Friday, November 22, 2013

50 years of lies

The Warren Commission's Magic Bullet theory

There's a lot of crap published recently on the murder of President Kennedy. Apparently publishers feel obligated to do something on the 50th anniversary. The Chronicle has been running a series of stories by locals about where they were, what they were doing, and how they felt about the assassination. Who cares? It's apparently too much to ask of the Chronicle to publish some substantive discussion of the unanswered questions about the assassination. Instead this morning we got stuff like this from Jonathan Zimmerman

It's hard to believe that they[government agencies] could pull off a plot as immense and risky as the murder of a president. So why do so many of us continue to believe it? Perhaps it's a way to protect his image, and the reflection of ourselves that we see in it. If Kennedy could be felled by a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, then JFK couldn't be the giant that we've made him out to be. There would be no Shining Moment, no Thousand Days, no Camelot. And we would no longer be innocent children, pining for the departed father whom we never really knew. We would put away childish things. We would grow up.

Yes, "grow up" by believing the incredible conclusions of the Warren Commission. In reality it's people like Zimmerman who are childish in their eagerness to believe the ridiculous official government line, much like they once believed Mommy and Daddy about Santa Claus.

And then you have the riff from some on the left, like Beyond Chron's Randy Shaw yesterday, denigrating Kennedy, and, while he was at it, President Obama. Shaw is really a pseudo-leftist political commissar who thinks he's doing political journalism. Like all of JFK's detractors, Shaw gives LBJ all the credit for the subsequent Civil Rights legislation, but he ignores Kennedy's nationally-televised Civil Rights speech in June, 1963, and his American University speech announcing the nuclear test ban treaty and questioning Cold War assumptions. Not to mention the evidence that JFK was planning to get us out of Vietnam, which I posted about here the other day.

The late Alexander Cockburn was another lefty who endorsed the Warren Commission, though it was obvious that he really knew nothing about it or the many questions surrounding the assassination. Cockburn famously wrote that it doesn't matter how Kennedy died, that he could have tripped on one of Caroline's dolls, and the end result would have had the same significance. As some kind of life-long Marxist, Cockburn, like Randy Shaw, was apparently offended ideologically by the notion that history could be made and/or changed by assassination. Instead ideology required that History be made by activists, grassroots movements, or the working class.

Obviously assassinations have changed history: the death of Lenin allowed Stalin's power grab; Stalin's murder of Trotsky, the assassinations of RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and JFK all changed history significantly. Both Kennedys had to die before Richard Nixon could become president.

Oliver Stone's fictionalized version of how JFK was killed is a lot more realistic than the Warren Commission's fantasy.

Labels: , , , , ,


At 9:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who do you think killed him? Based on the evidence I've seen I think LBJ paid off his Texas cronies. They should reinvestigate the case.

At 12:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob what is your plan to solve San Francisco's traffic problem we're the 3rd worst in the country:

At 1:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who killed Kennedy and why haven't we found them 50 years later? When will we know?

At 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been watching some of the archived CBS coverage of the events around Kennedy assassination. Here is a link to the coverage the hour after Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby where a young Dan Rather is interviewing an employee of Ruby's strip club and is told on the air that Oswald was seen there a couple days previously.
Dan Rather is speechless. The interview starts at around 12 minutes in.

And here is the coverage of the previous hour when the Oswald shooting was actually caught live on TV.

At 2:07 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, very interesting. But Crowe backtracked later (see pages 334-336 in the NY Times, Bantam paperback, single-volume edition of the Warren Commission report).

Dan Rather was one of the few people to see the Zapruder film before it was released years later and shown on network TV.

His account of the Zapruder film (YouTube "Dan Rather's account from November 25, 1963") gave a misleading account of the first two shots, except that, interestingly, he confirms the reality maintained by Warren Commission critics that Governor Connally was hit by a different bullet than the Magic Bullet theory assumes.

This is not a trivial matter, since the shot that hit Connally followed the previous shot so closely that it had to be by a different shooter, since the Commission did establish how quickly the bolt-action rifle could be fired---2.3 seconds.

Governor Connally and his wife insisted that he was hit by a separate bullet, though "Case Closed" author Gerald Posner tried to bully him into changing his story.

Two shooters means one big conspiracy.

The pure silliness of the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet account is still shocking: "The bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat..." (page 102). The drawing at the top of this post shows the Warren Commission's preposterous account, but, as the drawing shows, the alleged entry wound, from a shot fired from above, is six inches below the collar line and the alleged exit wound is at Kennedy's necktie knot! (Photos of Kennedy's jacket and shirt)

There is no bullet entrance wound anywhere near where it would need to be to exit his throat. In fact the throat wound was evidently an entrance wound that was obscured by a tracheotomy at the hospital and was described as such by Dr. Crenshaw at Parkland Hospital.

At 7:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So who killed him then?

At 10:18 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I don't know. Maybe somebody should make some kind of investigation to find out.

At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Vince said...

"It's hard to believe that they[government agencies] could pull off a plot as immense and risky as the murder of a president."

Considering that "they" pulled it off quite well in other countries up to that point (e.g., Iran, Guatemala, and Congo), and that "they" were the ones in charge of national security, it's hardly a stretch.

For a probing look the Kennedy assassination and the role of assassination in American history, check out:


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home