Response to Robert Stone re "Oswald's Ghost"
I just saw this today:
1) No reputable conspiracy theorists think there was a large group of people who knew what happened in the Kennedy assassination. Most of us have evidence that a small group of people controlled the conspiracy and cover-up. Now, many hundreds, including major voices in the media, aided and abetted the cover-up, but most of them did not know that's what they were doing, and believed what the government told them to be the truth. The media owners, rather than admit their folly, stubbornly simply refuse to look at or examine in depth the proof of conspiracy and the people to which the evidence points.
2) Re the comment that 'someone would have come forward,' ahem, many HAVE. The list is long, and some of the witnesses are highly credible. Several CIA people have said look, the CIA was behind this. Other CIA people refute them, but given that the CIA hires people who can lie well, are their denials to be believed? If the CIA wasn't involved with the plot, why would a CIA employee make up such a horrible lie? On the other hand, if the CIA WAS involved in the plot, it makes perfect sense that CIA employees would rush to defend their employer, even if they had to lie to do so. Indeed, CIA director Richard Helms lied to Congress and told the press afterwards that he wore his perjury charge as a "badget of honor." Yet this is the guy whose employees you believe, while you discount and discredit the private citizens who have nothing to gain by lying. And don't even try to tell me they're in it for the money. With only a couple of exceptions, researchers make nothing by telling the truth about the assassination. Been there, done that, got the torn T-shirt.
3) You say the message to citizens is to give up. FALSE. The message researchers give, if you attended any conferences on the subject, is that people need to get MUCH MORE INVOLVED, must press for and demand the truth, and not just about the Kennedy assassination. Many of us understand that by not insisting on the truth about who killed Kennedy, the public made possible the lies that led us to war in Iraq. Where there is no accountability, criminal behavior will only increase. Had we pressed for the truth and held the perpetrators responsible, there's no way we'd be in Iraq at this time. History would have traversed a very different path.
I'm sure I'll have much more to say when this obvious piece of propaganda hits the airwaves. I am not looking forward to it. There are more important things to discuss at this time. But any time someone tries to make liars of truth-tellers, I'll be there, defending the wronged people.
Stone has looked into this for how long? If he'd HONESTLY looked into this for any length of time, he'd be making a documentary showing how the media helped cover up the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. On the other hand, his talking points sound like they come right out of this CIA memo, so who knows whose agenda Stone really serves. The question that interests me is simply this: is Stone a witting or unwitting asset?
Stone told the San Francisco Chronicle (October 11): "The belief that there are powerful unseen forces in this country — well, it's true that there are powerful unseen forces — but the idea that these people are so efficient and together and work in such perfect synchronicity that for 40 years they could cover it up, and have no one ever step forward — is beyond belief. [The conspiracy theory] is believed by the majority of the American public. What you are really saying is the average person is powerless — it's a message to not think, to not get involved, and, frankly, it's kind of a copout. It gives people an excuse to not act if someone else is running things. It's a distorted view of history." [Source]No, Mr. Stone. You are so wrong.
1) No reputable conspiracy theorists think there was a large group of people who knew what happened in the Kennedy assassination. Most of us have evidence that a small group of people controlled the conspiracy and cover-up. Now, many hundreds, including major voices in the media, aided and abetted the cover-up, but most of them did not know that's what they were doing, and believed what the government told them to be the truth. The media owners, rather than admit their folly, stubbornly simply refuse to look at or examine in depth the proof of conspiracy and the people to which the evidence points.
2) Re the comment that 'someone would have come forward,' ahem, many HAVE. The list is long, and some of the witnesses are highly credible. Several CIA people have said look, the CIA was behind this. Other CIA people refute them, but given that the CIA hires people who can lie well, are their denials to be believed? If the CIA wasn't involved with the plot, why would a CIA employee make up such a horrible lie? On the other hand, if the CIA WAS involved in the plot, it makes perfect sense that CIA employees would rush to defend their employer, even if they had to lie to do so. Indeed, CIA director Richard Helms lied to Congress and told the press afterwards that he wore his perjury charge as a "badget of honor." Yet this is the guy whose employees you believe, while you discount and discredit the private citizens who have nothing to gain by lying. And don't even try to tell me they're in it for the money. With only a couple of exceptions, researchers make nothing by telling the truth about the assassination. Been there, done that, got the torn T-shirt.
3) You say the message to citizens is to give up. FALSE. The message researchers give, if you attended any conferences on the subject, is that people need to get MUCH MORE INVOLVED, must press for and demand the truth, and not just about the Kennedy assassination. Many of us understand that by not insisting on the truth about who killed Kennedy, the public made possible the lies that led us to war in Iraq. Where there is no accountability, criminal behavior will only increase. Had we pressed for the truth and held the perpetrators responsible, there's no way we'd be in Iraq at this time. History would have traversed a very different path.
I'm sure I'll have much more to say when this obvious piece of propaganda hits the airwaves. I am not looking forward to it. There are more important things to discuss at this time. But any time someone tries to make liars of truth-tellers, I'll be there, defending the wronged people.
Stone has looked into this for how long? If he'd HONESTLY looked into this for any length of time, he'd be making a documentary showing how the media helped cover up the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. On the other hand, his talking points sound like they come right out of this CIA memo, so who knows whose agenda Stone really serves. The question that interests me is simply this: is Stone a witting or unwitting asset?
posted by Real History Lisa at 11:47 PM - Permanent Link -
5 Comments:
Re the comment that 'someone would have come forward,' ahem, many HAVE.
Numb3rs, the only show on TV I make an effort to watch, made that point in an episode [Brutus] last season.
And oh by the way, Ridley Scott [Blade Runner] and Tony Scott [Enemy of the State] are the Producers of Numb3rs.
So take heart Lisa. Thanks to you and others the actual facts of the case keep gaining traction. Keep up the good work.
Matthew, I LOVE the show NUMB3RS. Well written, and they love to sneak in real history.
I saw an episode in which a JFK Jr. type from Latin America was assassinated to prevent him coming to power to do good. I loved the boldness of that. I think because they were a Friday night show, the least-watched night, they were allowed to go places others wouldn't dare.
If you know any of the people on the show, please give them my regards!
Lisa,
there are many fascinating parallels between the assassination of JFK and the events of September 11 2001, not least of which is the claim by defenders of the official story that "hundreds must have been involved"; (when only a small number need actully have been directly involved); "why have no whistleblowers come forward" (when of course they have); the extent to which the media are complicit in the cover up by refusing to face the evidence etc. Peter Dale Scott has an excellent article on these parallels in the Journal of 9/11 Studies which I commend to you and your readers.
What about the death bed confession of Howard Hunt implicating the main players in Kennedy's assassination?
Hunt's confession sure seems a more plausible explanation to me more than the work of one person out to seek fame.
http://www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htm
I don't believe LBJ was involved in the assassination at all, but it's clear he helped with the cover-up. I believe he bought the original story line the CIA was selling - that Oswald was a Soviet agent and that finding a conspiracy might mean having to go to nuclear war with the Soviets. I've researched the case for 15 years and I've found no credible evidence that LBJ had prior involvement though. And Hunt hated the Democrats. It would be just like him to give a 3/4 confession and then try to pin it as an internecine war between Democrats in the end. I believe that is a false narrative. In later years, LBJ told his chief of staff he believed the CIA was behind the assassination. I still think that's the case most defendable in light of the evidence that has come to light.
Post a Comment
<< Home