I have a minor hobby over the unexplainable, particularly in terms of crime (hence the whole Manson thing, and so on).
Perhaps the book that set off my love affair with books that explore alternate theories (at least, the first one I remember reading) was Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins". I can remember finishing the book and thinking, "How could any rational person believe that a poor uneducated schmuck could singlehandedly--and with some mad gun skills the guy has no record of possessing--kill the president of the United States?"
A lot of time has passed since my first reading of Garrison's book. I've read a lot since then directly related to the assassination; the theories are many and varied. And oh, by the way, they're interesting too. Quite entertaining :)
So now I'm reading "Four Days in November" by Vincent Bugliosi, and it is so cut and dried that there doesn't seem to be any arguing with it. I mean, BAM, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, and here's how he did it. Mystery gone.
Obviously, there are those that disagree mightily with Bugliosi's work. When I read one of those, my internal pendulum will start swinging again.
So I have two questions I'd love to have your thoughts on. First, what do YOU think happened to President Kennedy? Was Oswald the lone gunman acting alone, or is the story juicier, with overtones of the mafia, Cuba, and even factions of the U.S. Government itself in on it?
Secondly, why is there still this preoccupation with what happened over forty years ago? Do we NEED to believe in the conspiracy because the thought of a president's murder being as simple as Bugliosi presents it ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are Minorities Discouraged from Taking Upper-Level Classes?: The Elephant in the Room
As a public school teacher for sixteen years, I sometimes feel like I’ve seen it all. I’ve seen Standards come and go (and despite the brou...
-
Friendship is an amazing thing. It's so odd how you can connect so strongly and completely with other people sometimes. Perhaps the be... -
I have probably said this before, but it probably bears repeating. The weather is an ever-changing state, a difference in temperature and p...
-
.JPG)
I've come to the conclusion that, when I'm having trouble sleeping, it's far more beneficial to find something to occupy my tim...
I don't believe he acted alone and I think the fascination stems from the fact that he was a Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteThere was a mystique around his entire family..and still today.
I think people want a conspiracy because A.) we like to feel clever and B.) it is very scary to think that any random dude can kill the leader of the free world. Lincoln's asassination and Reagan's attempted asassination are evidence that it can be *that* simple. I also think that's why people immediately sprang on 9/11 conspiracies-it's frightening to think that the Intelligence of the United States could display such ineptitude. All that being said, though, I don't think it was that simple. Kennedy stepped on a lot of toes and had a lot of enemies, and he also had a very different worldview from his peers. He was a giant threat to "the way things were done". I've also heard that he orchastrated it himself because his Addison's disease was starting to progress, and he couldn't stand the idea of degenerating in the public eye. Oh, and while I don't believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government a la the USS Maine bombing, I do find it plausible that it was not stopped. Think about it- a certain person went from an impotent joke to a "decider" with apparent carte blanche to do as he pleased with impunity. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteCall me a conspiracy theorist because I definitely do not believe that Oswald acted alone, I think he was definitely the patsy and before he got a chance he was gunned down. Yeah...convenient much...Sorry I just don't buy it. But that is my brain, I dissect a lot, I don't take what people say at face value, I go on my gut instinct about things and do a little investigating on my own. I'm always in my head about things.
ReplyDeleteI think he acted alone. I want to believe the theory. Like you, I enjoy conspiracy theories and love reading up on them and finding all I can, but I just haven't been convinced.
ReplyDeleteI fun book on conspiracy theories is "UFOs, JFK and Elvis" by the actor/comedian Richard Belzer. It doesn't offer much in the way of new evidence, but it's a good read.
I wish there were a conspiracy but I don't think there was one.
ReplyDeleteVincent Bugoliosi is cool, though--I really loved Helter Skeltzer.
I have some wound ballistics analysis somewhere in my library that definitively states that JFK was hit from the front left side (the grassy knoll) with a small-caliber bullet moving close to 4000 fps, consistent with a varmint rifle like the .220 Swift. The bullet fragmented inside his skull and blew off the back of his head. That's why you see Jackie crawling around on the back of the limo as it speeds away in the Zapruder film - she's trying to retrieve pieces of his skull. They could not have resulted from Lee Harvey Oswald hitting him in the back of the head. Here's a link that says something pretty similar to what's in my library. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Head_shot_from_front.html
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't care who wanted him dead (and many people did)... the Kennedys were a corrupt, contemptible group. Grandpa Joe made their money as a criminal, running whisky during Prohibition. His criminal behavior set the tone for whole family.