--and I'm not saying he didn't--
he was essentially a lone nut. No conspiracy. Some whacko just
got it into his head to kill the president, because he could, and because he
happened to work in a building that was right on the parade route. And
he happened to be a former marine, and a defector to the Soviet Union, and
he had a close relationship with George de Mohrenschildt... who, among other
things, had a personal acquaintanceship with Jackie Bouvier, and whose
father was imprisoned by the Soviets as an anti-communist. And whose wife and
daughter were immediately taken in by a couple with direct links to a
military contractor, Bell Helicopter, which also happened to employ an
ex-Nazi rocket designer, General General Walter Dornberger.
In your own entire life, have you ever met anyone who claimed to even
know someone who directly knew someone involved in intelligence work, or in
building V-2 rockets, or conducting overseas operations for the CIA?
All the time, right?
Sure, Oswald could have acted alone. Maybe all of this contact with
the Marines and the Russians and the CIA and Clay Shaw and so on contributed
to his frustrated delusions of grandeur.
Or he was the ideal patsy, an operative who carried out various missions
for the U.S. intelligence community, who wasn't too bright, and came to be
exactly what he claimed to be: a patsy.
When you are young and you
arrive at the idea that there might be a conspiracy involved in some
sensational crime, only it has been covered up-- you probably think
you know it's a conspiracy because you are smarter than most people.
You see the clues. You read between the lines.
It is only later in life
that you begin to realize that, if there is a conspiracy out there, the
people conspiring might be as smart or smarter than you. They might be
ahead of you. They might realize that the best way to prevent anyone
from ever "proving" that there is a conspiracy is not to deny that there is
a conspiracy, but to fill the world with conspiracy theories until most
sensible people are nauseated and exasperated.
No one says, "how can you
believe there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy when J. Edgar Hoover
himself denied it?" No, no, no. But people might say, "oh-- you
believe that the CIA stole his body on the aircraft flying back to
Washington, surgically altered the body to make it look like the shots came
from the front, and then snuck it back into the coffin without Jackie
noticing?" Or that both the Mafia and the Cubans were involved, and
the CIA for good measure, as well as Naval Intelligence and the oil
industry.
On the other, hand read a
credible biography of James Angleton, or of Reinhard Gehlen, or Allan
Dulles, or George de Mohrenschildt. You don't need to read
a biography by a whacky conspiracy theorist. Find one written by a
reputable, serious, accountable journalist. You will see the whacky
become real. You will realize that there are people out there who
would seriously contemplate assassination as a political strategy.
You have to realize, as well, that "proof" isn't the
point. I have never heard a JFK conspiracy theorist discuss this
important point: what is proof, really? It is the evidence you
use to apply force. The force is the police, the army, the FBI.
Without the power to arrest and detain people and seize evidence, there can
be no "proof".
Suppose, for example, a couple of investigators went to a
federal judge in Washington DC shortly after the assassination and asked for
a warrant to search the offices of J. Edgar Hoover, because someone had
provided the investigators with evidence that the FBI did have a file on
Oswald and that J. Edgar Hoover had lied to the investigators. A lot
of people, reading of his arrest, would have come to believe that J. Edgar
must have done something seriously wrong, or why would he have been
arrested?
more...
