Now, I usually shy away from conspiracy theories, for the most part. If you cannot prove something, then it is speculation. It may be interesting, even fascinating, to discuss, but I have a difficult time with people that essentially entrench themselves with what come down to viewpoints which they, rather predictably, take as fact.
Not all of these big mysteries are conspiracy theories, although it seems to me that a lot of people who subscribe to conspiracy theories also hold strong feelings on these subjects. Some persistent questions that just keep seeming to rise to the surface from time to time, and never fully fade away, or anything. Is there really such a thing as bigfoot? It is within the realm of plausibility, yes. But why have we not yet gotten concrete proof that such a creature actually exists? Another would be whether there really is a physical cup that is the Holy Grail or, as the popular book by Dan Brown, The DaVinci Code", argued, whether the "grail" is not at all what we think it is? Do angels exist? Do ghosts exist?
No, I do not shy away from most discussions like that. But with mysteries that strongly suggest some concerted conspiracy, you have to tread a little more carefully, it seems. I think that there is certainly more intelligent life out there than that which passes for it on this planet in the form of human beings. But is there some huge conspiracy to hide evidence of alien visitations and/or abductions? That much is not so clear, and I am comfortable with not knowing.
Are there secret, all-powerful societies? Well, it seems to me clear enough that "secret societies" exist, but the question of just how powerful they are, how much sway they hold, is another matter. Are the Masons as dangerous as some suggest? What about the secretive organization known as Skull & Bones, which rose to the surface during the 2004 American Presidential election, when it came out that both major party candidates, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, had been members? Are they secretly ruling the world, as some assert? What about the Bilderberg Club? Is this a secretive and all-powerful organization that actually runs the world? And what about the relationship between the Rothchild family and the Federal Reserve, not to mention other financial systems around the world? Is one family truly controlling many of the world's currencies, or even all of the ones that really count on such a global scale?
No, I simply do not know. Again, I do not shy away from, and find fascinating. But that said, I am not entirely convinced that such organizations actually exist, or hold anywhere near as much sway as conspiracy theorists automatically assume they do. These theories give no room to human fallibility, and seem to assume that literally everything that happens in this world is just a hatched secret plot coming into fruition.
Then, there are conspiracy theories that actually do make me uncomfortable.
Did Roosevelt know about Pearl Harbor? Was 9/11 an inside job?
Those are questions about just how involved (and devious) our own government leaders are, and just what lengths they are willing to go to assume more and more power and control. I cannot claim to know the answers, one way or the other. But it seems very implausible to me that Roosevelt would have allowed Japan to attack and destroy half the American Navy at precisely the point when we were forced to enter the war. I'm just also not saying it's impossible.
As for September 11th, yes, plenty of questions linger. Is it really possible that those buildings collapsed in just such a way, straight down like that? Were there other explosions that led to the actual fall, perhaps from some planted bomb? And what about that third tower that fell on that day, the one that was not struck by any airplane? What kinds of questions and uncertainties does that bring up? For that matter, why were all the tapes of the plane crashing into the Pentagon taken and kept from public view? Why did the wings not leave any marks whatsoever on the walls of that building? Did the black boxes truly disintegrate and if so, how is that possible, when they are so enormous and durable?
Fascinating and very provocative questions that really make you wonder, and with scary implications when they are not definitively answered. Indeed, maybe those questions will linger, and someday, perhaps, the irrefutable truth will reveal itself for one and all.
My guess, however, is that those will remain lingering questions for the foreseeable future, for decades to come, and maybe even longer (always assuming that we survive that long). Conspiracy theories take on a life of their own, and tend to almost thrive on remaining as the dark shadows of uncertainty behind official history.
As far as the September 11th attacks are concerned, what is not arguable was that nineteen radical Islamic terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the Twin Towers, murdering thousands instantly. Are there disturbing questions about how it was that the government (particularly the Bush White House) ignored what seemed to be clear cut warnings that terrorists were set to strike by hijacking airplanes, and is it possible that these guys received the training that they did without being detected? And what about the very unsettling links between the Bin Laden family and prominent American leaders? How did they manage to leave the country without being inconvenienced with questioning after such a national, even international, tragedy that officially was linked to their most famous family member?
Again, I do not want to sound like a broken record, because everyone reading this has likely read or heard these rumors before. They certainly are not new with me.
I think Normal Mailer put it best, however, when he suggested that the right jumped on every opportunity to assume greater control that the tragic September 11th attacks opened up for them, to the point that it made you raise your eyebrows. Even to stand up and take notice, and be rightfully alarmed. For that matter, I think we are still living with the aftereffects of September 11th, and that the world is a very different place post-9/11 then it was before.
Do I think conspiracies have existed?
Most certainly I do. Perhaps even in some of those controversies already mentioned, there actually were active conspiracies. But I cannot speak to that, given my limited resources and knowledge. I try not to base my opinion on rumors and the smoke of opinion, to the extent possible. Besides, at least in regards to September 11th, there were plenty of real-life stories about the government jumping into action and exploiting that tragedy in order to grab more power that it otherwise could not have done.
The Kennedy assassination is a bit different. It hardly seems so implausible to me. In fact, I am hardly alone. A majority of Americans do believe that some kind of conspiracy was involved - 61%, according to a recent gallup poll.
There just seem to be too many contradictions, and too many changes of story.
The shots were supposed to have come from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Yet, just after the assassination, people are clearly on video running towards the grassy knoll, in apparent pursuit of the gunman.
Texas Governor John Connally, who was himself shot, turned to his left initially, and mentioned this in his first interview from his hospital bed just days after the assassination. But later, the story changes, when then he turned to the right.
The Secret Service head is caught on film ordering his men to stand down, and a confused agent clearly throws his hands up in confusion.
And what about E. Howard Hunt, who was apparently pictured in Dallas, one of the three hobos, although all three of them looked remarkably well groomed for homeless men?
In 1992, journalist Mary La Fontaine discovered the November 22, 1963 arrest records that the Dallas Police Department had released in 1989, which named the three men as Gus W. Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John F. Gedney.
John F. Gedney.
E. Howard Hunt is an interesting figure in this whole story. Here was a high-ranking government official who, a decade later, would go to jail because of Watergate.
Here is an article that talks more about E. Howard Hunt, and his apparent admission to his role in relation to the Kennedy assassination:
"Deathbed confession: Who really killed JFK?" BY TIMOTHY W. MAIER · JULY 2, 2012:
http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/deathbed-confession-who-really-killed-jfk/2012/07/02
Also, I would recommend watching the episode of "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" on the Kennedy Assassination, which delves further into the deathbed confession, which includes not just documents, but a recorded confession from the man himself that you can clearly hear, and he names names.
And what about Oswald himself? So casual after the assassination, that we went into a theater? Some kind of historical connection, perhaps, to John Wilkes Booth, a measure of continuity?
But even more important, why did he wait to take the shots when the target was moving further and further away from him, when there was a point when the motorcade slowed down to a crawl, literally right below him?
Michael Clancy, in his article "JFK conspiracy theorist points finger at LBJ", remarks:
Even the site of the fatal shots was out of whack: Oswald would have had a much easier target several seconds earlier, as the motorcade slowed to turn twice, Zirbel notes.
There are some odd facts about Oswald himself which I will not get into, but the main question is this: could he possibly have acted alone, even assuming that he did fire shots from the sixth floor? It seems likely that there was another shooter - at least one more. So, if there was more than one shooter, that would constitute a conspiracy, and then the question would be who was behind the conspiracy?
One of the enduring conspiracy theories would be that Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the assassination in order to become President, which would mean, in essence, that the assassination was nothing less than a coup d'etat.
This has endured probably because their seems to be some suspicious coincidences that are hard to explain and, in some cases, even hard to justify.
First, the background. Johnson had assumed that, by virtue of his superior experience and by order of seniority, he by rights should have been the Democratic candidate for President. At the time, the primaries did not mean what they have come to mean since.
Kennedy made them mean something. So, while Johnson sat back and took care of political business in Washington, Kennedy was out making sure that he won the primaries, one after the other, until he had built up quite a name for himself, as well as securing backing for his nomination. By the time that Johnson woke up to this, it was too late. Kennedy had won.
But, Kennedy still needed to win the general election, and in order to do this, he needed to carry Texas, which just happened to be Lyndon B. Johnson's home state. Kennedy nominated Johnson to be his Vice President, and they obviously won the election.
That would normally be seen as a huge accomplishment in and of itself, but looks can be deceiving. Like with Theodore Roosevelt, the Vice Presidency also was meant to be, on many levels, the death of Johnson's political career. He was not President and, in fact, the President's brother, Bobby Kennedy, did not like Johnson at all, and was possibly advising his brother to replace him in the 1964 election, a move that likely would have killed Johnson's career.
So, there was a motive. Also, there was widespred perception that Lyndon Johnson's behavior was strange in the 24 hours following the assassination. He called Bobby Kennedy in order to get his approval to take the Oath of Office in Dallas, but then claimed that Bobby Kennedy had insisted that the swearing in ceremony be done as quickly as possible. Johnson also insisted that Jacqueline Kennedy be present, which would seem to lend continuity and a certain measure of approval behind the thing, although it was not required that she be there and, frankly, it seems odd that Johnson would not simply leave the grieving widow alone, just let her be. There are also pictures of him after taking the oath, where it appears that Congressman Albert Thomas is winking at Johnson, and Johnson, in turn, almost appears to be smiling back at him. The next morning, after returning to Washington, Johnson ordered Kennedy's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, to remove all of her things in very quick fashion, because he had his own women that he wanted in place.
Also, remember, Dallas is in Texas, Johnson's home state. Johnson handled many of the details of that entire trip to Texas by the White House, and so some of the peculiarities seem almost too coincidental. The route was changed, for example. One of the things that do not quite add up was that if Oswald, allegedly perched atop the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, was the sole gunmen and actual murderer, why did he not take a shot earlier, when it was easier and clearer for him? The presidential motorcade passed right in front of the Texas Book Depository, so why wait until it was so far away? It's not implausible that he hesitated. But then again, Kennedy was shot, and so the shooter, or shooters, did not hesitate that much, apparently. So, again, the question: why wait until the shot is more difficult, and far less of a sure thing?
"A New Wrinkle in the JFK Assassination Story", by Stephen M. Gillon of the History Channel, 10/30/09:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-gillon/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026.html
"Taking Another Look at LBJ and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy", by Stephen M. Gillon of the History Channel, November 20, 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-gillon/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-jfk_b_339026.html
Kennedy loyalists viewed Johnson's decision to fly Air Force One back to Washington as part of the larger narrative of the day -- an example of LBJ's insensitivity and his megalomania. They would later claim that LBJ was so desperate to surround himself with the trappings of presidential power that he hijacked the Kennedy plane.
"Johnson's decision to ask Mrs. Kennedy to participate in the swearing-in ceremony provided more fodder for critics. Once again, they charged, he was being insensitive and insecure. In reality, Johnson brilliantly choreographed the scene to produce one of the most iconic pictures in American history. The photographs of the ceremony, which flashed into living rooms across the nation even as the presidential plane streaked toward Washington, delivered a public message that the government survived, Johnson was in charge, and the transition of power, though violent, had been smooth. "LBJ understood how crucial it was to photograph the swearing-in so that the picture could be flashed around the world quickly," Jack Valenti noted. "This photo would proclaim that while the light in the White House may flicker, it never goes out."
Okay, true. Yet, the LBJ rumors keep persisting. A large part of the reason is that it seems to fit better than any other. He had a lot to gain, for obvious reasons. He had motive, as the Kennedys had ridiculed and embarrassed, even humiliated him regularly, which makes the incentive for potential revenge clear enough. The assassination was in LBJ's home state, where he would have connections. And LBJ's strange behavior, and his insistence that it seem that he get strong approval from RFK as well as Jacqueline Kennedy, all makes for added suspicion. Plus, he was a powerful man already, and it is not impossible that he would have been able to orchestrate something like this. So, for some people, all the pieces seem to fit. Here are some links that examine the LBJ-Kennedy assassination links more closely, including one right at the beginning from E. Howard Hunt, yet again, who points the accusatory finger of blame on Lyndon B. Johnson:
E. Howard Hunt Blames LBJ for JFK Assassination Started by J. Raymond Carroll, Jan 14 2007:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9084
"Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson's part.
"LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place. He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. [John] Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK's car - where . . . he would have been out of danger."
What McHugh claimed to have witnessed next was shocking. "I walked in the toilet, in the powder room, and there he was hiding, with the curtain closed," McHugh recalled. He claimed that LBJ was crying, "They're going to get us all. It's a plot. It's a plot. It's going to get us all.'" According to the General, Johnson "was hysterical, sitting down on the john there alone in this thing."
He goes on to suggest:
If true, the story is explosive and reveals a completely different side of Johnson than the collected, calm presence he otherwise managed to convey throughout the hours and days following Kennedy's death.
This would then seem to contradict that LBJ was in on it, and at the very least, calls that whole conspiracy theory into question. If LBJ was scared for his life, and thinking that "they" would kill anyone and everyone that got in their way, then he would clearly either not have been in charge, or would have felt that whatever control he might once have had was wrested away from him. And if LBJ's behavior was strange in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, as it surely was, then that can also be chalked up to the nervousness that he must have felt, and the desire to bring the country together in order to promote a sense of continuity, and a message that we shall go on as before, that we are stronger than this. But the questions and debates continue, of course.
So, was there a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination?
Frankly, in this case, I believe so. There are just too many question marks left simply to accept the "official" Warren Report conclusion.
However these results were disputed and there has been a suspicion held by many of a government cover-up of information about the assassination and conspiracy theories abound on who killed JFK, and why.
There are grey areas about when President Kennedy was shot from - ahead or behind him - how many shooters there were, what the murder weapon was exactly, why key witnesses and documents went missing.
Here was one interesting link that I thought would be good to add, and which I might examine a bit more closely in the future:
President Lyndon Johnson nearly shot dead by Secret Service agent... hours after JFK assassination By OLIVER PICKUP of the British publication Daily Mail Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322173/President-Lyndon-Johnson-nearly-shot-dead-Secret-Service-agent--hours-JFK-assassination.html
Here are more links related to this whole story:
Zirbel also points to statements by two known participants in his conspiracy: Oswald, who shouted, "I'm a patsy!" to nearby reporters at the Dallas jail, and Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby, who was quoted as saying, "If you knew the truth, you'd be amazed."
JFK conspiracy theorist points finger at LBJ Michael Clancy of The Arizona Republic,November 21, 2013:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/jfk-conspiracy-theorist-points-finger-at-lbj/3660765/
JFK anniversary: second gunman named:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/johnfkennedy/10461310/JFK-anniversary-second-gunman-named.html
Most Americans Side with Alex Jones on the Kennedy Conspiracy Theory The Atlantic Wire By Arit John
http://www.prisonplanet.com/most-americans-side-with-alex-jones-on-the-kennedy-conspiracy-theory.html
LBJ Sworn in 43 Minutes After Kennedy Death By PAUL BEDARD August 26, 2009:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/26/lbj-sworn-in-43-minutes-after-kennedy-death
Finally, here was an interesting piece from CNN on this topic that I thought would be good to share:
5 things you might not know about JFK's assassination By Tricia Escobedo, CNN updated 9:36 AM EST, Thu November 21, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/us/jfk-assassination-5-things/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment