Some of the people who know me and love me thought I needed to feed my brain on something different from politics, or, at least, something not strictly about politics. For Christmas, I received 11/22/63 by Steven King and The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. I have now consumed both of them.
Here’s a description of The Swerve:
Nearly six hundred years ago, a short, genial, cannily alert man in his late thirties took a very old manuscript off a library shelf, saw with excitement what he had discovered, and ordered that it be copied. That book was the last surviving manuscript of an ancient Roman philosophical epic, On the Nature of Things, by Lucretius — a beautiful poem of the most dangerous ideas: that the universe functioned without the aid of gods, that religious fear was damaging to human life, and that matter was made up of very small particles in eternal motion, colliding and swerving in new directions.
The copying and translation of this ancient book-the greatest discovery of the greatest book-hunter of his age-fueled the Renaissance, inspiring artists such as Botticelli and thinkers such as Giordano Bruno; shaped the thought of Galileo and Freud, Darwin and Einstein; and had a revolutionary influence on writers such as Montaigne and Shakespeare and even Thomas Jefferson.
The poem of Lucretius almost disappeared like so many other books of antiquity.
Meanwhile, Steven King imagines what it would be like to go back in time to 1958 and to try to save President Kennedy’s life. How would you go about it? What might stand in your way? And what might be the consequences? You have five years to accomplish your task.
So, I’ve been neglecting my blogging duties while I contemplated threads of time and alternate universes and how I would have gone about writing King’s novel much differently, but never with as much skill.
I’m back now, and my brain’s fed, if a little off-kilter.
How to save JFK? I would make friends with Ruth Paine 40 years sooner than I did. I think that could work.
Not a bad idea. But how would that tell you if Oswald was the only shooter or if he was a patsy or if killing him would solve the problem?
I believe he acted alone, so fantasizing under that assumption.
I’m curious: Is psychic Jeanne Dixon mentioned in King’s book? My grandmother was a big fan of Dixon and other psychics, wrote to them, bought their crap, etc. Dixon supposedly predicted trouble for JFK in Dallas.
In the middle of the civil rights movement, JFK going to a Texas city that was loaded with John Birchers. In a gun-happy state (though maybe not as much as some states today). It doesn’t take a psychic to predict some sort of vague “trouble” in Dallas.
You’re right about Dallas and how it didn’t take a true psychic to know beforehand that that city had a rep for being the center of far right politics and hatred. Just in October the month before, Adlai Stevenson, JFK’s UN Ambassador, had been surrounded and hit on the head by an angry crowd of extremists though presumably that had more to do with Kennedy’s perceived pro-commie FP and not civil rights. He and Sen Humphrey among others tried to persuade JFK not to make the trip precisely because of the physical risk.
Odd though that with all that knowledge about the dicey nature of the city that Kennedy’s security that day in Dallas was extraordinarily lax as evidenced by nearly all the basic SS procedures for protecting a president being absent that day. Open windows in buildings that should have been sealed shut, no SS on the running boards of the presidential limo, the remarkable way the SS driver drove slowly — even slowing down further after the first shots — going against all training and common sense, the way all the eight SS agents in the follow up car failed to react except one. DPD motorcycle cops riding well back behind the limo, and Dallas Sheriffs being told to “stand down” wrt providing real security.
My how that alleged lone nut Oswald got lucky that day with the lack of the usual comprehensive protection of the president..
For those who are interested in real facts and something closer to the truth, read Mark Lane’s new book Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK. If you prefer fantasy, Stevie King is your guy.
Yah think?
Judging the past by current standards is always hazardous. The mood of the country could not envision the possibility of assassination of a President in 1963. The only Presidential assassination most folks knew about was that of Lincoln. Garfield and McKinley were not high-profile figure in 1960s America.
And Presidents don’t like to have too visible security; politically, it communicates unpopularity.
A lot of what we take for granted today as SOP was not the case in 1963. Because they are changes that were made in response to the assassination of JFK.
One could make a lot of money writing counter-intuitive books in the late sixties. There was a lot that was corrupt, dishonest, and hidden. Mark Lane essentially created the publishing industry around the JFK Assassination.
In fact, we do not and probably will not ever know the truth. Speculative narratives can be more or less credble alternative explanations of what happened. But folks who know the truth have been either silent or have been silenced by murder or old age.
We know too many folks with motives. LBJ was ambitious. Connally was a segregationist who became a Republican. The CIA was pissed about the Bay of Pigs. No doubt the counterparts of PNAC on the issue of Vietnam were concerned that Kennedy would withdraw troops. Likely there were a few angry Mafia bosses either because of RFK’s pressure on organized crime or any of the Kennedy’s romantic exploits. (The Mafia btw were shielded by J. Edgar Hoover, who enjoyed the perks of fine dining at Mafia-owned establishments.) There were enough gun-toting segregationists and John Birchers in Dallas smart enough to figure out how to do something on their own turf independent of other groups. The Soviet government and its KGB were not happy with the results of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Fidel Castro was not happy about the Bay of Pigs plot.
And any of these groups could have formed a discreet coalition. And there are multiple patterns in which that could occur. And the evidence trail crisscrosses among groups.
But lurking behind the accusation that it was the CIA is the anxiety that Presidents are being constrained in their pursuit of international peace by the institutional interest of the CIA and the military. Now broadened to include the entire national security establishment–public and private contractor. Which is why it is time to rethink our entire national security institutions — something not done in 64 years.
That is more important than debating a 48-year-old historical event.
Re security there were the fairly recent in time attempts on the life of pres-elect FDR in late 1932 and against Truman in 1950. The SS and other agencies charged with protecting the president would have been much more keenly aware and focused on potential dangers regardless of the complacent mood of the civilian population, as they seemed to have been in the Kennedy presidency except, curiously, for the Dallas trip.
See Abraham Bolden’s recent memoir ( he the first black agent assigned — by JFK himself — to the WH detail of the SS) for inside info about the rampant racism inside the WH SS and how Bolden once overheard WH agents negatively discussing JFK and how they would definitely not take any bullets for him.
Re who did it, you fail to note who had the power to diminish the security so effectively and also effectively cover up the crime later both as to the govt and media. Very unlikely the Mafia had such power and influence but the CIA would. And the foreign suspects angle is ridiculous and very wrong especially as to the Soviets and Khrushchev whose relations with JFK actually grew closer following the near disaster of the missile crisis (see James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable). Ie both sides were actually beginning a detente process; ditto with JFK and a willing Castro seeking a new beginning in 1963.
Re your final line I don’t think it should ever be too late to get the history right, as if there should be some arbitrary time constraint or socially imposed statute of limitations in the study of history after which historical consensus is set in stone and sealed from further inquiry because we have more important things to attend to. Solid historians are still battling over whether the Lincoln assassination was a simple or grand conspiracy possibly involving direction from the Confederate govt in Richmond and that debate largely is the result of sleuthing work and analysis by several independent researchers in te 1980s who were never satisfied withe the official story of a simple conspiracy.
Whether it’s 48 or 148 years later we should never settle for less than getting our history essentially correct. The Kennedy assassination however remains an uncorrected official Big Lie.
“Reclaiming History”. It will open your eyes to just how full of shit Mark Lane and all the other conspiracy nuts really are.
All the evidence points to Oswald and not a shred points anywhere else.
I came across that book by Vincent Bugliosi today when I was researching the reversed frames in the Warren Report. His explanation was the most disingenuous thing I think I’ve ever seen.
He said no one would have made the switch because, on film, such a switch would seem to confirm two shots, coming from different directions.
But the film was safely embargoed for twelve years and was never expected to be seen. The purpose of the switch was for the readers of the Warren Commission report, and it was clear evidence that the people who published the report didn’t want the public to see the headsnap accurately.
Hoover testified that it was a printing error and the actual report had the frames in the correct order, but that was also beside the point. All that mattered was what the public saw.
I look for evidence of a cover-up, and I gave you three glaring examples.
There’s another.
The guy who headed up the congressional investigation in the 1970’s was flabbergasted when he found out who Joannides really was and that he had snookered him. He now believes the CIA cannot be believed in even the smallest way concerning the assassination.
Read some of this. Particularly, the interview with Morley.
Bugliosi goes into a very long discussion of Morley in the endnotes which are on a CD that comes with the book.
Bugliosi’s explanation about the reversed frames actually makes perfect sense. Anyone seeing the frames in the wrong order would conclude that there HAD to be a conspiracy because two shots would have had to be fired in much less than one second. You’re saying that they tampered with the evidence to make their own premise seem implausible. That makes no sense.
Jesus.
No one actually made that argument in the twelve years that people had to look at the Warren Commission report. They are still photos. You can look at them all day long and they won’t make you conclude that two shots hit the president’s head.
Let me put this another way so that I am sure you understand it.
The Warren Report reversed the two most critical frames in the Zapruder film. Not random frames. The two that show impact and reaction.
Okay, that’s suspicious.
What was the result?
For twelve years 1964-1975, the American people thought his head went forward as if it had been hit from behind.
Then people saw the film and they were so outraged that Congress had to reopen the investigation, because very few people can watch that film and think that the bullet came from behind. It doesn’t look that way.
Then this Vincent guys comes along and says, “Why would they switch it. If they switched the frames and you watched the film that way, it would make it look like confirmation of two separate shots.”
But, of course, they didn’t switch the frames on the film. They switched them in the prints published in the Warren Report that the whole nation read.
We weren’t ever supposed to see the film.
When we did, we didn’t believe the official story.
To be even more, laboriously clear, the switch in the report worked precisely as you would expect. People didn’t question the direction of the shot. They questioned the speed at which the gun could be fired, but they didn’t say the photos proved a second gunman or a second nearly simultaneous shot. That’s because Vincent’s argument is ludicrous.
Vincent Bugliosi’s book is 900 pages long with another 900 pages of endnotes. He goes into the assassination more deeply than anyone ever has. Read the whole fucking book.
You’ve got a conspiracy fixation here. What you don’t have, AT ALL, is evidence. Give me a shooter – give me a location – give me a weapon – give me spent shell casings – give me bullets.
You can’t provide any single one of those things.
I can provide you with all of them. And they’re all Oswald.
we’re discussing his argument, which is disingenuous in the extreme.
Whenever this subject comes up, you always chime in in favor of the lone gunman scenario, which is fine.
But you then refuse to address anything people say and always fall back on “read this 900 page book.”
And then you just stop being responsive, which is what you did with the last comment.
My point in bringing up a single incidence of V.B. being disingenuous is that is raises doubts about his credibility and his treatment of evidence.
You don’t respond to what I’m saying. It’s like that game kids play where they put their fingers in their ears and say that they can’t hear you.
Here’s what I work with.
If you want one piece of evidence, how about my own lyin’ eyes?
Do you have any explanations for why these things happened, or are you just going to tell me to read V.G.’s book. After all, I already told you that I don’t find him very credible.
of a huge investigation and saying “see, this bit is suspicious so the whole thing must be wrong”. You are refusing to look at the totality of the case. If your only “evidence” is what you see as the head snap in the Zapruder film, that’s pretty feeble. There is a well known neurological reaction to brain injury that could easily have caused that motion – it’s been demonstrated with a goat in a video I’d frankly rather forget.
As to the CIA, Bugliosi himself says that they are their own worst enemy – covering stuff up for no good reason.
Again, read the book.
And, who is V. G.?
Here’s a review of his book.
You just some of the respect I had for you. Gary Aguilar is one of the nuttiest of the conspiracy nuts.
Where does he point to a single, solitary piece of evidence against anyone but Oswald?
You’re supporting speculation and ignoring facts.
I enjoyed King’s book very much, but it was dissatisfying in one respect. It focused almost exclusively on Oswald. This is the same approach that Mailer used. It’s what most people who believe in the lone gunman theory used. They want to know if Oswald was the kind of guy who would do such a thing, and what we can learn from his associations. Well, Oswald definitely could have done it, even if the speed of the shots is troubling. He was the kind of guy who would kill the president.
But that’s not really the point.
For me, there are three glaring things that stand out.
What this tells me is that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City, and that the administration was vastly more concerned about making sure Oswald was perceived as solo operator than they were in establishing the truth. Given that a nuclear holocaust was a possibility, I can certainly understand, but it would be a major miracle if the story the Warren Commission told the world just happened to correspond to the truth.
I’ve never pretended to know exactly what happened. When I look at the Zapruder film, it does not look like the headshot came from the rear. Period. But that could be some weird illusion. I don’t know. The Warren Commission obviously agreed, since they reversed the order of the stills. And Oswald could still be the shooter, perhaps one of two that fired that day. Or he could be a patsy who thought he was going to be doing some other mission or handing of the gun to someone, or who knows?
What I don’t believe is the official story, because the Warren Commission wasn’t under orders to find the truth.
Thoughtful post and I agree with much of it except in a few respects.
Oswald: I don’t believe at all he was “the kind of guy who could kill the president.” The Warren Comm’n and FBI never established credibly that Oswald had any special strong or violent animus against Kennedy whereas there was evidence to the contrary from several who knew him that he actually admired and even identified with JFK (father of two young children like Lee, husband of young attractive wife) while he also generally approved of te president’s policies. His post assassination behavior before the press in strenuously denying killing Kennedy only buttresses the view that he was pro-Kennedy and it certainly wasn’t consistent with an assassin killing for political or personal motives.
His far lefty pro -commie public exterior was likely an intel ruse and cover as he almost certainly was being groomed during his time in the Marines — where he openly spouted Russian pro-commie political language with impunity during the height of the cold war — to become an intel agent.
With no motive and no credible evidence that he hated JFK let alone hated him sufficiently to actually kill him, it just isn’t the case that he was clearly capable of killing the president even apart from the issue of his having earned a laughable rep in the Marines for very poor marksmanship following the mandatory rifle range tests they all had to take.
Re your point #2 above, recall also that the Z film as a film — clearly showing the brutal backward headsnap — was withheld from the larger public (apart from some poor bootleg copies shown to a few college audiences) for nearly 12 years until finally an independent researcher (Rbt Groden) was allowed to show it on national tv — albeit at one o’clock in the morning — on the Geraldo Rivera Goodnight America show in 1975. Prior to that the public had to guess at or infer the head movement with only the still photos Life Magazine owned and which film Time-Life refused to allow to be shwn on tv in its original film form (though I’m unaware that any of the three tv networks ever complained about this unusual suppression of information). It was actually this first showing of the film late at night that led directly to Congress re-opening the case in 1976 (House Select Committee on Assassinations).
A mountain of evidence.
Anyone else: ZERO evidence.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."No doubt, that’s not the issue for me. In my mind, the JFK assassination is linked to Dixon because of my grandma — who believed in Dixon’s "powers" in large part because of Dixon’s claims to have predicted it. Later in the sixties, I had health problems and she corresponded with Dixon and sent her money to "pray" about me, telling who knows what details about me in the process. I was furious about it. So it’s personal.
the book is about 1,000 pages long, but I don’t remember any psychics.
.
Jean Dixon foresaw PermGov …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."And was this event recorded before or after November 22, 1963?
It doesn’t take much to get from Eisenhower’s military-industrial-complex speech (still reverberating in the 1960s) to what Dixon describes.
Canny and intuitive political analyst, maybe. But retroactive prophecy doesn’t count.
The date of the recovery of Lucretius’s poem is 1417. Here’s some zeitgeist for you, courtesy of Wikipedia: