Damn you, Oliver Stone.
March 25, 2010 4:07 AM Subscribe
I just watched JFK. It IS a movie (hence, adapted for storytelling purposes) but I'm somewhat convinced that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. Please reassure me that I'm not going bats--t.
Saw JFK. Read a fair deal on the assassination and the conspiracy theory's wiki pages.
Now, a disclaimer: I understand that the film is...
1. a fictional work that is based on real-life occurrences, but still probably idealized to a certain extent for the screen.
2. a movie by a sometimes brilliant, sometimes wacko director who has/had a vested interest in these events given his subsequent deployment to Vietnam and involvement in that conflict.
3. intended by said director to be more of a call for vigilance on the part of America's citizens rather than a foolproof case arguing for the existence of a conspiracy (at least, that's how it seemed to me, especially w/r to Costner's closing statement).
And I also understand that
1. Wikipedia is by no means an official source, and
2. these two wiki entries in question probably attract crazy like free LSD handouts.
I'm not going all the way and saying the "bums" were the Grassy Knoll shooters, or that there were three teams of black ops American soldiers who were employed in the assassination, or whatever. But given that the status quo involves things like the ludicrous "Magic Bullet Theory" and Oswald's dubious marksmanship, isn't it extremely probable that there were forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald in effect for the assassination of JFK? And I'm not just susceptible to the crazy?
Saw JFK. Read a fair deal on the assassination and the conspiracy theory's wiki pages.
Now, a disclaimer: I understand that the film is...
1. a fictional work that is based on real-life occurrences, but still probably idealized to a certain extent for the screen.
2. a movie by a sometimes brilliant, sometimes wacko director who has/had a vested interest in these events given his subsequent deployment to Vietnam and involvement in that conflict.
3. intended by said director to be more of a call for vigilance on the part of America's citizens rather than a foolproof case arguing for the existence of a conspiracy (at least, that's how it seemed to me, especially w/r to Costner's closing statement).
And I also understand that
1. Wikipedia is by no means an official source, and
2. these two wiki entries in question probably attract crazy like free LSD handouts.
I'm not going all the way and saying the "bums" were the Grassy Knoll shooters, or that there were three teams of black ops American soldiers who were employed in the assassination, or whatever. But given that the status quo involves things like the ludicrous "Magic Bullet Theory" and Oswald's dubious marksmanship, isn't it extremely probable that there were forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald in effect for the assassination of JFK? And I'm not just susceptible to the crazy?
You may wish to consult resources other than a fictionalized movie and the Wikipedia page before deciding something like this is "extremely probable."
I recommend Gerald Posner's Case Closed. If you are really, really interested in the topic, consider Vincent Bugliosi's doorstop Reclaiming History.
posted by gabrielsamoza at 5:18 AM on March 25, 2010 [6 favorites]
I recommend Gerald Posner's Case Closed. If you are really, really interested in the topic, consider Vincent Bugliosi's doorstop Reclaiming History.
posted by gabrielsamoza at 5:18 AM on March 25, 2010 [6 favorites]
Tank Riot, Episode 83: "The team takes on the J.F.K. assassination conspiracies with a discussion of Abraham Zapruder and his historical film."
posted by robcorr at 5:31 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by robcorr at 5:31 AM on March 25, 2010
Stone (and his team) spent a lot of time constructing a movie that would convince you that there was and is a conspiracy. The Assassination Goes Hollywood! seems to kick the struts out from under a lot of his arguments. Judge for yourself.
posted by pracowity at 5:40 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 5:40 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
There is no conspiracy. First, the theory that a single bullet hit both Connoly and Kennedy isn't ludicrous at all.
Second this is best debunked by watching a show Nova did on this. Google Nova Kennedy assasination. They cover it all.
Third, why? The main theory is horseshit. Because JFK would pull out of Viet Nam? There's no evidence of that and mistakes on JFK's part got us in worse shape there (Diem killing). What did they get, some sort of assurance that Johnson would do what "they" wanted? Who are they anyway?
More importantly, a conspiracy to assasinate is simply the worst way to get what you want. You run giant risks killing the most important person in the world and nearly every single person in the country will want to find out the truth. The motivation for reporters, cops, you name it to discover it all, will be high.
More importantly, why do anything that way when you can do it other ways--engineer incidents to start a war, fire up the populace, you name it. You don't need to kill anyone.
And the Mafia theory sucks equally. The thing is, the Mob wants you to know they killed someone. They don't want the cops to be able they proved it, but they want to stop the witness and discourage others from testifying. Here, there is no payoff for them and the potential for a huge spotlight to be shined on their operations. Its just not rational.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:51 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
Second this is best debunked by watching a show Nova did on this. Google Nova Kennedy assasination. They cover it all.
Third, why? The main theory is horseshit. Because JFK would pull out of Viet Nam? There's no evidence of that and mistakes on JFK's part got us in worse shape there (Diem killing). What did they get, some sort of assurance that Johnson would do what "they" wanted? Who are they anyway?
More importantly, a conspiracy to assasinate is simply the worst way to get what you want. You run giant risks killing the most important person in the world and nearly every single person in the country will want to find out the truth. The motivation for reporters, cops, you name it to discover it all, will be high.
More importantly, why do anything that way when you can do it other ways--engineer incidents to start a war, fire up the populace, you name it. You don't need to kill anyone.
And the Mafia theory sucks equally. The thing is, the Mob wants you to know they killed someone. They don't want the cops to be able they proved it, but they want to stop the witness and discourage others from testifying. Here, there is no payoff for them and the potential for a huge spotlight to be shined on their operations. Its just not rational.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:51 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
I would just say that J.F.K., while a good film, is in no way a reliable source of information. There's probably a ton of truth in the film but there's probably a fair amount of complete fantasy as well.
I remember a 60 Minutes interview with Stone when the movie was released, and the interviewer (Mike Wallace?) played a clip in which Donald Sutherland's character says, among other things, that after the assassination, phone lines in D.C. went down for an hour...or something to that effect. Wallace stops it and says directly to Stone "Hey, I was in D.C. that day and the phone lines were working fine after the assassination!" To which Stone replied with a slight grin "Well...I'm a filmmaker, and I want to add dramatic elements", etc etc.
So by all means investigate further, but don't reference that film as a legitimate source.
posted by zardoz at 5:53 AM on March 25, 2010
I remember a 60 Minutes interview with Stone when the movie was released, and the interviewer (Mike Wallace?) played a clip in which Donald Sutherland's character says, among other things, that after the assassination, phone lines in D.C. went down for an hour...or something to that effect. Wallace stops it and says directly to Stone "Hey, I was in D.C. that day and the phone lines were working fine after the assassination!" To which Stone replied with a slight grin "Well...I'm a filmmaker, and I want to add dramatic elements", etc etc.
So by all means investigate further, but don't reference that film as a legitimate source.
posted by zardoz at 5:53 AM on March 25, 2010
I don't have a list of cites that I can give you or even a cold, hard fact. What I can give you is my own resolution.
I vividly remember the moment I heard that JFK was shot. In my later years I had the same thoughts that you express. For years I read books on conspiracy theories and looked at pictures, diagrams, etc.
My own conclusion is difficult to swallow, even for me. Yes, Oswald was inept. Yes, the chances of this coming off were astronomical. Yes, there were perfect opportunities for conspiracy. Yes, the magic bullet is seemingly impossible.
My personal conclusion is that the entire event was one miraculous feat of coincidence and serendipity. If anything different were to have happened that day, if the temperature were one degree warmer or colder, history would not be what it is. The entire moment caught in time was a feat of impossible cosmic luck. All the negative karma in the universe was used up in that moment.
Oswald was one frikkin' lucky SOB.
posted by Drasher at 6:11 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
I vividly remember the moment I heard that JFK was shot. In my later years I had the same thoughts that you express. For years I read books on conspiracy theories and looked at pictures, diagrams, etc.
My own conclusion is difficult to swallow, even for me. Yes, Oswald was inept. Yes, the chances of this coming off were astronomical. Yes, there were perfect opportunities for conspiracy. Yes, the magic bullet is seemingly impossible.
My personal conclusion is that the entire event was one miraculous feat of coincidence and serendipity. If anything different were to have happened that day, if the temperature were one degree warmer or colder, history would not be what it is. The entire moment caught in time was a feat of impossible cosmic luck. All the negative karma in the universe was used up in that moment.
Oswald was one frikkin' lucky SOB.
posted by Drasher at 6:11 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
You can look and decide for yourself.
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 6:25 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 6:25 AM on March 25, 2010
The notion of a JFK assassination conspiracy is played out. In a way, it has stopped mattering much if it was a conspiracy. The general (US) public has been so overexposed to every drop of information about it that they are all confidently certain one way or another, they way people are when they no longer want to talk about something. It's just not that interesting unless you are young or otherwise encountering it for the first time.
Public interest in the RFK assassination conspiracy theories seem to have been less discussed in the last 10-20 years (inasmuch something like that can ever be "under the radar" ).
If you want to have a better 1960s conspiracy theory experience go there or to MLK. They both have a better balance of possible motivations, unanswerable questions and weird coincidences.
posted by quarterframer at 7:01 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Public interest in the RFK assassination conspiracy theories seem to have been less discussed in the last 10-20 years (inasmuch something like that can ever be "under the radar" ).
If you want to have a better 1960s conspiracy theory experience go there or to MLK. They both have a better balance of possible motivations, unanswerable questions and weird coincidences.
posted by quarterframer at 7:01 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
High-velocity bullets do some pretty crazy things. They also break into fragments and fly all around when they hit something.
posted by bardic at 7:20 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by bardic at 7:20 AM on March 25, 2010
It's a lot more comforting to think that it would take a multi-party effort to assassinate a current president, and that American presidents are important enough that multiple parties would be interested in taking a shot, than it is to think that a lone nut decided to kill Kennedy and succeeded.
posted by mikeh at 7:39 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by mikeh at 7:39 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
There was clearly no conspiracy, but there was a whole lot going on behind the scenes. To understand the widespread belief that there was a conspiracy (especially within the CIA, where people apparently couldn't believe that Oswald acted alone) it's good to get a picture of the background and the tenor of the times, especially within the intelligence community.
For this, I highly recommend that you watch part 2 of Adam Curtis' excellent documentary, The Living Dead: Three Films about the Power of the Past. [Here it is on Google Video.] This is an hour-long documentary about the cold war dream amongst some psychiatrists, and later the CIA who funded them, that the human mind could be harnessed and controlled, that memories could be erased and replaced.
What the film points out, quite interestingly, is that the brain-as-reprogrammable-computer model was a focus of considerable cold war paranoia and theorizing. Apparently, when many ex-POWs returned from Korea and later Viet Nam, many CIA agents who had been briefed on the theory that memories could be erased and that people could be reprogrammed saw uncanny similarities between those theories and how the ex-POWs acted. The ex-POWs confessed to terrible crimes and stuck by their confessions even when released; they acted strangely, and exhibited all sorts of strange mental ticks. Many in the CIA became convinced that the communists had developed secret mind-control techniques for reprogramming individuals and wiping their memories.
So later, when the assassination happened and Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, these same CIA agents saw all the familiar signs they thought they recognized: he was calm, cold, detached, uncanny in interrogations; they thought it was impossible that this was a normal, average human being. The conclusion was that he must have been subjected to mind control; and interestingly, this was the common notion within the CIA. They didn't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had been working with someone else, or that he had been a helpless victim; they really believed that he was a computerized puppet, a human with a wiped memory who had been programmed to commit certain acts by some control agent who issued the orders. The idea that such a monstrous technique for mind control had been perfected by the communists scared the CIA to death, because it meant that almost any group could have been infiltrated by the enemy. So many within the CIA were afraid that it was their own program of mind-control research that had been infiltrated and used against them to kill Kennedy.
Of course, a few years before the assassination, Oswald had defected to the USSR – this was the source of much of the notion that Oswald was a KGB agent. But there was a KGB defector named Yuri Nosenko who arrived in America some years after the assassination who told the CIA that his job had been to watch Oswald in Moscow, and that the KGB had never made contact with him or trained him in any way. But, as Curtis says in the documentary, this slowly started to tear the CIA apart, because some in their paranoia couldn't believe that Nosenko was telling the truth, and were convinced that his memory had been altered, or that he was lying to them. So they interrogated Nosenko for three years, keeping him totally isolated during this time, and they tried every technique they knew of to break through into his memory and recover his true memories and training. Needless to say: it didn't work.
I don't doubt that lots of people at the CIA really and truly believed that Oswald couldn't possible have acted alone. The CIA was rife with paranoia, intrigue, and irrational delusions at the time. But the simple fact is that they were all seeing things that just weren't there.
posted by koeselitz at 7:40 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
For this, I highly recommend that you watch part 2 of Adam Curtis' excellent documentary, The Living Dead: Three Films about the Power of the Past. [Here it is on Google Video.] This is an hour-long documentary about the cold war dream amongst some psychiatrists, and later the CIA who funded them, that the human mind could be harnessed and controlled, that memories could be erased and replaced.
What the film points out, quite interestingly, is that the brain-as-reprogrammable-computer model was a focus of considerable cold war paranoia and theorizing. Apparently, when many ex-POWs returned from Korea and later Viet Nam, many CIA agents who had been briefed on the theory that memories could be erased and that people could be reprogrammed saw uncanny similarities between those theories and how the ex-POWs acted. The ex-POWs confessed to terrible crimes and stuck by their confessions even when released; they acted strangely, and exhibited all sorts of strange mental ticks. Many in the CIA became convinced that the communists had developed secret mind-control techniques for reprogramming individuals and wiping their memories.
So later, when the assassination happened and Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, these same CIA agents saw all the familiar signs they thought they recognized: he was calm, cold, detached, uncanny in interrogations; they thought it was impossible that this was a normal, average human being. The conclusion was that he must have been subjected to mind control; and interestingly, this was the common notion within the CIA. They didn't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had been working with someone else, or that he had been a helpless victim; they really believed that he was a computerized puppet, a human with a wiped memory who had been programmed to commit certain acts by some control agent who issued the orders. The idea that such a monstrous technique for mind control had been perfected by the communists scared the CIA to death, because it meant that almost any group could have been infiltrated by the enemy. So many within the CIA were afraid that it was their own program of mind-control research that had been infiltrated and used against them to kill Kennedy.
Of course, a few years before the assassination, Oswald had defected to the USSR – this was the source of much of the notion that Oswald was a KGB agent. But there was a KGB defector named Yuri Nosenko who arrived in America some years after the assassination who told the CIA that his job had been to watch Oswald in Moscow, and that the KGB had never made contact with him or trained him in any way. But, as Curtis says in the documentary, this slowly started to tear the CIA apart, because some in their paranoia couldn't believe that Nosenko was telling the truth, and were convinced that his memory had been altered, or that he was lying to them. So they interrogated Nosenko for three years, keeping him totally isolated during this time, and they tried every technique they knew of to break through into his memory and recover his true memories and training. Needless to say: it didn't work.
I don't doubt that lots of people at the CIA really and truly believed that Oswald couldn't possible have acted alone. The CIA was rife with paranoia, intrigue, and irrational delusions at the time. But the simple fact is that they were all seeing things that just weren't there.
posted by koeselitz at 7:40 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
It's a lot more comforting to think that it would take a multi-party effort to assassinate a current president, and that American presidents are important enough that multiple parties would be interested in taking a shot, than it is to think that a lone nut decided to kill Kennedy and succeeded.
I think this effect has a lot to do with it. (and a lot of other history as well)
Also, the Jack Ruby killing Oswald thing really changes the dynamic. One lone nut is bad enough. Two lucky lone nuts? Conspiracy!
posted by gjc at 8:08 AM on March 25, 2010
I think this effect has a lot to do with it. (and a lot of other history as well)
Also, the Jack Ruby killing Oswald thing really changes the dynamic. One lone nut is bad enough. Two lucky lone nuts? Conspiracy!
posted by gjc at 8:08 AM on March 25, 2010
Drasher: " Yes, Oswald was inept. Yes, the chances of this coming off were astronomical. Yes, there were perfect opportunities for conspiracy. Yes, the magic bullet is seemingly impossible. My personal conclusion is that the entire event was one miraculous feat of coincidence and serendipity. If anything different were to have happened that day, if the temperature were one degree warmer or colder, history would not be what it is. The entire moment caught in time was a feat of impossible cosmic luck. All the negative karma in the universe was used up in that moment. Oswald was one frikkin' lucky SOB."
Norman Mailer, in reviewing Mark Lane's early conspiracy book Rush To Judgment, mused about this possibility.
However, my understanding is that competent homicide detectives do not believe in "impossible cosmic luck". If it seems like a billion-to-one chance that Oswald could have pulled it off alone, he didn't.
Posner's Case Closed does provide at least some kind of explanation for almost everything. [That he's been exposed as a serial plagiarist may or may not affect your opinion of his reliability.] However, even he admits that it's inexplicable why, after the first gunshot was heard, the Presidential limousine driver slowed down.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
Norman Mailer, in reviewing Mark Lane's early conspiracy book Rush To Judgment, mused about this possibility.
However, my understanding is that competent homicide detectives do not believe in "impossible cosmic luck". If it seems like a billion-to-one chance that Oswald could have pulled it off alone, he didn't.
Posner's Case Closed does provide at least some kind of explanation for almost everything. [That he's been exposed as a serial plagiarist may or may not affect your opinion of his reliability.] However, even he admits that it's inexplicable why, after the first gunshot was heard, the Presidential limousine driver slowed down.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
Ironmouth has it. I cannot recommend that NOVA documentary strongly enough.
posted by 4ster at 8:37 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by 4ster at 8:37 AM on March 25, 2010
This grizzly, stabilized version of the Zapruder film convinced me that the magic bullet theory wasn't ludicrous at all (as they appear from behind the sign and both men react to being hit a the same instant).
Also, from my limited experience of shooting-at-all-kinds-of-things-on-posts-with-rifles, they often hardly move on impact. When his brains fly out, I it think has more to do with a nervous reflex whipping his head than from momentum imparted by a bullet from a second direction.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2010
Also, from my limited experience of shooting-at-all-kinds-of-things-on-posts-with-rifles, they often hardly move on impact. When his brains fly out, I it think has more to do with a nervous reflex whipping his head than from momentum imparted by a bullet from a second direction.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2010
The book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters was recommended to me by a Franciscan peace activist, and now I'm recommending it to you. James Douglass does a good job examining Kennedy's changing presidency, and why his move towards peace threatened interests within the US government. The first review on Amazon is pretty decent, or you can Google for more. Check it out.
posted by Sfving at 9:05 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Sfving at 9:05 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's a lot more comforting to think that it would take a multi-party effort to assassinate a current president, and that American presidents are important enough that multiple parties would be interested in taking a shot, than it is to think that a lone nut decided to kill Kennedy and succeeded.
I think this effect has a lot to do with it. (and a lot of other history as well).
The converse effect is also true.
Folks are taught from childhood that the "system" of the U.S. polity is just, honest and based on high principles, perhaps save a few bad apples. The notion of a conspiracy cuts directly into the heart of that. It's like trying to tell people, their dear loving Uncle Edgar who they knew from childhood, is really a depraved serial killer. Their mind will just recoil in emotional horror that anything like that could possibly be true. Any evidence that might be presented, is dismissed automatically or rationalized away.
A great deal of the anti-conspiracy literature, IMHO, comes from that premise. The authors cannot morally fathom the possibility that there was some kind of conspiracy, because the concept of such a conspiracy is too unpalatable. So they need to dismiss, ridicule, rationalize, or ignore the inconsistencies and questions that still remain outstanding.
FWIW, RFK himself privately believed there was a conspiracy behind Dealy Plaza, right from the very beginning. If people who believe in a conspiracy are fruitcakes, then the President's brother was a fruitcake.
And President Nixon was quoted on one of his infamous tapes as stating that the Warren Commission was one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public.
Something to think about, if nothing else.
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 9:08 AM on March 25, 2010
I think this effect has a lot to do with it. (and a lot of other history as well).
The converse effect is also true.
Folks are taught from childhood that the "system" of the U.S. polity is just, honest and based on high principles, perhaps save a few bad apples. The notion of a conspiracy cuts directly into the heart of that. It's like trying to tell people, their dear loving Uncle Edgar who they knew from childhood, is really a depraved serial killer. Their mind will just recoil in emotional horror that anything like that could possibly be true. Any evidence that might be presented, is dismissed automatically or rationalized away.
A great deal of the anti-conspiracy literature, IMHO, comes from that premise. The authors cannot morally fathom the possibility that there was some kind of conspiracy, because the concept of such a conspiracy is too unpalatable. So they need to dismiss, ridicule, rationalize, or ignore the inconsistencies and questions that still remain outstanding.
FWIW, RFK himself privately believed there was a conspiracy behind Dealy Plaza, right from the very beginning. If people who believe in a conspiracy are fruitcakes, then the President's brother was a fruitcake.
And President Nixon was quoted on one of his infamous tapes as stating that the Warren Commission was one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public.
Something to think about, if nothing else.
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 9:08 AM on March 25, 2010
I think it may be a false choice between "conspiracy theorist" and "person who believes the entire Warren Commission Report." Maybe the term should be "doubter"?
My doubts come not so much from the assassination and the Zapruder film but more from the investigation. Here are some reasons:
The Dallas Police were almost immediately removed from the investigation. Instead, the Warren Commission relied almost exclusively on the FBI, who -- if not complicit -- certainly had reasons to cover up anything that would embarrass the Bureau. For that matter, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford leaked information to the FBI as the investigation progressed. The local police weren't even able to do the autopsy on JFK's body because Jackie wouldn't leave Dallas without the body, and LBJ wouldn't leave Dallas without Jackie.
The Warren Commission itself was not exactly the finest investigative body. Its members were hand-picked by LBJ based on their...well, it's not really clear how he picked them. Richard Russell, for instance, was only a practicing lawyer for two years before going into politics. The same goes for John Cooper. John J. McCloy, as far as I can tell, never practiced criminal law. When several members objected to the Single Bullet theory, the majority convinced the doubters not to put a footnote declaring their opposition.
Along with all this, you have Oswald, who maintained his innocence. I've watched TV footage of his interviews, and there's never a lawyer standing beside him. He was on his own. And yet this incredibly important suspect, who denied any involvement in the killing, was shot on live television at a police station while surrounded by armed guards.
I understand that none of this is evidence of a conspiracy. But there are so many questions that we'll never have answers to, and there are so many interesting connections: Oswald had ties to Russia and Cuba, Ruby had ties to the Mob, and all three had pretty cold feelings towards Kennedy. So I think my doubt is rational and justified.
By the way, there was an excellent documentary on the assassination that aired last November and I'm going crazy trying to remember what it was called. It consisted solely of TV footage of that day and the days following. No interviews, no narration. Maybe The Day Kennedy Was Shot? But Google isn't showing that as anything.
posted by Flying Saucer at 9:23 AM on March 25, 2010
My doubts come not so much from the assassination and the Zapruder film but more from the investigation. Here are some reasons:
The Dallas Police were almost immediately removed from the investigation. Instead, the Warren Commission relied almost exclusively on the FBI, who -- if not complicit -- certainly had reasons to cover up anything that would embarrass the Bureau. For that matter, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford leaked information to the FBI as the investigation progressed. The local police weren't even able to do the autopsy on JFK's body because Jackie wouldn't leave Dallas without the body, and LBJ wouldn't leave Dallas without Jackie.
The Warren Commission itself was not exactly the finest investigative body. Its members were hand-picked by LBJ based on their...well, it's not really clear how he picked them. Richard Russell, for instance, was only a practicing lawyer for two years before going into politics. The same goes for John Cooper. John J. McCloy, as far as I can tell, never practiced criminal law. When several members objected to the Single Bullet theory, the majority convinced the doubters not to put a footnote declaring their opposition.
Along with all this, you have Oswald, who maintained his innocence. I've watched TV footage of his interviews, and there's never a lawyer standing beside him. He was on his own. And yet this incredibly important suspect, who denied any involvement in the killing, was shot on live television at a police station while surrounded by armed guards.
I understand that none of this is evidence of a conspiracy. But there are so many questions that we'll never have answers to, and there are so many interesting connections: Oswald had ties to Russia and Cuba, Ruby had ties to the Mob, and all three had pretty cold feelings towards Kennedy. So I think my doubt is rational and justified.
By the way, there was an excellent documentary on the assassination that aired last November and I'm going crazy trying to remember what it was called. It consisted solely of TV footage of that day and the days following. No interviews, no narration. Maybe The Day Kennedy Was Shot? But Google isn't showing that as anything.
posted by Flying Saucer at 9:23 AM on March 25, 2010
I'm not sure if it's been said already or not, but I learned this in physics class: If the bullet came from the front and the right (aka, the grassy knoll), the Kennedy's head would have gone to the front and the right. Likewise, since his head did go back and to the left, it is most likely that the bullet came from that direction. My understanding is that the force of the bullet exiting is much greater than when it enters. Thus, the force of the bullet exiting would have pushed Kennedy's head in the direction OF the shooter.
This doesn't necessarily imply that there weren't multiple shooters or that there isn't a conspiracy theory, but I think it does show pretty conclusively that the bullet came from the general direction of the book depository, and not from the grassy knoll.
posted by Geppp at 9:38 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
This doesn't necessarily imply that there weren't multiple shooters or that there isn't a conspiracy theory, but I think it does show pretty conclusively that the bullet came from the general direction of the book depository, and not from the grassy knoll.
posted by Geppp at 9:38 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
The Guns of November,and Secret Origins of the Vietnam War
posted by hortense at 10:31 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by hortense at 10:31 AM on March 25, 2010
The Road To Dallas by Naval War College history professor David Kaiser.
From Publisher's Weekly:Ironmouth: And the Mafia theory sucks equally. The thing is, the Mob wants you to know they killed someone.
Not if the Mob is trying to pin the killing on Castro.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:04 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
From Publisher's Weekly:
While plenty of authors have argued that the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans were behind the assassination of President Kennedy, few have done so as convincingly as Naval War College history professor Kaiser (American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War). Kaiser bills this as the first [Kennedy assassination book] written by a professional historian who has researched the available archives, and his attention to detail and use of recently released FBI and CIA files put this analysis ahead of many of its fellows. Kaiser focuses on the tantalizing testimony of Cuban exile Silvia Odio, who claimed to have met Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of Cuban activists, and on the U.S. government's efforts to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy's crusade against organized crime. By taking Oswald's guilt as a given and focusing on the people he crossed paths with and their motives and connections, Kaiser mostly succeeds in avoiding complex and narrative-derailing forensic discussions. This is a deeply disturbing look at a national tragedy, and Kaiser's sober tone and reasoned analysis may well convince some in the Oswald-was-a-lone-nut camp.
Not if the Mob is trying to pin the killing on Castro.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:04 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
The only way to reconcile the historical information is to think of the JFK Assassination as two separate conspiracies: the conspiracy to kill JFK and the conspiracy to cover it up. The mob and the anti-Castro cubans could have used Oswald to kill Kennedy, but they wouldn't have had the means to enter the Bethesda Naval Hospital to burn the original autopsy notes.
isn't it extremely probable that there were forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald in effect for the assassination of JFK?
That's the exact conclusion the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reached in 1979.
Finally: consider the case of David Ferrie, one of the men investigated by Jim Garrison. Ferrie worked with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front in New Orleans. He also was a pilot for mob boss Carlos Marcello. Ferrie also was Lee Harvey Oswald's commander when Oswald was a teenager in the Civil Air Patrol.
Strange Coincidences? Definitely worth investigating further.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:35 PM on March 25, 2010
isn't it extremely probable that there were forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald in effect for the assassination of JFK?
That's the exact conclusion the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reached in 1979.
Finally: consider the case of David Ferrie, one of the men investigated by Jim Garrison. Ferrie worked with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front in New Orleans. He also was a pilot for mob boss Carlos Marcello. Ferrie also was Lee Harvey Oswald's commander when Oswald was a teenager in the Civil Air Patrol.
Strange Coincidences? Definitely worth investigating further.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:35 PM on March 25, 2010
The final argument, by the way, is a pretty sound one I think: conspiracies in general simply don't hold up. People talk. Oswald was shot - fine. But if there were other people involved, they would have come forward. This is frankly just too huge for people not to come out and talk about it, especially in the climate that is American discourse.
If somebody knew about a plot or a conspiracy, if somebody was involved in any way, they would have come forward and gotten their book deal and their thousands for a speaking tour decades ago. Given the fact that no one has, it's simply highly, highly improbable that there was some secret, backdoor plot concerning Oswald and the assassination.
In fact, to believe that there was such a plot, you wouldn't just have to believe that there were "forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald" at work there. You would also have to believe that those "forces other" would have been buried or obfuscated so completely and absolutely in the time since then that no one has ever known or seen anything about it since. In short, you would have to believe that either the CIA, the Mafia, the Communists, or somebody was just so completely powerful and efficient that they covered everything up perfectly, killing all those involved and burying the information forever.
And the fact is: none of the possible "co-conspirators" are capable of such dissembling. They were all completely inept. The CIA, the Mafia, the Communists, the Secret Service – every one of these organizations – they have all been shown in the ensuing years to have lax security, to be failures at their attempts at absolute security, to be failures at keeping any information whatsoever from the public for any length of time. Absolutely none of them was capable of pulling off any secretive, covert operation of any kind whatsoever, much less the assassination of a standing American president without anyone every hearing about it.
I don't doubt that there are lots of interesting connections. I find those connections interesting myself. But I don't have the faith in the power and expertise of the players in question that people seem to have. No agency existed then, and no agency exists now, that could pull such a thing off with real and absolute secrecy. In lieu of any way of believing that a conspiracy would have been possible, I have to conclude that there wasn't one.
posted by koeselitz at 12:53 PM on March 25, 2010
If somebody knew about a plot or a conspiracy, if somebody was involved in any way, they would have come forward and gotten their book deal and their thousands for a speaking tour decades ago. Given the fact that no one has, it's simply highly, highly improbable that there was some secret, backdoor plot concerning Oswald and the assassination.
In fact, to believe that there was such a plot, you wouldn't just have to believe that there were "forces other than the singular Lee Harvey Oswald" at work there. You would also have to believe that those "forces other" would have been buried or obfuscated so completely and absolutely in the time since then that no one has ever known or seen anything about it since. In short, you would have to believe that either the CIA, the Mafia, the Communists, or somebody was just so completely powerful and efficient that they covered everything up perfectly, killing all those involved and burying the information forever.
And the fact is: none of the possible "co-conspirators" are capable of such dissembling. They were all completely inept. The CIA, the Mafia, the Communists, the Secret Service – every one of these organizations – they have all been shown in the ensuing years to have lax security, to be failures at their attempts at absolute security, to be failures at keeping any information whatsoever from the public for any length of time. Absolutely none of them was capable of pulling off any secretive, covert operation of any kind whatsoever, much less the assassination of a standing American president without anyone every hearing about it.
I don't doubt that there are lots of interesting connections. I find those connections interesting myself. But I don't have the faith in the power and expertise of the players in question that people seem to have. No agency existed then, and no agency exists now, that could pull such a thing off with real and absolute secrecy. In lieu of any way of believing that a conspiracy would have been possible, I have to conclude that there wasn't one.
posted by koeselitz at 12:53 PM on March 25, 2010
And, by the way, I don't think that people believe in the conspiracy because it's "comforting" to think that only a conspiracy would be capable of what was done there. I don't think people draw their comfort from the safety of the president, frankly.
I think we're all thrilled by the idea of a conspiracy because we find it compelling and interesting to believe that there are secret and covert agencies that can exert their power without any public knowledge whatsoever. It's stimulating and exciting to believe that we live in a world where shadowy groups can conduct their very important business behind closed doors and pull the strings on puppets around the world. That's why so many of us love the show The X Files, which is one of my own favorite programs, by the way: because it's exciting to think that we live in such a world. It may make life more boring to point it out, but I just don't think we do.
posted by koeselitz at 1:00 PM on March 25, 2010
I think we're all thrilled by the idea of a conspiracy because we find it compelling and interesting to believe that there are secret and covert agencies that can exert their power without any public knowledge whatsoever. It's stimulating and exciting to believe that we live in a world where shadowy groups can conduct their very important business behind closed doors and pull the strings on puppets around the world. That's why so many of us love the show The X Files, which is one of my own favorite programs, by the way: because it's exciting to think that we live in such a world. It may make life more boring to point it out, but I just don't think we do.
posted by koeselitz at 1:00 PM on March 25, 2010
It was Woody Harrelson's dad.
No, it was Billie Sol Estes.
posted by neuron at 1:24 PM on March 25, 2010
No, it was Billie Sol Estes.
posted by neuron at 1:24 PM on March 25, 2010
If somebody knew about a plot or a conspiracy, if somebody was involved in any way, they would have come forward and gotten their book deal and their thousands for a speaking tour decades ago. Given the fact that no one has, it's simply highly, highly improbable that there was some secret, backdoor plot concerning Oswald and the assassination.
Many people have come forward over the years, including Silvia Odio. Other people connected somehow to the assassination and its aftermath are now dead.
we find it compelling and interesting to believe that there are secret and covert agencies that can exert their power without any public knowledge whatsoever.
There is definitely that line of thinking in most Conspiratorial Thought, especially fictionalized versions like the X-Files. I don't believe organizations like the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. are all-powerful or able to keep all information completely secret. I do believe, though, not all knowledge gathered by agencies like the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. reaches the public sphere.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:34 PM on March 25, 2010
Many people have come forward over the years, including Silvia Odio. Other people connected somehow to the assassination and its aftermath are now dead.
we find it compelling and interesting to believe that there are secret and covert agencies that can exert their power without any public knowledge whatsoever.
There is definitely that line of thinking in most Conspiratorial Thought, especially fictionalized versions like the X-Files. I don't believe organizations like the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. are all-powerful or able to keep all information completely secret. I do believe, though, not all knowledge gathered by agencies like the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. reaches the public sphere.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:34 PM on March 25, 2010
But I don't have the faith in the power and expertise of the players in question that people seem to have. No agency existed then, and no agency exists now, that could pull such a thing off with real and absolute secrecy.
This.
Working in DC for a few years and seeing the government/pols up close will cure anyone of JFK/moon landing/911 conspiracy theories. These people are simply not competent enough to keep secrets this big.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:13 PM on March 25, 2010
This.
Working in DC for a few years and seeing the government/pols up close will cure anyone of JFK/moon landing/911 conspiracy theories. These people are simply not competent enough to keep secrets this big.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:13 PM on March 25, 2010
Fuzzy Monster: “Many people have come forward over the years, including Silvia Odio. Other people connected somehow to the assassination and its aftermath are now dead.”
Sylvia Odio is typical of the people who have "come forward." That is: even if everything she said was true, she was far from a witness of certain essential details of the assassination. Connecting Oswald to the Cubans proves absolutely nothing, unfortunately; it proves as little as it does to connect him to other radicals and malcontents. The times were chaotic. This proves not a conspiracy but the opposite of conspiracy: utterly random and unplanned events.
This applies, I think, especially to what I believe might be the most significant pointer to conspiracy: Jack Ruby's several dark hints that someday the truth would come out, that he wasn't the only one involved, that people didn't understand all the facts. But Ruby was interviewed over and over during the years he was in prison, and he never came up with names or explanations for these assertions, even though it might have satisfied him enormously and improved his standing and even allowed his appeals to go forward. I have a strong feeling that Ruby was interviewed by some of these same (extremely paranoid) CIA agents who have spread around the conspiracy theories, and this bug bit him and gave him a chance to do what he wanted so badly to do: to deflect from himself the guilt of having taken another man's life pointlessly.
Also, there are those who think that Ruby was killed, and I appreciate the fact that lots of people who were involved are dead. But who killed them? We're left believing either that (a) there is a vast cover-up going on, or that (b) only one person knew about the assassination in the end, and then he or she killed themselves. Neither of those possibilities seems compelling to me.
Not saying you're wrong to find these things possible - I see it too, which is why I've paid some attention to what happened there. But it's not so much in my mind that the organizations involved were inept, I guess; it's also that, because of the caprices of time and the world, things just happen to be revealed. They always are. And there's not much we can do to stop it, no matter how highly-placed we are. The histories of the CIA in the 60s that we have now are interesting, because they show an organization in terror and paranoid delusion over what the world might be capable of.
posted by koeselitz at 2:35 PM on March 25, 2010
Sylvia Odio is typical of the people who have "come forward." That is: even if everything she said was true, she was far from a witness of certain essential details of the assassination. Connecting Oswald to the Cubans proves absolutely nothing, unfortunately; it proves as little as it does to connect him to other radicals and malcontents. The times were chaotic. This proves not a conspiracy but the opposite of conspiracy: utterly random and unplanned events.
This applies, I think, especially to what I believe might be the most significant pointer to conspiracy: Jack Ruby's several dark hints that someday the truth would come out, that he wasn't the only one involved, that people didn't understand all the facts. But Ruby was interviewed over and over during the years he was in prison, and he never came up with names or explanations for these assertions, even though it might have satisfied him enormously and improved his standing and even allowed his appeals to go forward. I have a strong feeling that Ruby was interviewed by some of these same (extremely paranoid) CIA agents who have spread around the conspiracy theories, and this bug bit him and gave him a chance to do what he wanted so badly to do: to deflect from himself the guilt of having taken another man's life pointlessly.
Also, there are those who think that Ruby was killed, and I appreciate the fact that lots of people who were involved are dead. But who killed them? We're left believing either that (a) there is a vast cover-up going on, or that (b) only one person knew about the assassination in the end, and then he or she killed themselves. Neither of those possibilities seems compelling to me.
Not saying you're wrong to find these things possible - I see it too, which is why I've paid some attention to what happened there. But it's not so much in my mind that the organizations involved were inept, I guess; it's also that, because of the caprices of time and the world, things just happen to be revealed. They always are. And there's not much we can do to stop it, no matter how highly-placed we are. The histories of the CIA in the 60s that we have now are interesting, because they show an organization in terror and paranoid delusion over what the world might be capable of.
posted by koeselitz at 2:35 PM on March 25, 2010
I have always wondered this: Oswald apparently spent his time after the assassination just sort of walking around, as if he was waiting for someone to come and pick him up, someone who never arrived. When he, after his arrest, claimed he was a "patsy," what if he was?
That said, I still maintain that the NOVA documentary is great and, if nothing else, convinced me Oswald was the shooter.
posted by 4ster at 4:43 PM on March 25, 2010
That said, I still maintain that the NOVA documentary is great and, if nothing else, convinced me Oswald was the shooter.
posted by 4ster at 4:43 PM on March 25, 2010
I totally believe in the conspiracy theory. I don't think of it as some sort of masterminded, grand scheme that was executed from the top on down. It's not like it was hatched in a CIA meeting and then they had a conference call with the Mafia and then sent a memo to the FBI. It was like a side-project by people who happened to work for various government agencies. I think of it as a grass roots movement.
But of course, I saw the movie when I was in 7th grade.
posted by Wayman Tisdale at 6:35 PM on March 25, 2010
But of course, I saw the movie when I was in 7th grade.
posted by Wayman Tisdale at 6:35 PM on March 25, 2010
The movie was based on a book called Crossfire by Jim Marrs. I have read that book. Yes, it sounds reasonable. It's not very difficult to make things sound reasonable.
Jim Marrs is also, for example, the author of another book called Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. Since I love to read freaky stuff that sounds plausible enough to creep me out even though it falls apart under critical examination, I have read that book as well. It's a fun experience. Suspending disbelief and thinking about those things as if they could be real is a thrill. It's also entirely full of shit and based on stuff that's been entirely debunked. For example, the old von Daniken idea that we were made by an alien species (see: Chariots of the Gods?, another trip) is a central tenant of his big conspiracy clusterfuck.
A lot of the things von Daniken claims sounds freaky if you're an average person, and Marrs just reiterates von Daniken and builds on that -- a lot of dumb stuff gets credibility through repetition. After all, misrepresentation of outright facts isn't like a poorly-argued opinion; you can evaluate the latter without special knowledge, so it's natural to just buy the facts that are given and only evaluate whether the conclusions follow. But if the facts are misrepresented -- either in the omission of details, or in their wholesale creation; either knowingly, or through the author's ignorance -- then stupid conclusions drawn from those facts can sound reasonable. And when you play fast and loose with the facts, you can make some mind-blowing things sound plausible. If you're the author and operating on second-hand ignorance because you take anything printed as gospel, well, then you've even fooled yourself in addition to all the other people you don't even realize you're lying to. I think most conspiracy-theorists really are operating in good faith, and when they encounter opposition they don't defend themselves out of malice or trickery, they just rationalize it to themselves.
In other words, I don't think Jim Marrs is trying to deceive you. He just happens to be. If you do a Google search for "von Daniken" or "Chariots of the Gods," for example, there's tons and tons of debunking.
Jim Marrs also thinks telepathy exists, that UFOs are being covered up, and that 9/11 was an inside job. Tons of debunking about those things as well. Others have already provided good links about the Kennedy assassination.
Anyway, this is great stuff to have fun with. Just when the excitement dies down, remember that reasonable-sounding conclusions are easy to manufacture. If there is a mind-blowing conclusion, look less to evaluating the reasoning in the build up, and more to whether its foundation is actually true. What thing presented as fact most surprised you? Look that thing up. Works every time. You took the time to ask, which is also a good approach; be proud of your lingering skepticism, and always investigate when it nibbles at you.
posted by Nattie at 10:49 PM on March 25, 2010
Jim Marrs is also, for example, the author of another book called Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. Since I love to read freaky stuff that sounds plausible enough to creep me out even though it falls apart under critical examination, I have read that book as well. It's a fun experience. Suspending disbelief and thinking about those things as if they could be real is a thrill. It's also entirely full of shit and based on stuff that's been entirely debunked. For example, the old von Daniken idea that we were made by an alien species (see: Chariots of the Gods?, another trip) is a central tenant of his big conspiracy clusterfuck.
A lot of the things von Daniken claims sounds freaky if you're an average person, and Marrs just reiterates von Daniken and builds on that -- a lot of dumb stuff gets credibility through repetition. After all, misrepresentation of outright facts isn't like a poorly-argued opinion; you can evaluate the latter without special knowledge, so it's natural to just buy the facts that are given and only evaluate whether the conclusions follow. But if the facts are misrepresented -- either in the omission of details, or in their wholesale creation; either knowingly, or through the author's ignorance -- then stupid conclusions drawn from those facts can sound reasonable. And when you play fast and loose with the facts, you can make some mind-blowing things sound plausible. If you're the author and operating on second-hand ignorance because you take anything printed as gospel, well, then you've even fooled yourself in addition to all the other people you don't even realize you're lying to. I think most conspiracy-theorists really are operating in good faith, and when they encounter opposition they don't defend themselves out of malice or trickery, they just rationalize it to themselves.
In other words, I don't think Jim Marrs is trying to deceive you. He just happens to be. If you do a Google search for "von Daniken" or "Chariots of the Gods," for example, there's tons and tons of debunking.
Jim Marrs also thinks telepathy exists, that UFOs are being covered up, and that 9/11 was an inside job. Tons of debunking about those things as well. Others have already provided good links about the Kennedy assassination.
Anyway, this is great stuff to have fun with. Just when the excitement dies down, remember that reasonable-sounding conclusions are easy to manufacture. If there is a mind-blowing conclusion, look less to evaluating the reasoning in the build up, and more to whether its foundation is actually true. What thing presented as fact most surprised you? Look that thing up. Works every time. You took the time to ask, which is also a good approach; be proud of your lingering skepticism, and always investigate when it nibbles at you.
posted by Nattie at 10:49 PM on March 25, 2010
Oswald's dubious marksmanship
That's really a non-starter. Kennedy was really, really close for rifle shooting purposes. All shots were taken at a range shorter than 83 meters. I do have issues with the time-frame of the shots as given by the Warren commission, based on the analysis of the audio recording taken from the open radio link to police dispatch and I'm not the only one. But 5.6 seconds or 8.3 second, the shots were quite doable for Oswald, whose rifle skills were apparently about the same as mine (some military training with no great distinction).
We don't know if Oswald really was just a lone nut or was some kind of patsy, but he certainly did not need any help doing the murdering and did not need any great luck to pull it off.
posted by Authorized User at 11:00 PM on March 25, 2010
That's really a non-starter. Kennedy was really, really close for rifle shooting purposes. All shots were taken at a range shorter than 83 meters. I do have issues with the time-frame of the shots as given by the Warren commission, based on the analysis of the audio recording taken from the open radio link to police dispatch and I'm not the only one. But 5.6 seconds or 8.3 second, the shots were quite doable for Oswald, whose rifle skills were apparently about the same as mine (some military training with no great distinction).
We don't know if Oswald really was just a lone nut or was some kind of patsy, but he certainly did not need any help doing the murdering and did not need any great luck to pull it off.
posted by Authorized User at 11:00 PM on March 25, 2010
Oswald apparently spent his time after the assassination just sort of walking around, as if he was waiting for someone to come and pick him up, someone who never arrived.
Actually, no he didn't. He first went back to his rooming house where he picked up a pistol. He did start out for some unknown destination but was spotted by the police when he matched the (not altogether clear) description that had been radioed out. This led to his shooting Officer Tippit and eventually ducking into the movie theater where he was caught.
Nthg Vincent Bugliosi's book. It's a long, long slog, but is likely the most complete review you'll find. He opens with nearly 400 pages of (literally) minute-by-minute detail of where every key player was and what they did from the morning of the assassination through the day that Oswald was shot. He goes on to spend chapter after chapter laying flat every conspiracy theory ("grassy knoll", "multiple shooters", "Mob involvement") until the only conclusion you can come to is that Oswald did it. He was a wacko (you may not remember that he had previously attempted to assassinate a retired-General who was a rabid anti-communist) and quite a good shot. Bugliosi also exposes Jim Garrison as a nut-job and rips Oliver Stone a new one.
Trivia: The "Wade" of "Roe v. Wade" is Henry Wade, the Dallas Co. District Attorney who would have prosecuted Oswald had he lived. Assassination of a president was not a Federal crime at that time, believe it or not.
posted by John Borrowman at 1:59 PM on March 26, 2010
Actually, no he didn't. He first went back to his rooming house where he picked up a pistol. He did start out for some unknown destination but was spotted by the police when he matched the (not altogether clear) description that had been radioed out. This led to his shooting Officer Tippit and eventually ducking into the movie theater where he was caught.
Nthg Vincent Bugliosi's book. It's a long, long slog, but is likely the most complete review you'll find. He opens with nearly 400 pages of (literally) minute-by-minute detail of where every key player was and what they did from the morning of the assassination through the day that Oswald was shot. He goes on to spend chapter after chapter laying flat every conspiracy theory ("grassy knoll", "multiple shooters", "Mob involvement") until the only conclusion you can come to is that Oswald did it. He was a wacko (you may not remember that he had previously attempted to assassinate a retired-General who was a rabid anti-communist) and quite a good shot. Bugliosi also exposes Jim Garrison as a nut-job and rips Oliver Stone a new one.
Trivia: The "Wade" of "Roe v. Wade" is Henry Wade, the Dallas Co. District Attorney who would have prosecuted Oswald had he lived. Assassination of a president was not a Federal crime at that time, believe it or not.
posted by John Borrowman at 1:59 PM on March 26, 2010
Peter Dale Scott: The Assassinations of the 1960s as “Deep Events”
posted by hortense at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2010
posted by hortense at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
I have a weakness for the Lady Gaga/Illuminati puppet theories myself, so not too much shame in that.
posted by Bobicus at 4:31 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]