Yeah, I am where you are. I am only open to the idea of a conspiracy. I think RFK also getting killed and that also being questioned fuels the fire. Then top it off with a chick both were having a fling with also dies and again that one has questions fuels it even more.
Well, I was looking at it through 1964 eyes and you were adding 1968, which there's nothing wrong with that. I know my Mom said that when it first happened (she was a junior in HS) ALMOST NOBODY believed it was one guy because of Ruby. But there was a general acceptance of the Warren report when it came out.
I think - looking backwards at it - the things you mention gave it credence plus:
- the killing of Malcom X
- whatever happened at the Gulf of Tonkin
- the killing of MLK
- the coverup eventually exposed concerning My Lai
- Watergate
I think if you bake all of that into the cake and THEN Geraldo Rivera shows you the Zapruder film and you see, "Wow, his head goes backwards" - in the era of Watergate - a conspiracy is NOT a completely irrational conclusion.
Where it really loses me is the fact that we have never had any leaks at all. No deathbed confessions, no slip of the tongue, nothing. People have trouble keeping a secret. Secrets get out often.
I used to say, "I know everything Bill Clinton did with a cigar and a 20-something intern, but hundreds of people were able to say NOTHING about the crime of the century?"
That Oliver Stone movie poisoned a lot of people's minds. People seem to believe everything in it is 100% true. It isn't. I still here People spout off the Oswald wasn't a good shot. You can literally google is marksmanship card. He scored pretty well.
That's what I loathed about that movie when it came out. And don't get me wrong -it is a cinematic masterpiece and a logical disaster. The way it is done is one of my if not my favorite films of all-time. I can pause my skepticism of his argument to admit, "You know, Stone did a REALLY good job here."
My ex-wife's grandfather - when "JFK" came out - dismissed a lone shooter by saying, "It was not possible for him to fire that rifle in the time they said." And I began LISTENING to people and how they framed their conspiracy arguments and I began to notice something: they were all quoting the same WRONG THINGS from each other.
There are plenty of websites that cover it, but let's cover two real quickly as both are in "JFK":
1) the so-called 5.6 seconds of the shooting
Actually, they didn't say this. This is what they said (from the report):
Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from
approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.
5.6 was the generally agreed upon start to finish, but the fact is they gave themselves enough wiggle room of uncertainty due to 1964 technology to give it 4.8 to 7.9. And studies since have lowered the cycling into the chamber for an experienced shooter from 2.3 to 1.6 seconds, which would allow even the 4.8.
I'm not saying this means we accept all their conclusions; I'm saying
THEY NEVER SAID IT THE WAY THEIR OPPONENTS LIKE TO PRESENT IT.
2) "Oswald got off 3 shots with world class precision" (Walter Matthau in "JFK")
Me: He missed the target two out of three times.......(since the head was the target)....
You know what's funny? The whole "he would have had to be a world class shot" ASSUMES something it never proves.....that that's who would be used IF a conspiracy was taking place. It's a backdoor way of bringing in "a powerful conspiracy happened" and dismissing Oswald as being part of it.
www.archives.gov
