This was a far different country in 1963 than now. If you ax me, if somebody in the CIA wanted to whack an inconvenient politician TODAY, then yes, I might be inclined to think it might be true. But in 1963? Nope. Not going to buy it.
In 1963, it was very nearly impossible for a well-trained Soviet spy to get into the country undetected. Back then, we had a country. Today? There is nothing preventing jihadists from hijacking planes and running them into buildings. That happened in 2001, and most likely, WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. If the government actually did its job, and defended the borders, AS IT SHOULD HAVE, AND DID in 1963, then 9-11-2001 DOES NOT HAPPEN. These jihadists stick out like a sore thumb. No way they get by the 1963 national security apparatus. Another terrorist event is all but inevitable. Today's government thinks that patriots are the problem. It's all upside down. Today's government is dysfuntional. Probably criminally dysfunctional. In 1963, the country still worked. I believe it was still a basically decent country. Not so much today.
I've studied the Kennedy assassination. If there is a theory worth considering, I would consider it. But the idea that it was someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald who did it, doesn't seem likely at all. Also, the killing of Jack Ruby was intensively covered in Bugliosi's book. It is doubtful that anybody would have known to put Ruby in that position so that he could kill Oswald BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW WHEN Oswald was coming down. It would have had to been known in advance to Ruby, so that he could get there in time. He was literally in the right place at the right time. But to do so would have required some great coordination and communication. I find that unlikely. There were no cell phones back then. To communicate by radio would have required communication gear that would have been quite conspicuous. I used two way radios in the eighties. I think I would know something on the subject.
Sometimes funny things can happen. Just because it does, it doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy. If there was one, I would have been the first to say so. I found no evidence of one. Only those who want to believe this are inclined to believe it. But I have no dog in this hunt. I don't work for the CIA nor the government AT ALL. There's plenty of material out there to study. The matter has been covered ad nauseum.
Somebody is putting out bad info out there. But what do you do about it? You don't censor it. If there is free flow of information, then the truth can be discovered. Keeping secrets keeps alive the notion that something bad is being hidden. If that is really the case, then release the damned information. Somebody must want that information to remain secret, but it may not be for the reason that most folks would think. Perhaps those who are doing it want people to keep believing something that just isn't so.
I think Carlson got some folks panties in a knot with the J6th tapes. That is why he was fired. But if it isn't so, then just release the damned tapes, and we will all know. Firing him over some petty thing makes it look like they are hiding something. This may be true in this case. But it may not be true. Just release the damned tapes, and we will all know.
Censorship is not the ticket. Participating in it only fosters distrust. Perhaps some powerful individuals want there to be mistrust. In 1963, a lot of damned information was released about the Kennedy assassination. Enough was released to convince anybody who isn't peddling a phony theory to be convinced of the truth that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, and that Ruby probably killed Oswald for the reasons Ruby gave. It may seem implausible, but unless somebody has some evidence otherwise, that is what I am goint to think.
In 1963, the government worked. If things were held back, there may have been legitimate reasons. That's probably not true today. I grew up then. If you didn't grow up then, then you don't know what the country was like. All you know is what somebody tells you. Most folks today weren't even born when Kennedy was assassinated. Tucker Carlson wasn't, since he was born in 1969. If he said what was claimed, he has no first hand knowledge of what the country was like in 1963. He may be getting misled, but in any case, if he said it, it was probably wrong. He has a crediblilty issue on that count.
But if he's wrong, cite the evidence and show it. If he's right, then show the evidence. Otherwise, it is just a claim and counter claim. The censorship only heightens the suspicion. It may be the case thatCarlson didn't say that, but somebody may want to discredit him. Or Tucker Carlson could be wrong.
These days, who knows? You can't trust what you hear anymore, and that's the whole point.
No comments:
Post a Comment