Thursday, November 21, 2013

Beyond Conspiracy


Posted by at
Labels: , ,

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Only have watched the first half so far, but there's a bit of a whitewash on Ruby here. No mob connections aside from some Chicago street thugs? Here's a guy that ran arms to Cuba for the mob and then later the feds. Unless they correct this in the 2nd half, that's a mighty big hole in ABC's story.

11/21/2013 2:10 PM
John (Ad Orientem) said...

Ruby's connections to the mob, which evidence suggests were peripheral, doesn't constitute any real evidence of a conspiracy. It is at best circumstantial, and weakly so.

If there was a conspiracy, the coverup would have had to be massive and involve huge numbers of people both high and low in and out of the government. That not one would have talked, or left a note in a safe deposit box to be read on his death is just too far fetched to be credible.

And then we have all of the actual evidence piled up against Oswald. And that is a veritable mountain.

11/21/2013 2:27 PM
Unknown said...

I'm not trying to change yours or anyone's mind on the matter. However, ABC's presentation from 2003 is significantly flawed if they don't address Ruby's connections to the mob and the CIA. By omitting, and really denying these seemingly peripheral facts, they're able to close the door on potential leads that would be followed up on in a real investigation.

ABC, at least in the first part, also does not address LHO's status of undercover informant with the FBI. They just state that the bureau had a file on him. As ABC presents their case as one to thoroughly put an end to any alternatives to the killing of JFK, ignoring these facts and not addressing them is enough to cast doubt on their position. In fact, they are a bit cavalier when including an interview with Ruth Paine (and Michael Paine too) without disclosing their intelligence ties, especially considering their rather bold assertions. Maybe ABC makes amends in the later part, which I plan to watch later.

In regard to the "someone would have talked by now" claim. First, this claim, no matter the situation, only works in a vacuum; a world where there is no blackmail, no comparative interests at stake like family or career, no confidentiality agreements, etc. It does not hold water when dealing with organizations that are set up horizontally, so that operations are compartmentalized. In terms of the JFK assassination, one would have to take into account the number of dead witnesses and associates as examples of the real threat to one's life and family should the urge to speak up begin to percolate. Jim Garrison certainly felt the sting for pursuing certain leads, and his type of courage is rare.

11/21/2013 3:18 PM
John (Ad Orientem) said...

Ron Jay
You raise issues which require more time and space to properly address than works for a com-box discussion. However they are addressed in detail by Vincent Bugliosi in his enormous, and definitive, work "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy." A word of caution though. While I am a pretty voracious reader, it took me a solid six months to plow through that tome.

11/21/2013 3:31 PM
Unknown said...

His pared down "Four Days in November" might be more what I can afford. But that book will have to wait until after I read James DiEugenio's "Reclaiming Parkland," just released last month and which word on the street is that DiEugenio really takes it to VB.

11/21/2013 4:25 PM
Unknown said...

Watched the rest (thank you, lunch hour), and have to say my opinion of the production hasn't changed. Unfortunately it seems that depending on ABC for a balanced look on this subject is like going to Rush Limbaugh to find out about the ACA.

I find it disrespectful to people like Oliver Stone, James Douglass, James DiEugenio, and others to slander and disparage their work and lump them together as "conspiracy theorists," without having them on the show to defend their position. They're real, live people! Invite them to appear and interview them. Have a roundtable discussion with respectable discourse (unlike what is present on today's television forums) and let the chips fall where they may. If ABC invited them and they refused, then let the viewers know that they refused, as is the usual course of action. Just don't put their detractors up to present the "other side's" argument and leave it at that. Certainly ABC has/had the resources to make that happen.

Another thing that should be addressed is the presumption that those (the majority of the country over 2 generations, mind you) that do not believe the result of the Warren Commission's investigation somehow yearn to believe that JFK wasn't killed by a nobody for no good reason; that we think there HAS to be something bigger because the stakes are so high. This is something that ABC hit at hard, and that many current outlets express even today. I thoroughly disagree with this presumption. What people want is the truth, no matter what side it falls on. Why? Because where there is truth, there is Christ, and the heart of man yearns for Him. Most do not believe they are getting the truth on this matter from officials and the various personalities and media outlets that support them, hence the detractors and disbelievers of the official story, and the "conspiracy theorists."

Anyway, thanks for providing the link and allowing comments. I wish I was better able to articulate these points, but thankfully there are resources out there for the inquiring mind.

11/22/2013 3:08 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)