America's Great Mystery

First, watch Oliver Stone's film about the Kennedy assassination, JFK. Then read this:

Human beings love a good mystery. Something about us is hopelessly drawn toward the unexplained, the suspicious, and the dramatic. This helps explain our endless fascination with the assassination of our 35th president, John F. Kennedy. Talk about a good mystery. This fateful event on November 22, 1963, has all the trappings of a good, unsolved mystery. But is it really unsolved? Oliver Stone would say so, and he does in his 1991 film, JFK. Stone attempts to disprove the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, by implicating several agencies and branches of the federal government (among others) in the conspiracy that killed our president. It’s certainly an exciting story. It’s also all wrong.

The film JFK begins with President Eisenhower’s farewell address, warning Americans against the dangers of the Military-Industrial complex. It then shows us a few seconds of an interview of President Kennedy, in which he says (of the Vietnamese), “In the end, it’s their war to fight, not ours”. These words establish the political backdrop of the entire film (and the motives behind Kennedy’s assassination): the notion that Kennedy was killed because he was going to end the Vietnam War in his second term. This is most certainly false.

First of all, if one could see just a few more seconds of the very clip Stone shows us at the beginning of the film, one would hear Kennedy rule out any chance of withdrawal in the near future. Stone’s entire portrayal of JFK’s politics is interesting, but not very on the mark. In the film, he’s a noble progressive that was “soft on Communism” and popular, a bad enough combination that the Federal Government had him killed. In reality, Kennedy was a cold warrior who firmly believed in the Domino Theory and had no intention of pulling out of Vietnam completely in his second term. He told Walter Cronkite in September 1963, “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw”, later adding, “We are not there to see a war lost.” Kennedy “felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam, and that we should win the war.” His brother Bobby (who knew him better than anyone) backed this up on several occasions too. When he was asked if his brother ever thought about pulling out, he simply replied, “no.”

President Kennedy was actually conservative in several ways, which is contrary to Stone’s imagine of Kennedy. Examine his voting record as a congressman (or his appointing of Segregationalist Southerners as Federal judges) indicates. President Kennedy didn’t have the intentions that Stone claims got him killed by his own government.

Most of this theory (this movie-truth) is disclosed to Garrison in the film by the mysterious Black-Ops agent, “X”. This meeting in Washington never occurred, and this person never existed. He is loosely based off of former Air Force colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was the director of special operations at the Pentagon in the early 1960’s. However, this man is a prominent conspiracy theorist to this day, and is unable to produce any evidence to back up any of his claims.

Nevertheless, in the film, “X” implicates several departments and branches of the Federal Government in the conspiracy to kill the president, including the CIA, FBI, the Dallas constabulary, all three armed services, Big Business, and the White House itself!

No evidence is needed to refute these claims, just simple common sense. It’s hard to get a room full of people working in the government to agree on almost anything. This film suggests not only that all these government agencies were perfectly coordinated in their carrying out of an assassination (another laugh), but that everybody was completely on board. Not a single person got cold feet? Not a single person came forward? Not a single person didn’t think it was perfectly reasonable to kill the commander in chief?

Examine, for a moment, a well-known, actual government conspiracy: Watergate. This conspiracy, the bugging of the offices of the Democratic National Convention, involved far fewer men (not the dozens/hundreds of men that knew across the government according to Stone, but rather President Nixon’s “plumbers”) and much lower stakes (partisan political purposes, not the taking of a life). Yet this smaller, more tightly-wound conspiracy had leaks all over the place. John Dean wrote a letter to Judge Sirica before his sentencing, telling him everything in an attempt to get out of doing time. Alexander Butterfield blurted to the FBI the existence of the taping system in the Oval Office. And what about Bernstein’s contact in the FBI, “Deep Throat”. These are just a few examples of the many holes Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy had, when the number of men involved was much less than Stone alleges and the stakes were much lower than murdering the President of the United States. In fact, these guys were on the side of the President of the United States! Yet Stone expects us to believe that no one cracked at the time. No one thought it was a bad idea, and no one got scarred and backed out. Everything went perfectly.

Also, if no one talked at the time of the assassination, someone most certainly would have by now. We can once again examine the Watergate conspiracy here. One of the few remaining mysteries in the 21st century surrounding the entire chain of events was the identity of Bernstein’s FBI informant, “Deep Throat”. But he came forward in 200(6?), cashing in on the story to support his family. With a controversy as wide-spread and popular as the assassination of President Kennedy (especially after its comeback with Stone’s film), it’s unrealistic to believe that not a single person came forward with evidence of a conspiracy, were Stone right. Someone wouldn’t have been able to resist the temptation to become an instant millionaire by telling their story. The temptation to case in would have been too great.

A good way to tell when someone doesn’t really care about the truth is when they change their story/reasoning to come to the same conclusion. The friend who comes up with different political arguments everyday to prove their party’s righteousness. The judge who comes up with different legal reasoning to reach the same conclusion no matter what the legal retorts. In this case, the D.A. who changes almost everything about a conspiracy theory to prove there is one, in light of varying evidence to the contrary. Every time Garrison encountered a road block in his pursuit of “the truth”, he simply would find another route toward his intended destination (conspiracy).

Stone is once again off the mark in this area. Movie Garrison’s motives are pure. He’s a noble, American patriot after the truth of a “secret murder at the heart of the American dream.” The film shows us the result of Garrison’s search, a single conclusion. Real life Garrison’s conclusions shifted and mutated throughout the years. Originally in March of 1967, Garrison called the assassination a “homosexual thrill killing.” He told the American people to “look at the people involved. David Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual. And then there’s Oswald…a switch-hitter who couldn’t satisfy his wife.” This theory evolved though, as the scope of conspirators widened to include anti-Castro forces, the CIA, and even the Nazis. Stone’s portrayal of Garrison’s theory included three assassins set up at various locations to ensure the president’s death. Garrison’s actual (eventual) theory proved to be too crazy for Stone, and included sixteen sharpshooters at five different locations! There’s no evidence of any of this, which is most certainly the reason for Garrison’s mutating theory.

Garrison never discredited the Zapruder film itself, calling it (in Stone’s film) “the evidence the government never counted on”. However, everything that’s recently been discovered from the footage has backed up even more what the Warren Commission found, and so modern Conspiracy theorists now implicate the film itself in the conspiracy! More than enough evidence that these people care not about the truth, but about their truth. Any and all evidence backing up the other side is just part of a cover up as far as they’re concerned.

So what of the actual event itself, the assassination. Plenty of people were there that fateful day in November. Some were there to see the president drive by. Some were in the area to buy the Beatles second album. But a lot of people saw a lot of things in the confusion, none of which can be considered evidence. People, after all, aren’t their most rational, reasonable, or perceptive in times of panic and crises, and this was certainly that for everyone present (the same was true for those leaving Fort William Henry when the massacre occurred).

Stone’s film exhibits several eye-witnesses that saw a lot of suspicious things during the assassination (men running away from their supposed locations during the shooting, homeless people who didn’t look homeless at all). These are all actual eye witnesses, but what they witnessed (or more accurately, what they say they witnessed) must be doubted not only because of the madness of the moment, but the obvious motivation one would have to be a witness to such a conspiracy (the attention one would get). A look at the body of people who did come forward would turn up some characters, like a man wearing a toga and sandals, claiming to be Julius Caesar.

Stone’s film also ignores all the eye witnesses who back up the findings of the Warren Commission, such as the people on the fifth floor of the Book Depository who heard shells his the ceiling during the assassination (right where Oswald is alleged to have been). People (in the calm of the moment the morning of the assassination) also saw Oswald enter the building with a large container, which clearly concealed a rifle. During the mayhem, people also saw a man with a rifle in the very place Oswald is alleged to have been, such as others saw men on the grassy knoll. Neither is evidence, but the film makes a huge fuss out of some of these eye witnesses and ignores entirely others.

According to the film, the assassination lasted under six seconds, and therefore one man couldn’t possibly have gotten three rounds out. That’s a very deliberate way of measuring the time though, as the Warren Commission found the assassination to take over eight seconds, giving Oswald more than enough time to get all three shots in.

The most controversial finding of the Warren Commission is undoubtedly the “Magic Bullet” theory. Stone’s film shows us in detail what this theory consists of, as Garrison traces (for the jury, and the audience) the ridiculous route the bullet would had to have taken, if you believe the Warren Commission. But this isn’t an accurate representation of the Warren Commission’s findings at all. The actual theory is less far-fetched. Furthermore, scientists have subsequently proven that it’s possible that Kennedy and Connally were positioned in such a way so that a single bullet could have done everything the Warren Commission claims it did.

The bullets found at the scene were all fired from the same rifle, the rifle that Oswald is believed to have fired. Overwhelming ballistic evidence confirms this, despite what the film would have you believe.

The trial sequence of the film also greatly emphasizes the direction Kennedy’s head moved when hit by the fatal shot: back and to the left (back and to the left, back and to the left, back…). According to movie Garrison, this proves the shot came from the front somewhere. But if you actually watch the Zapruder film, the head doesn’t go fully back at all. In fact, frame 313 clearly shows us that some brain matter flew forward, suggesting the shooter was behind Kennedy.

The film also argues that Jack Ruby was the conspirator’s hitman who was given the task of taking care of their “patsy” Oswald, tying off any loose ends. A couple aspects of Oswald’s murder (that Stone chooses not to show us) make this very unlikely. Firstly, there’s postal inspector Harry Holmes surprise interrogation of Oswald. He was going to church with his family on the Sunday after Kennedy’s assassination, but at the last second decided to head over to the police station to help with the investigation. He was allowed by his polices buddies to ask Oswald any questions he had, and this delayed Oswald’s transfer for thirty minutes. During this extra thirty minute period, Ruby was at Western Union, as a time stamp on a money order indicates. Had Holmes just gone to church on that Sunday instead of deciding at the last minute to help out his friends with the investigation, then the transfer would have happened half an hour earlier and Ruby would have missed all of it (as he was at the bank). If Ruby was the hitman put in charge of murdering Oswald, then he most certainly would have been down at the station half an hour earlier when Oswald was supposed to be transferred.

Jack Ruby was also a bit out of touch himself. Earl Warren (among others) was convinced of his insanity. He gave various reasons, like protecting Jackie Kennedy from going through a trial. Ruby had mental health issues for a while, and was reported to have seen demons in his jail cell.

Another major source of controversy is Kennedy’s corpse and the autopsy. Stone’s film shows us that the body was quickly moved out of Dallas (against the wishes of local law enforcement) to a more secure location, where a more controlled autopsy could be conducted. This is true, except the film includes the obvious implication that the body was transfered so the government could tamper with the evidence. The reality of the transfer lies with the Kennedy family’s insistence that it take place, so they could better control the findings of the autopsy and preserve certain family secrets (like the various health problems JFK had that were kept secret).

The film asserts that the entire autopsy was really conducted by the military, who rushed the neutral doctors through the proceedings to avoid any unpleasant findings. There’s no evidence of this. Actually, former President Ford tells us that nineteen out of twenty doctors put in charge of the autopsy concluded that all the bullet wounds came from behind. The twentieth doctor asserts that a fourth shot hit Kennedy’s head and disintegrated, leaving no evidence behind whatsoever. This twentieth doctor was consulted regularly for the film, and none of the other nineteen.

It’s conspicuous that several crucial pieces of evidence from the autopsy have gone missing or have been destroyed, as the film is quick to point out. It is true that some notes are missing, as well as Kennedy’s brain. There’s still no evidence this was part of any conspiracy; it was just a confusing and rushed procedure.

Garrison also asks us during the trial (in the film) why the photographs from the autopsy haven’t been released, suggesting they’d tell us something the government doesn’t want us to know. Earl Warren’s explanation though is perfectly reasonable and fitting with the time. He talked about how sick and disturbing the photographs were to him. He said “they were so horrible that I could not sleep well for nights.” This is also the reason the Zapruder film was released decades after the assassination: it was believed to be too gruesome for the public to see at the time. The general thought was, why would any healthy person want to see such a thing? They wouldn’t, Earl Warren (and others) believed.

Stone’s film frames the Warren Commission as part of the conspiracy, the government’s attempt to convince the public they’d investigated the assassination. Earl Warren himself laughed at this idea, saying (something along the lines of) “The crazy notion that Gerald Ford and I could agree on anything should disprove any conspiracy theory out there.” This is very true: these were two very different men who disagreed on just about everything. It’s very unlikely they could have been in on anything together.

Earl Warren was also outspoken about the accuracy and reliability of the Commission’s findings. He went to his grave convinced that history would look at their conclusions kindly.

Let us look for a moment at a couple main characters in this whole controversy. Stone’s film portrays Lee Harvey Oswald as what he claimed he was, a “patsy”. But an actual look at his psychological record indicates that he was a very mentally unbalanced man who had even tried to shoot someone before that day in November. The movie Garrison also talks about how terrible a shot Oswald was. Simply not true: Oswald won awards in the military for his sharpshooting.

The film’s portrayal of Jim Garrison is also incredibly misleading. Kevin Costner’s plays Jim Garrison as a noble, patriotic, American hero who will let nothing stop him in his pursuit of the truth. He’s an inspiring and relatable man who we all aspire to be, and his motives and methods are always pure and above question. This portrayal ignores the many allegations in real life against Garrison of bullying witnesses or suppressing polygraphs. He also (as is discussed above) changed his story quite a bit. He was a pretty strange man, and had little in common with the movie Garrison.

Here’s the bottom line: no evidence has ever been able to disprove any of the Warren Commission’s findings, despite what Oliver Stone’s film asserts again and again (always incorrectly). Stone, in his film, does exactly what former President Ford calls it in his Washington Post piece: he “cover[s] up the overwhelming weight of the evidence and instead paste[s] together scraps of testimony to form a case for conspiracy in an attempt to cover up the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.”

All of that said, JFK is a phenomenally well-done movie in it’s design, execution, and performance. Stone’s exceptional weaving of real and fake footage takes everyone along for the ride, and an enticing ride it is. None of it’s true, but it is a convincing, entertaining, and well made film. The only times the movie fails in its mood or feel are when Stone is forced to reconcile with the historical record. The finest example of this is the trial sequence, the best-made and most convincing scene of the film. Garrison’s closing statement is so convincing that there is little doubt in the (uninformed, anyway) viewer’s mind that the Warren Commission’s explanation is a little fishy. The viewer is then surprised to hear a verdict of “not guilty” for Shaw (which in realty took them only forty-five minutes to come up with). Had Garrison’s case really been that strong, or Shaw’s case really that weak (or non-existence, as it was in the film), the jury would have surely sided with Garrison. These are the only moments when the mood or feel of the film is interrupted, and the viewer is puzzled.

At its core, JFK is a great story, a story that America wanted to hear. It’s the story of an honest man who couldn’t be stopped in his heroic pursuit of the truth, despite the tragic personal consequences of such a pursuit. It’s a classic tale of one noble man against a lying, corrupt, sinister government trying to control the people (no matter the cost) and cover everything up. It’s a conspiracy story, where a generally accepted explanation about one of the most infamous events in the 20th century is given a dramatic and juicy twist. Lastly, it’s an explanation for the unexplainable: how did President Kennedy get shot that many times by one man? How did one bullet travel to so many places, ending up relatively unharmed? The Warren Commission’s rationale leaves some things unexplained. This movie explains them.
Oliver Stone’s JFK is a great story for all of these reasons, but life isn’t always a great story. Sometimes life isn’t good verses evil. Sometimes life isn’t completely explainable. Sometimes things just happen, horrible things, and we’ll never know the complete truth behind them. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy is such an event.

The public’s frenzied reaction to Oliver Stone’s film reveals something profound about human nature. By explaining the unexplainable, by attempting to tie together all the loose ends surrounding the President’s assassination (and in an entertaining and enticing way), JFK satisfied something in the American public that the Warren commission never did. JFK explained the unexplainable; it rationalized the absurd, and people ate it up. This reveals an eager willingness in human beings to accept what they want to believe as truth, the notion that willing something to be true will make it so. One could argue that this willingness dominates many if not most aspects of human interaction and behavior. JFK shows us this about ourselves: human beings love mystery. The only thing they love more is the solution to such a mystery, and this film offers hope that such a perfect explanation can one day be found. The film ends with these words:

Dedicated To The Young
In Whose Spirit The Search For Truth
Marches On

JFK really is a film of hope. Hope that the people of this country will always care more about justice and about truth than they do about power and greed, and that some great men will have the courage and the audacity to pursue such justice, such truth, and such virtue, no matter what the cost. Of course people also want to believe this. What person doesn’t want to believe this? JFK, if nothing else, is a reassurance that good, in the end, will triumph over evil, that truth will triumph over deception, and that integrity will triumph over corruption. People like to be reassured, and were persuaded by this film to pursue the truth. In a way, then it feels like virtue and integrity are also being pursued, and perhaps they are. JFK is a film of hope, and a great one, but it is to be viewed as fiction, not history.

Chice