An evil presence lives on

There's one more thing that I'd like to write about with respect to Bugliosi's "Reclaming History" book about the JFK Assassination. It is the one thing that rankled me the most. Bugliosi devotes an entire chapter about Jim Garrison's prosecution and Stone's movie about Garrison's work with respect to the assassination. The thing I want to note is that the movie was released in late December of 1991. This was on the very eve of an election year in which Bill Clinton won.

I believe there's a connection between the presidential election and that movie. That is what bothered me about it. The movie was propaganda intended to bring the Democrats back into power in 1992. At that time, they had lost 3 straight presidential elections. This is my belief, but I don't think the books mentioned anything about the election in that year. It so happens that Clinton used the imagery of his shaking the then president Kennedy's hand in his own campaign. I don't believe that this was any accident nor mere coincidence.

Perhaps I should leave it at that. The movie was made for no other purpose than to help Democrats regain the White House, and perhaps to provide some boost to one candidate in particular. The movie's release could have been in 1993, on the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination, but that wouldn't have had the impact. It wasn't a Presidential election year.

Bugliosi destroys the film's credibility. He also points out that Garrison himself had no credibility at all. Somehow, Stone restores some credibility to Garrison. However, none of this lasted. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The credibility of the film lasted long enough to affect the election, in my opinion. It has had effects that can be felt to this day.

There are still people who believe in the conspiracy theories. That is unfortunate. Stone may have had a right to make the film, and a right to express his views. But this film was anti-American in tone. There was no purpose at all in it but political. It added no new information nor any insights. But it deceived many. It probably still has some influence. This is not a good thing for America.

Given the Democrat's desperate plight in that election year, it is my theory that they sold their souls to the devil in order to win an election. Since that time, things are getting worse. The behavior is getting ingranined psychically. Garrison's behavior was outrageous. At least the people at that time recognized it. I'm not sure people would be so sensible today. Stone's behavior was even worse for bringing that discredited proesecutor back into some sort of respectability. The success of that may have been the reward that encouraged the bad behavior that continues to this day. The movie isn't truthful. Today's politics and culture reflects that descent into massive deceitfulness, and self-destructiveness that has plagued the country in recent years.

Simplicity

Simplicity

Can something that happened sixty years ago teach anything new? I'm still reading Bugliosi's book about the assassination of JFK. The interesting thing that jumps out at me is that they had all they needed to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the assassination within 24 hours of the event. Yet, sixty years later, there's still people out there who doubt what actually happened, and believe what didn't happen.

At this point, I'm reading about the Warren Commission. While reading, I decided that the Commission was totally unnecessary. Everything they needed to know was already known. Actually, the creation of the Commission may have done more harm than good. There's nothing that came from the Commission that silenced the people who wanted to believe that there was a conspiracy. There's nothing can ever satisfy these people. That's really the whole point. The creation of the Warren Commission was to end the talk about conspiracy. Instead, it seemed to add to it.

So, is there anything new to learn from it? I decided that simplicity was the only thing. If you've got the evidence you need to supply the facts of the event itself, that should have sufficed. The rest is left in the hands of God or fate, or whichever you believe guides the destiny of the human race.

Reading this far into the book, I think that there shouldn't have been any Warren Commission. If Earl Warren had his way, he wouldn't have been on it. J Edgar Hoover didn't want one. Chance are that nobody wanted one, except Lyndon Johnson.

Despite all this, the Warren Commission did a good job. But it made no difference to these people. As far as the investigation of the assassination itself, the Dallas Police did a good job. But that didn't seem to be enough. If you don't believe the facts in front of you, then what could possibly satisfy you?

I really don't need to read this book, but why am I? There has to be a reason for it. The reason is to determine why the obvious is constantly being denied. Is there something in the human race that won't allow people to see what is actually there, and insist upon believing what isn't?

Occam's Razor is about simplicity. The simplest explanation is the most likely one to be correct. The simplest explanation is that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, and he acted alone. The quest for the conspiracy leads nowhere. There is a lesson that can be applied across the board, it would seem. Not that people would actually follow that rule or anything. People wouldn't be people otherwise.

Bugliosi's book wasn't necessary either, nor is my reading of it. Or for that matter, my writing about it. So why write about it? A quest for something greater. Funny how the "greater" thing leads to the lesser thing like a principle of simplicity.

A few more thoughts on a recent subject

After writing that I wouldn't go back into the JFK assassination business, here I am again doing it. If I were to post anything about it, it wouldn't be the same as before. The facts are out there for anybody to consider, and come to their own conclusions. No need to belabor it.

After re-reading some of the narrative once again, something struck me. The Dallas Police sure did talk a lot about the investigation. In fact, I think they talked way the hell too much. They even got a call from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, to knock it off.

It makes me wonder if all this excessive talk about the case contributed to the additional tragedy of Oswald himself being murdered. Without this element, the talk of conspiracy wouldn't have had much of a leg to stand on.

Oswald was being tried in the media. That should not have happened. His face was being plastered all over the place, and his name was on everybody's lips. There was no way this could have been presented to a jury that had no knowledge of him at all. In other words, Oswald could easily claim that he couldn't get a fair trial. Even worse, there were a lot of people who wanted him dead. There were death threats. It shouldn't be too surprising that he did get murdered.

There was a media circus inside of the Dallas Police Station. That shouldn't have happened either. Make what you will of that, but I say that there was plenty of incompetence in those days. The incompetence made things much, much worse.