initial reports with “details” not found later, as if they contain some kernels of truth that were later covered up. Anyone who's worked a breaking news story (or for that matter followed a breaking news thread on FR) knows what a load of codswallop that is.***