The Ambiguity of History - Assassination, Conspiracy, and the Effects of a Coup D’etat
By Brendan Feeney, with comments by Melissa Barrero, Michael Berilla, Samantha DiStefano, Kelsey Duffy, Patrick Hammond, Thomas Mazzucco, Maxine McCoy, Sarah Morgan, Erika Ross, Teresa Salvatore
[1] In an article he wrote for Cineaste in 1992, not long after his controversial film JFK was released, Oliver Stone posed a very important question -- who defines history? This question seems obvious at first. History should define itself. An incident occurs, a set of facts are established, and these facts are accurately and judiciously related to future generations through a variety of mediums. It is often stated that film is the least appropriate medium to portray history. Film focuses too heavily on emotions and entertainment but not on the facts.
[2] However, with regards to the assassination of our 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, what are the established facts? Are we to believe what we learned in high school, that President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin -- a crazed nut who was going nowhere in life and wanted some attention -- who in turn was killed by another crazed nut? Are we to believe the facts of the twenty-six unindexed volumes of the Warren Commission -- that Oswald, described by his fellow marines as an average marksman, fired three shots from a bolt-action rifle at a moving target from 200 yards away with world-class precision in less than six seconds? Or are we to believe the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination, dismissed by both government officials and the media as nothing more than paranoid delusions? The fact of the matter is far too much ambiguity surrounds the events of November 22, 1963, making it nearly impossible to believe any one theory. The government attempted to put an official stamp on the situation with the findings of the Warren Commission. Many people were not satisfied with these conclusions. Oliver Stone offered an alternative view of history with JFK. While it was widely denounced by critics, it sparked curiosity among viewers. Shortly after the film was released, a Gallup poll revealed 73% of Americans believed there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Only 16% still believed the Warren Report (Stone, “Talks Back†68).
[3] With this essay, I will ask readers to review the facts. Not just the facts of the Warren report but the theories of a wide variety of scholars who believe the whole truth has yet to be discovered. I will start by examining the Kennedy administration from his election in 1960 to the time of the assassination. I will then explore Lee Harvey Oswald and his personal background. Next, I will provide evidence in opposition to certain conclusions found in the Warren report. I will then revisit Oliver Stone and JFK by providing some of the retaliatory remarks he gave to answer his critics. Finally, I will comment on my own views regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and the effects of his assassination on history.
Doomed from the Beginning
[4] In November of 1960, Kennedy was elected President over Richard Nixon by one of the slimmest margins in history. He was a pragmatic idealist. His election brought with it a whole host of firsts. He was the first President to be born in the 20th century. At 43, he was the youngest President ever elected to office. He was also the first Catholic president. Nevertheless, he was an ambitious and handsome man who symbolized a changing tide in American politics. Relations with the Communist nation of Cuba were broken under the Eisenhower administration. America was steeped in the Cold War. Kennedy entered the White House in the midst of plans for an invasion of Cuba. This was a result of the anti-Castro policy held by Eisenhower’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. The invasion, which called for trained Cuban exiles to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro, was to be overseen by Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles. Cuba was the key to US strategic control of the Caribbean. Factions of organized crime were also invested in Cuba. The largest source of income for the mafia in the 1950’s came from their operations in Havana. Continued mafia interest in Cuba would be beneficial for the government, as American business interests were very closely linked to organized crime (Assassination of JFK).
[5] Following the disjointed advice of the C.I.A., Kennedy made the disastrous Bay of Pigs decision in April of 1961. He further exacerbated the decision by refusing to provide air coverage for the Cuban exiles on the island. The invasion was unsuccessful, and it brought with it some major consequences. Kennedy felt lied to and betrayed by the CIA in their attempt to manipulate him into ordering an all-out American invasion of Cuba. He threatened to “neuter†the agency and break it into “a thousand tiny pieces.†In the aftermath of the invasion, he fired both Allen Dulles, the civilian Director, and Air Force General Charles Cabell, the Deputy Director. Ironically, Allen Dulles would later go on to be named one of the heads of the Warren Commission, which put him in charge of investigating the assassination of the man who ended his career. Not to be outdone, Charles Cabell’s brother, Earle Cabell, was mayor of Dallas in 1963 and one of the people who helped plan the motorcade route (Assassination of JFK).
[6] After seeing the scope of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy became increasingly negative and critical towards the Cold War. At first a strong Cold Warrior himself, he began to shy away from his previous stance. In October of 1962 the world came to the brink of nuclear war when President Kennedy quarantined Cuba after announcing the presence of offensive Soviet nuclear missiles ninety miles off American shores. Soviet ships sailed towards Cuba with more missiles, but they turned back at the last moment. They turned back because Kennedy gave them an ultimatum; if the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuban soil, the US would not invade the island. This further alienated the right wing and the internal forces that represented them within the government. They soon became suspicious that Kennedy was soft on Communism (Beyond JFK).
[7] At this same time, America was embroiled in both Laos and Vietnam. Oliver Stone claims that this is the central question raised by JFK. He says that the issue of Vietnam became the “Bloody Shirt†of American politics, replacing the slavery issue of 100 years before. According to Stone, and other historians such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and Major John Newman, there is no doubt that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam and was opposed to the entry of US combat troops. Newman states that President Kennedy exemplified this in a number of ways and firmly recorded his intentions with National Security Action Memorandum 263 of October 1963. In it, President Kennedy called for the withdrawal of 1,000 military troops by the end of the year. However, less than a week after Kennedy’s assassination, President Johnson reversed this Memorandum with NSAM 273 (Stone, “Defines History†24). Many critics say that NSAM 263 was just a gimmick, and that Kennedy was really going along with the motion to commit troops to Vietnam all along. If this were the case, why was it necessary for Johnson to reverse it? Then there was Fletcher Prouty. Prouty was the Former Chief of the Special Operations Division for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His work was required in order to support the clandestine activities of the CIA throughout the world. He was the prototype for the character of Mr. X in JFK. On a television show called Newsmaker Sunday in January of 1992, Prouty told host Frank Sesno that he and his boss had regularly corresponded with the White House to work on what he called the Kennedy Plan. It outlined future military strategy in areas such as Vietnam. He went on to assert that Kennedy was absolutely pulling out of Vietnam and had never planned on sending combat troops. He believes the assassination directly led to an escalation in Vietnam. (see comment by Patrick Hammond)
[8] There are a few other accomplishments of the Kennedy administration worth noting. In 1963 he signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the USSR and the UK. He also announced that he planned to cut the oil depletion allowance by 20%, a proposition that was extremely unpopular with those who had a vested interest in the oil business. At the same time, Attorney General Robert Kennedy was coming down hard on the American mafia. At that point, he was the only government official to conduct such a probe. He investigated such individuals as Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the Teamsters. Hoffa vehemently loathed the Kennedy’s, since he was one of those with a vested interest not only in the mafia but with the Texas oil millionaires as well. Speaking about Robert Kennedy, he once announced to a group of people that he was going to “break his back.†There was also Carlos Marcello, leader of the crime organization in Dallas. Marcello was exiled to Guatemala by Robert Kennedy. He swore he would one day have his revenge. On an interesting side note, Marcello controlled a nightclub owned by Jack Ruby in Dallas. As if this wasn’t enough, Lee Harvey Oswald’s uncle ran numbers for Marcello. Finally, he enthusiastically donated funds to anti-Castro Cuban exile groups (Assassination of JFK).
[9] There are too many coincidences here for them to be totally benign. As President for just over 1,000 days, Kennedy had made negotiations with the Communist world. He attacked the tax havens of wealthy corporations. He probed into the most dynamic crime organization of the modern era. He attempted to regain civilian control over the Pentagon and its intelligence agencies. And he made clear his intentions to bring an end to the Cold War and the situation in Vietnam. This, in the words of Jim Marrs, “engendered hatred and fear among the most powerful cliques of this country†(5).
The Ambiguity of Oswald
[10] Oswald will forever be remembered as the man who was accused of killing President Kennedy. Though the topic is still widely debated, the “facts†of history still maintain that Oswald and Oswald alone assassinated the Commander-in-Chief. But what about Oswald’s side of the story? Unfortunately, we know nothing about it. Though he was questioned for over twelve hours by Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police Department and dozens of FBI agents, not a single word of the conversation was documented. There is no record of the interrogation whatsoever. This is a man who was accused of murdering two people in cold blood, one of them the President of the United States. Without a proper record of the questioning, everything Oswald said would have been inadmissible in court (Marrs 355). One would think that a police captain of over thirty years and trained federal officers would have been aware of that. This detail proved to be inconsequential, however, because Oswald never made it to trial. Instead, on the morning of November 24, he was shot dead in the basement of the Dallas Police Department in front of millions of television viewers, hundreds of members of the press, and seventy-seven armed police officers (Marrs 417). What we do know about Oswald comes from the press coverage following his arrest. He remained calm and collected each time he was accosted by television and news reporters. He steadfastly maintained his innocence and stated repeatedly that he was merely a “patsy.†This is another first among America’s assassins (Stone, “Defines History†23). Why would a man who some say adored Kennedy not only assert his innocence but claim he was a patsy? When normal behavior includes an assassin’s last words being “death to tyrants,†it seems odd that someone who executed such a meticulous and symbolic act would not want to take credit for it.
[11] With regards to Oswald’s childhood, he had it no better or worse than any other typical American kid. He was a lonely child with no father, but he maintained a close relationship with his mother. His formative years were spent moving from place to place. He dropped out of high school in the tenth grade and joined the Civil Air Patrol. This is where he first met Captain David Ferrie. He made it publicly known that he was a procommunist. He also attempted to join the Marine Corps at the same time, though unsuccessfully.
[12] At the age of 17, Oswald was finally accepted by the Marines. There are several troubling items that appear in his military record. Despite the fact that he was a high school dropout who professed a deep interest in Communist activities, he was taken into a top-secret, highly trained Marine unit stationed at an air base in Japan where U-2 spy flights over Russia originated. While working at the base as a radar operator, he was given a Russian exam. This sort of an exam was only given for intelligence purposes. Then there was also the strange case of venereal disease that Oswald contracted. Typically, Marines are chastised or even punished for contracting any such disease, but Oswald’s medical record stated his was contracted “in the line of duty.†What duties could he possibly be fulfilling that carried the risk of venereal disease? There is no other explanation besides that they were intelligence-related. Oswald’s fellow Marines, as well as a CIA clerk, have publicly stated that he was recruited into US intelligence while stationed in Japan (Marrs 112). His own mother maintained until the day she died that her son had been working for the CIA (Stone, “Defines History†23).
[13] The evidence listed above could be construed as circumstantial. It certainly didn’t fully convince me that Oswald was a member of the CIA. Then I learned the facts pertaining to Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union. Using the supposed illness of his mother as an excuse, he was discharged from the Marines earlier than scheduled in September 1959. He stayed with her for only three days before going to Moscow -- a $1,500 ticket purchased with a $203 bank account (Marrs 116). His request for travel included a reference to an obscure PhD’s-only graduate institute in Switzerland (Stone, “Defines History†23). He then went to the United States Embassy in Moscow, renounced his US citizenship, and stated his intentions to turn US secrets over to the Russians. Somehow he was permitted to go on his way. He then disappeared for six weeks -- no one knows where to -- before being shipped off to a radio factory in Minsk. He never once wrote, spoke, or did any propaganda for the Russians (Marrs 126).
[14] He spent his ensuing time in Russia living exorbitantly. The perks included a robust paycheck and a lavish apartment with a balcony. There is absolutely no reason why an American-born factory worker would be given this kind of royal treatment. Unless, of course, he was giving the Soviet’s radar secrets, whether they were real or fake. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that six months after he arrived in Russia, a U-2 spy plane that was described as “indestructible†was shot down (Marrs 128). Oswald went on to meet a woman named Marina, whose uncle was a Colonel for Soviet Intelligence. Six months later the two were married.
[15] Eighteen months after renouncing his US citizenship, Oswald returned to the same Embassy and announced his intentions to resume his American citizenship. One would think, especially during an age where people were scrutinized and blacklisted for having even the slightest leftist affiliations, that the people in the Embassy would have laughed in his face. You would think that he was dragged away and immediately charged with treason. But this was not the case. Instead, the State Department issued him a new passport and gave him the funds that enabled him to travel home. His new Russian bride had no trouble getting into the country either. Upon his return, he was never investigated or charged by the Navy for revealing classified information. He was met by a CIA-front representative, but he was never debriefed by an intelligence organization. 25,000 American tourists, on the other hand, were debriefed that same year after returning from Russia (Stone, “Defines History†23). This story does not sound like it belongs to a real defector. Rather, it sounds like the story of an intelligence agent posed as a defector on some kind of mission for the United States government.
[16] There are various other ambiguities regarding Oswald. To begin, a library card belonging to David Ferrie was found in Oswald’s possession when he was arrested (Marrs 97). There is the testimony of Beverly Oliver, who was introduced to Oswald by Jack Ruby as “Harvey Oswald of the CIA†(Beyond JFK). Both instances went unmentioned in the Warren Report. There is also the fact that, despite keeping up his front as a Marxist, Oswald merged into the fierce anti-Communist White Russian community of Dallas. He also joined forces with Guy Bannister, ex-FBI agent, in New Orleans. Bannister, another rabid anti-Communist, ran a Cuban exile training camp outside of New Orleans. He also owned office space on the corner of Camp and Lafayette St, the same address that was stamped onto the Fair Play for Cuba leaflets Oswald was handing out in the summer of 1963. It is quite a curious character trait to subscribe so ardently to two completely different ethoses at the same time. It is an even more curious character trait to be present in two completely different locations at the same time. While Oswald was in Russia, someone attempted to use his name to buy trucks for Guy Bannister’s apparatus in New Orleans. Oswald did not even have a license (Marrs 143). Also, a month or so before the assassination, a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald went to Mexico City and visited both the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Embassy there. There were photographs taken of this man in Mexico City. Someone obviously wanted this to be on the record. Another Lee Harvey Oswald existed at this same time, reporting for work each day at the Texas School Book Depository (Marrs 149). So what do these supposed “facts†tell us? They certainly don’t attest to the Warren Commission’s portrait of Oswald as a “lonely drifter.†It almost seems like they were deliberately ignoring his many documented ties to the US Intelligence community.
Refuting the Warren Report
[17] Government officials and journalists alike have continued to take refuge behind the findings of the Warren Commission. The report conveniently ignores massive amounts of testimony as well as both forensic and acoustic evidence to arrive at the improbable conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired three 6.5 mm cartridges from a bolt-action rifle while overlooking Dealey Plaza from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. One of these shots missed Kennedy completely, injuring a third man, James Teague, superficially on his cheek. Another, according to Senator Arlen Spector and perpetrated by the report itself, caused seven wounds and shattered two dense bones in both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally. The third and final shot was the fatal head shot, supposedly fired from the same trajectory despite the blatant visual evidence of the Zapruder film that suggests otherwise. These are the “facts†presented by the Commission that make up the settled, sanctified history championed by government institutions. In other words, when attacking Stone’s films, this is the “real†that his opponents perceive. Upon further examination, however, it is extremely difficult for a person with the slightest inkling of intelligence or common sense to take these “facts†seriously.
[18] If there was more than one shooter firing at President Kennedy in Dallas then, by definition, there must have been a conspiracy. Had this been the case, it would have been extremely messy. The American people would have demanded an explanation. The government would have had to reveal certain facets of its clandestine operations -- methods that had existed, quietly, for years. Their investigation would have had to continue. This was not the preferred outcome. So, convinced that there had only been one shooter, the Warren Commission set out to prove this conclusion at any cost. And that is exactly what they reported to President Johnson -- Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald who acted on his own accord. There were only three shots fired, and those shots came from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
[19] Let us set aside for a second the fact that 122 trained marksmen could not recreate what Oswald supposedly did. Instead, let us concentrate on the fifty-one witnesses who were certain they heard at least one shot fired from behind the picket fence beyond the grassy knoll, an area that was to the right and front of the Presidential motorcade. Or the testimony of Dallas Patrolman Joe Smith, who ran to the parking lot behind the picket fence because he smelled gunfire, only to be turned away by a man producing Secret Service credentials. There are several other witness testimonies that conflict with the findings of the Warren Commission. Jean Hill testified that she saw a man shooting from behind a tree on the other side of the picket fence beyond the grassy knoll. There was also the testimony of a deaf man, completely dismissed by Commission investigators, who said he saw a man dressed in a suit on the other side of the picket fence holding a weapon immediately after the shots were fired. This man tossed the gun to another man who disassembled it and put it in a tool bag. Once this was completed, the two men walked calmly toward the railroad (Beyond JFK). I’m not a professional investigator, but it sounds to me that there is enough evidence to suggest that Oswald may not have been the only shooter. Couple this with the fact that after the shots were fired the majority of onlookers -- including numerous trained police officers -- started running toward the grassy knoll, and one must conclude that there was something going on in that area. If not, fifty-one witnesses either lied through their teeth or were completely delusional.
[20] This is not the only evidence that exists in opposition to the Warren report. Nitrate tests taken at the Dallas Police Department indicated that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. Officers even neglected to check whether the rifle found in the book depository had been fired at all. It is also curious how the rifle came to be discovered, stashed neatly between cases of books, with the three empty bullet cartridges laid side-by-side beneath the window. This was presumably done by Oswald. However, he was spotted only ninety seconds after the last bullets were fired by Patrolman Marion Baker on the second floor. He was casually drinking a Coca-Cola and showed no signs of being out of breath. The rifle itself was an enigma. It wholesaled for about $3. Made in Italy, it was nicknamed “the humanitarian rifle†by the Italian Army because it never killed anyone when deliberately aimed. Even more curious is the fact that Oswald would have a traceable and inaccurate weapon shipped to a P.O. Box that he rented using an alias that could easily be attributed to him. He could have walked into any store in Dallas, given a false name, and walked out with a much more accurate weapon that could never be traced. There were no prints found on the weapon itself, at least not at first. After the rifle was discovered by Dallas Police officers, they sent to FBI specialists, who found nothing. The rifle was sent back to Dallas a week later, when all of the sudden an officer in the department finally found a palm print (Stone, “Defines History†23).
[21] The Warren Commission was unable to find any evidence that Jack Ruby knew Lee Harvey Oswald, or that there was any conspiracy to kill Oswald. History maintains that Ruby acted on his own accord. However, several witnesses have placed Ruby in compromising places from November 22 to November 24. He was spotted at Parkland Hospital shortly before the “magic bullet†was discovered. He was also seen at the Dallas Police Station numerous times in those two days. He even corrected a reporter who inaccurately recorded information pertaining to Oswald’s political associations (Assassination of JFK). It seems odd that someone would spend that much time and effort to be around a man he didn’t even know. It’s also odd that Ruby was allowed within the Dallas Police Station at all. He did not work for any media organization. Unless he was able to produce press credentials, there is no reason why police officers would allow him to be in the building. They certainly would not have allowed him to be in the basement when Oswald was being transferred to the county prison. This was a very important prisoner -- the accused assassin of the American President. Certainly there were precautionary measures that were taken. If a civilian was allowed to be on the premises, he must have had some kind of credentials indicating that he was a member of the press. These should have been the only people allowed in the vicinity. Therefore, either Ruby possessed these credentials -- which there is no evidence of -- or there must have been some kind of conspiracy involving Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police Department. And if there was indeed a conspiracy, then the shooting was not a spontaneous act, but a deliberate move to silence Oswald.
[22] Warren Commission member David Belin called the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit the “Rosetta Stone to the JFK assassination†(17). Many people figured that this brutal slaying proved Oswald’s guilt; he must have done it because he knew he was on the verge of being caught. Why would he kill that policeman if he hadn’t killed the President? However, as is typical of November 22, 1963, there are a fair amount of discrepancies in the facts. The Warren report used three major pieces of evidence to determine Oswald’s guilt. Two witnesses who saw the shooting and seven others who saw a man fleeing “positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw†(39). They also identified the cartridge cases found near the Tippit slaying as being fired from the revolver Oswald had in his possession at the time of his arrest. Finally, the report claimed Oswald’s jacket was found along the path that the fleeing killer had taken.
[23] There are many deficiencies with these statements. The best witnesses to the Tippit shooting, the ones who claimed to have actually seen Oswald commit the act, were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Many of the other witnesses were unable to positively identify Oswald as the killer. Not to mention the unfair conduct of the police lineups, placing Oswald in with a bunch of teenage kids and he the only suspect with bruises all over his face (Marrs 359). With regards to the cartridge cases, Dallas police sergeant Gerald Hill radioed the dispatcher at the time of the Tippit shooting saying that “the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol.†When Oswald was arrested, he was in possession of a .38 Special revolver. There is a significant difference between an automatic, which ejects its shells, and a revolver, which requires the weapon to be manually emptied. They also require different types of ammunition (Marrs 342-43). Finally, witnesses could not identify Oswald’s grey jacket as the one Tippit’s killer was wearing. On another note, Oswald was seen near his rooming house six or seven minutes after 1:00 PM. Tippit was killed around 1:10 PM, making it impossible for Oswald to have reached the scene of the crime on foot in that span of time. This is compounded by the fact that the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater and theater patron Jack Davis testified that Oswald was in the theater at the time Tippit was killed (Marrs 359).
[24] Finally, we come to the “magic bullet†theory, which Kevin Costner’s Garrison proclaims to be the “grossest lie ever forced on the American people.†This theory was the foundation of the Warren Commission’s claim of a lone assassin. The Commission’s lone assassin fired three bullets. One of those bullets provided the fatal head wound. Another missed the motorcade and injured a third party, James Teague. That meant one bullet had to account for seven separate wounds in two different people, Kennedy and Connally. The magic bullet theory reads like so. The bullet enters Kennedy’s back moving downward at an angle of 17 degrees (wound #1). The bullet then moves upwards and exits Kennedy’s body from the front of his neck, causing a nick in his necktie (wound #2). According to the Zapruder film, Connally is not hit until 1.6 seconds after Kennedy is hit. This means that, after exiting Kennedy’s neck, the bullet pauses for 1.6 seconds -- in mid-air, mind you -- where it moves right, then left, and continues into Connally’s body at the rear of his right armpit (wound #3). The bullet then moves downward at an angle of 27 degrees, piercing his lung and shattering his fifth rib on the way, before exiting out the right side of Connally’s chest below the right nipple (wound #4). The bullet proceeds to turn right and re-enter Connally’s body at his right wrist (wound #5), shattering the radius bone and exiting the bottom of his wrist (wound #6). The bullet suddenly makes a dramatic u-turn and buries itself into Connally’s left thigh (wound #7). The bullet was later discovered five miles away, on a stretcher in the corridor of the Parkland Hospital in pristine condition -- no metal missing, no blood tissue, no anything (Assassination of JFK). Indeed, that was one magic bullet. (see comment by Michael Berilla)
[25] As heinously ridiculous as this theory sounds, the government claimed it could prove it with theoretical nuclear physics. But there was even more evidence that stood in the way. During the official investigation, a composite photo was taken of three different 6.5 mm bullets -- one that had been fired into a wad of cotton, one that had been fired into a goat carcass and a third that had been fired into the wrist of a human cadaver. The bullet fired into the cotton wad had almost as much damage to it as the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital. However, the bullets fired into the goat carcass and the human cadaver produced much different results. A significant amount of metal fragments were missing from both bullets. Neither shot was able to break more than one bone. And neither bullet came out in the astute and pristine condition that the magic bullet did (Assassination of JFK). Then there is the stunning visual evidence of Abraham Zapruder’s 8mm home video, which brought to light a few uncompromising facts. The video is about 22 seconds long, and it establishes that the fatal head shot came just 5.6 seconds after the first shot. It’s already been stated that this is an impossible amount of time for one man to fire three shots from a bolt-action rifle. But perhaps the most astonishing piece of evidence is that, upon being struck by the final shot, President Kennedy’s head is violently blown back and to the left. Once again, after he is shot, Kennedy’s head moves back and to the left. I cannot begin to fathom how officials on government panels, some of them trained experts in wound ballistics, can watch this film and still say with a straight face that the shots must have come from behind. It seems much more likely, given the overwhelming evidence, that the fatal shot came from in front and to the right, which just so happened to be the motorcade’s relationship to the grassy knoll. However, when Garrison and his investigators tried to observe the President’s brain at the National Archives to try and determine which direction the bullet had come from, they were told it had disappeared (Garrison 257).
Stone’s Intentions
[26] Commenting on the government’s proposed history of the events of the assassination, Oliver Stone claims that it is not a history at all, but a myth. “It is a myth that has sustained a generation of journalists and historians who have refused to examine it, who have refused to question it, and above all who close ranks to criticize and vilify those who do. So long as the attackers of that comforting lone gunman theory could be dismissed as kooks and cranks and the writers of obscure books that would not be published by ‘reputable’ publishing houses, not much defense was needed.†He goes on to describe where he succeeded the most, something that journalists and historians had not counted on. “But now that myth is under attack by a well-financed and -- I hope -- well-made motion picture with all the vivid imagery and new energy the screen can convey†(Stone, “Defines History†23). (see comment by Erika Ross) Stone did not set out to re-write history. He was not trying to be earth-shattering. He was not trying to disturb some sacred set of facts. (see comment by Melissa Barrero) Let us imagine for a moment what JFK would have been like if Stone had used the Warren Commission’s findings as the basis for the plot -- Kennedy is assassinated, one hour later the assassin is apprehended, he is killed two days later by a vigilante acting on his own accord, there is no conspiracy whatsoever, the movie ends. Not only would that film be hideously unentertaining, but it would leave the audience with far too many questions. Stone’s only real intentions were to spark some curiosity. He wanted to answer some questions for the members of his generation, and bring to light one of the most terrible moments in history for a new generation. Unlike the government, he had no secret agenda. He had nothing to be ashamed of, nothing he felt the need to cover up. All he wanted to do was offer his own set of established “facts.†(see comment by Sarah Morgan) (see comment by Samantha DiStefano) (see comment by Thomas Mazzucco) (see comment by Maxine McCoy)
[27] As mentioned before, Stone was widely criticized for this film. Most critics agreed that it was technically brilliant, but they slammed him for distorting the facts and for choosing Jim Garrison as the film’s protagonist. He didn’t really have much of a choice regarding the latter, as Garrison is the only person to bring a case against someone believed to be involved in the Kennedy assassination. Also, Stone was taken with Garrison’s Capra-esque appeal. He was a sort of everyman -- as the New Orleans D.A. he began with a small investigation into Oswald’s activities in the city the summer before the assassination but found out far more than he had intended to. The real Garrison had many flaws; Stone admits this much. However, in response to this criticism, Stone states that he “did not deal with them in the film, because you either had to make Garrison the issue or make Kennedy the issue. I chose Kennedy†(Stone, “Talks Back†68). Garrison himself was widely criticized at the time of the Clay Shaw trial, many people calling it a “mockery of justice†(Brener 251). They attacked him for calling witnesses who were homosexuals, drug addicts, and political extremists. In response, Garrison would often reply “There are many attorneys who are brilliant liars, and there are dope addicts who have never learned to lie -- and that’s the case here†(Stone, “Talks Back†70). Garrison’s case wasn’t perfect, but at least he tried. He was able to get his hands on someone that had something to do with manipulating Oswald in the summer of 1963. He also used the trial as a forum to refute the findings of the Warren report, which he did quite successfully. In post-trial interviews, jury members said they were convinced that there was some kind of conspiracy to kill the President. They just weren’t convinced that Clay Shaw was involved (Stone, “Talks Back†70). (see comment by Teresa Salvatore)
[28] Garrison, like Stone, believed the assassination of President Kennedy to be a coup d’etat involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and the Military/Industrial Complex. The Kennedy administration was doing things that were radically different from the long-term Eisenhower administrative business -- especially with regards to Cold War politics -- that it was affecting the major power centers of the country. This became especially evident with Kennedy’s policy towards Vietnam. If a coup d’etat were to take place, government institutions would be able to control the events that occurred after the “change.†They could also cover up the fact that a coup ever took place. Most of the criticism for JFK came from the fact that Stone endorsed this theory. They claim that he was trying to pass it off as fact. They even went as far as to accuse Stone of blaming the Kennedy assassination on everybody from Mother Theresa to the Easter bunny. To me, that is just irresponsible journalism. Is the theory of a coup d’etat involving factions of our own government any more ridiculous than the magic bullet theory? Is it any more ridiculous than blindly believing that Oswald acted alone, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary? Besides, the media is an institution, just like the government is. Institutions have a habit of protecting their own. Perhaps that is what the critics are really doing -- protecting an idea that they are forced to believe in. (see comment by Kelsey Duffy)
Conclusions
[29] With regards to the assassination of President Kennedy, there isn’t a permanent historical plotline that we as American citizens can follow. The Warren Commission gave us its conclusions, but various other researchers and scholars have provided us with information that seems to suggest something else occurred. Proponents of the Warren report are quick to dismiss this evidence as the paranoid ramblings of delusional kooks. They find it preposterous that anyone would believe the United States government had anything to do with the assassination and subsequent cover up of its own President. Perhaps they are right. But if that is preposterous, then it should also be preposterous to believe in any conspiracy -- perhaps one involving the President and the cover-up of a crime committed by his own administration (Watergate), or one involving all the highest levels of government ordering a neutral country to be bombed and then lying about it in military reports (Cambodia), or one involving the National Security Council leadership and the director of the CIA shipping arms to a national enemy in exchange for hostages (Iran-Contra Affair). This is government by damage control. It has existed for years and will most likely continue to exist, even if it means removing an idealistic President from office by any means necessary.
[30] The main objective of this website is to investigate how the “reel†makes the “real.†JFK is unique in that there is no “real.†Allen Dulles subscribed to a much different “real†than Oliver Stone. So who is right? The sad thing is, we may never know. In 1979 the House Subcommittee on Assassinations Report acknowledged that a conspiracy was “probable.†They claimed there was a 95% probability that a shot came from the grassy knoll. There was no further investigation, however, and government officials maintained the lone assassin theory without a shred of humility. They even went as far as to say if there were two shooters they were probably acting separately and therefore there was still no conspiracy (Stone, “Talks Back†68). There have been many other theories regarding the possibility of a conspiracy. These conspiracies involve the mafia, Texas oil tycoons, anti-Castro Cubans, and right-wing extremists. Perhaps these parties did play a small part in the assassination. There is certainly evidence that pertains to that. But a coup d’etat of this magnitude could only have been carried out by individuals with extreme amounts of power. No one else could have kept the operation secret, intimidated witnesses, re-arranged testimonies, manipulated Oswald’s background, changed the parade route, or circumvented normal Secret Service procedures. Certainly there are documents that exist that could shed some light on this controversy. But we’re not allowed to see them. These crucial documents have been kept hidden from the public -- under the guise of “national security†-- and will continue to remain hidden until 2029. It seems odd that this would be considered a matter of national security, since Oswald apparently acted alone. But the answers are out there. I know I will be standing in line to catch a glimpse of them come 2029. I hope future readers of this essay do the same.
Comments
Sarah Morgan (August 2009)
I believe Stone had even larger intentions than just presenting his own version of the history surrounding the JFK assassination. Stone wants the audience to start to question established “facts†and think for themselves. This goal is crystallized in the scene between Garrison and the mysterious Mr. X. In the scene, information about horrible events in history, such as assassinations in other countries and bloody takeovers, is thrown at us and it is implied that the US government had knowledge and even participated in the events. To add to the emotional punch of the scene, it takes place on the Washington Mall, a place where we memorialize our great leaders and the ideals of our country. Mr. X then gets into the details of the JFK assassination and following cover-up, but he does not end there. Near the end of the conversation, Mr. X says, “The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers. Kennedy wanted to end the Cold War in his second term. He wanted to call off the moon race and cooperate with the Soviets. He signed a treaty to ban nuclear testing. He refused to invade Cuba in 1962. He set out to withdraw from Vietnam. But all that ended on the 22nd of November, 1963.†This is when Stone’s intentions start becoming clear. He is trying to get the audience to examine really big and fundamental questions about the true nature of the US government. But if he had left the audience with the stark finality of “it all ended on the 22nd of November, 1963,†it would not have inspired much action. Instead, he (Stone, by way of Mr. X) leaves us (and Garrison) with, “stir the shit storm, hope to reach a point of critical mass that'll start a chain reaction of people coming forward, then the government will crack. Remember, fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth -- and the truth is on your side.†This, I think, is Stone’s real message in the film. Keep asking questions, always question the status quo, never give up on the truth. Bringing to light the cover-ups in the JFK assassination was a large part of Stone’s intentions in JFK, but his larger message is don’t believe what you are told, discover the truth for yourself.
-----
Michael Berilla (August 2009)
The Magic Bullet Theory may not be as miraculous as projected in the film JFK, as many of the figures were exaggerated and modern science has proven many of the facts differently than cited by Stone. On the issue of the three shots being fired by one man, Charles Brehm, an Army Ranger and eye witness to the assassination, has said:
“Since I have a history of using firearms, people have asked me what my opinion was regarding the ability to fire those shots. I have no doubt in my mind that almost anybody who had basic training like I had in the Ranger battalions would have no difficulty at all. And especially the fellow [Oswald] was in the Marines, who are ordinarily crackerjack people with firearms, would have no problem at all. And I understand that he had a full sling which actually melds the rifle to your body. You become one so that your re-aiming is not necessary. You have the rifle in your arms in the same position. So there's no doubt in my mind that he could have gotten off those shots. . . .†(Charles Brehm, JFK 100 -- Single bullet theory)
The Discovery Channel's reenactment of bullet CE399's path and ABC's The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy have created reenactments proving the same shooter analysis, as well as clarifying some of the ballistics issues as well:
"A marksman, from a distance equal to that of the sixth floor of the Book Depository building, fired the same rifle model found in the Book Depository, using a round from the same batch of 'Western Case Cartridge Company' 6.5x52 mm ammunition purchased with the surplus Carcano weapon in early 1963. The path of their single bullet (followed by high speed photography) duplicated, almost exactly, the wounds suffered by the victims that day, the only difference being that the bullet did not quite have enough energy to penetrate the 'thigh' substance in front of the Connally figure, because it struck an extra bone in the 'rib' model (i.e., it fractured 2 ribs in the model vs. one rib in Connally)." (Discovery)
"Myers' animation found that the bullet wounds were consistent with JFK's and Governor Connally's positions at the time of shooting, and that by following the bullet's trajectory backwards could be found to have originated from a narrow cone including only a few windows of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, one of which was the sniper's nest of boxes from which the rifle barrel had been seen protruding by witnesses." (ABC)
But the real question here is “can we trust anyone� If you don't want to trust the criticisms of the JFK 100 website, or the Government reports, or Stone's arguments, what are you supposed to believe in? I think it really comes down to a matter of opinions and the "truth" actually comes from the collaboration and generalization of what "most people" think and what can be proven. The "truth" reported on may not be what actually really happened, and that is why we must question things repeatedly. But when a consensus can be reached that can be scientifically proven/generally accepted, I feel that it should be considered truth. This is the case, I feel, for the points proven above; “History†is constructed" through the evidence and opinions of the time, and modern indications tell us that many things previously thought impossible are actually quite feasible.
-----
Teresa Salvatore (August 2009)
One of Stone’s critics, David Belin, former Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission and executive director of the Rockefeller Commission of 1975, accuses Stone of “forming a case for conspiracy covering up the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.†Belin cites examples in which Stone neglected to include important testimony of key witnesses. One’s questions multiply as Belin discusses the actions and testimony of Johnny Calvin Brewer, the shoe store manager who noticed Oswald’s guilty demeanor and followed him to the Texas Theatre. After allegedly murdering Officer Tippit, Oswald makes his way into town to the movie theatre. Hearing sirens, Oswald ducks into a shoe store and waits until the sirens fade. Brewer observes Oswald’s behavior, follows him to the movie theatre. Belin cites this information as part of the investigation, the “Area II†investigation in which “the determination of who killed President Kennedy and who killed officer Tippit†was the objective. However, Belin continues by stating that “All this is covered up in the movie, as well as in the Garrison book" (and the A&E series.) After watching scenes from JFK more than once, viewers are privy to precisely the actions and testimony Belin says Stone left out. When one considers that Belin missed what he considered a crucial piece of information left out by Stone, you have to inquire what other important details were missed or left out. It seems odd that Belin, who speaks so passionately in his article entitled “The Big ‘Lies’ of “JFK,†would make such a mistake about his criticism of Stone’s film.
-----
Patrick Hammond (August 2009)
I feel as though Feeney addresses an issue that has always bugged me concerning the assassination, the notion that Kennedy was killed because of his increasing distrust of the CIA and their actions in Vietnam. Feeney noted that "Kennedy was absolutely pulling out of Vietnam" according to testimony from Fletcher Prouty. Feeney also noted that Prouty believed "the assassination directly led to an escalation in Vietnam." Whether one is to believe what Prouty said, it is not too far-fetched to think that Kennedy could have been killed to protect the increasingly invested American effort in Vietnam. He was embarrassed because of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and there is much evidence depicting an increasing distrust of the Central Intelligence Agency. Kennedy's brother RFK was in favor of decreasing military operations in the area, and it is likely that JFK would have listened to his brother, and his closest political ally.
It is not unfathomable to think that the United States government would take part in an assassination plan to protect its interests abroad. The CIA has taken part in many political assassinations throughout the world, always executed with the notion of freedom and democracy as the indisputable reasons for the killings. Is it too hard to imagine our very own President being targeted for his lack of support for a war that many high ranking U.S. officials were in favor of? Our country has sadly been inextricably linked to war since the formation of the state, and it seems as though our country has never been able to operate without some foreign entanglement to "protect our interests." While the Vietnam hypothesis for the execution of Kennedy is based on speculation and conspiracy, one cannot help but see the validity of the theories that have been put forth. Kennedy was trying to sever the U.S. ties with the Vietnamese conflict and, in doing so, might have brought about the end of his life. Also, it is important to note that RFK, a likely Presidential frontrunner, was assassinated while running on an anti-war platform five years later...
-----
Samantha DiStefano (August 2009)
Feeney naively adheres to Stone’s claim that he simply “offered an alternative view of history with JFK†[2]. Feeney says here, “Stone's only real intentions were to spark some curiosity. He wanted to answer some questions for the members of his generation, and bring to light one of the most terrible moments in history for a new generation.†This argument is not consistent other claims made by Feeney and, in fact, is firmly contradicted by comments made by Stone himself. Feeney claims that Stone “did not set out to re-write history†and later that the film presented “his own set of established facts.†These two statements are blatantly contradictory. Stone is perfectly clear to say that he believes the explanation provided by the government to be a myth. Feeney’s analysis attempts to brush past Stone’s motivation to convince the audience of a conspiracy. This was done for the most part by the “spark some curiosity†claim. In truth, if curiosity was the response Stone desired he would not be so troubled by those who questioned his claims. It is interesting that Stone claims to be vilified rather than questioned when the curiosity he turned back onto his explanation. It seems as though Stone only intends to ignite curiosity of the Warren Commission’s findings and what is the accepted truth. Also, while the film provided an alternative explanation for those of Stone’s generation, in many cases it is the only explanation to touch members of my own. If Stone claims to be an “historian,†he is irresponsible in providing an unbiased interpretation of the facts. One critic of the film said, “JFK is all too likely to be taken as a final unquestioned explanation.†And “it does treat matters that are wholly speculative as fact and truth, in effect rewriting history.†(Winkler) Interestingly enough, Feeney mentions that “Shortly after the film was released, a Gallup poll revealed 73% of Americans believed there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Only 16% still believed the Warren Report.†(Stone, "Talks Back" 68) This speaks to how convincing Stone’s film is in selling his version of history. In the spirit of Oliver Stone, we should not fail to question his intentions with the same intensity that Stone himself questions the Warren Commission. Feeney’s analysis does not adequately explore this issue.
-----
Erika Ross (August 2009)
Not much defense was needed because the American public is lazy. If you offered the average American a choice of reading a book or watching a Hollywood movie to learn about a historical subject, the majority would chose the movie. When movies are made, they are created to fill the seats of movie theatres, not necessarily to teach. Movies are made to entertain. This is the heart of problem of why critics were so negative about the film. When Americans watch a movie that is not blatantly marked “fiction†they will take it for fact. They may question it, but most will do little to assuage their doubt after leaving the cinema. If everyone who watched JFK were skeptical about the facts that Stone claimed true in the setting of the movie and chose to decide what was true themselves, then there would not have been a problem. Though that was indeed Stone’s intention, he knew not everyone would look far beyond his movie for facts. He knew that just like in the early 1960s, Americans would not look for their own answers. The case of Kennedy’s assassination was closed quickly without concrete answers, and Jim Garrison was the only American prosecutor who was infuriated enough by this to take serious action. Call it ignorance, the bystander effect, laziness -- it should not have been so easy for the government and media to persuade the American public that Kennedy was killed by a single man Harvey Lee Oswald based on capricious facts. While history books may attempt to entertain the reader, their main purpose is to educate and give facts. Films are meant to tell a story and even when based on real events have no obligation to be completely truthful. Oliver Stone made JFK to try to break Americans of a terrible habit; he challenged people to stop relying so heavily on the media for answers and to demand answers that are kept from us, the American public.
-----
Melissa Barrero (August 2009)
With JFK, Oliver Stone clearly intended to inspire a spirit of thought and questioning in Americans. As classmate Erika Ross says, “If you offered the average American a choice of reading a book or watching a Hollywood movie to learn about a historical subject, the majority would chose the movie. When movies are made, they are created to fill the seats of movie theatres, not necessarily to teach. Movies are made to entertain. This is the heart of problem of why critics were so negative about the film.†There is a general sense of apathy in American culture, and many people just tend to take any information they are given to be true. Critic Robert Burgoyne refers to JFK as a film whose goal is “to call into question what had been the official, accepted interpretation of the assassination, an interpretation that is riddled with inconsistencies and investigative failures, and that overlooks obvious potential lead and actively suppresses evidence†(126). Stone’s message was to get people to challenge these so called truths and he accomplishes this by challenging the explanations given by the government for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There will always be confusion between reel history and real history, and as Leonard Maltin says, "If television or theatre can paint a vivid enough picture -- they'll believe it." With JFK, Stone challenges audiences to do more than just believe it. Both reel history and real history should be questioned.
-----
Thomas Mazzucco (August 2009)
Stone claims that the government's story or history concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is a myth and not in fact history. A myth is defined by dictionary.com as “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.†Stone thus states his opinion and direction of the film, to prove or show that this collective belief quickly decided upon by the federal government and agreed upon by the Warren Commission is covering up for the social institutions or government agencies that may have wanted Kennedy out of power. While this idea of myth is an opinion of Stone’s that many other people disagree with, Stone has every right to explore the possible conspiracies surrounding the assassination because of the freedoms America stands for -- like freedom of speech. Stone is able to bring Hollywood power and wealth with him into exploring this historical event, and it is a noble cause. JFK and Stone give a voice to those who are marginalized greatly because their opinions -- many containing evidence proving their cases -- are not what real historians consider true. However, this brings what is history to the forefront. Can’t history mean different things to different people? Stone writes and shows through cinematography his reel history, one in which Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney, pieces together facts that lead him to believe that JFK was killed by multiple gunmen, hired by or working for the government, because he was bringing too much change to America and was not serving their big money/big business purposes. America is great because people can believe whatever they want and say pretty much whatever they want, and Stone exercises this freedom while also talking about the freedom in the movie, since the right to talk about the assassination, by Garrison, has many people attempting to suppress his free speech. This movie is all about freedom of speech on many levels, and Stone calls for and demands that the people of the United States and world know the truth behind the killings, because everyone has a right to know. Feeney is right that the goal of this movie was to spark curiosity, but Stone did more than that. By bringing controversy to the story and its history, Stone made people look deeper in the 1990’s, like Garrison did in the late 1960’s, at the case surrounding JFK’s death. Stone made people think, like any great director should do, and caused people to use new technology and new information from the government to help in piecing together what happened -- whether it may be the real story or Stone’s reel story.
-----
Kelsey Duffy (August 2009)
Oliver Stone said, “Filmmakers and book publishers stay in business because they entertain and educate the public.†By making JFK that is exactly what Stone did, and just like any good argument someone opposed it. The job of a critic is to be critical, and in this case there happened to be many criticisms and not many praises. What Stone did was bring an already controversial issue back into the spotlight. No one wants to be told that his or her government, the most powerful entity in the country, lied to them. I do not think our country would be able to handle the backlash. After this movie was released, almost every critic had a problem with it, and there was slight uproar among certain groups. If this theory is true and the government is exposed, I cannot imagine what would happen across the nation. The media has a huge impact on our country. On what foods we eat, what clothes we wear, and who we vote for. The media accounts for so much influence on our country, but they can only give out the information they receive. The government has more power over the information that is available than anyone else, and in this case it has helped a lot. The fact that the media chose to bash Stone as opposed to support him shows just how much influence the government still has. The media will chew out specific politicians or policies, but to take out the entire government because of one man would be over the top. The foundations of our country were on this form of government, and it is how we have grown to be the country we are today. If that was taken down, what would we have left to stand on (or for)? Making JFK was a bold move for Stone, and there are many people who love the film, and it caused people to think. I do not think it created an uprising against the government by any means, but it starts conversation, and that is what is important, keeping the people on their toes.
-----
Maxine McCoy (August 2009)
Anthony Lewis argues that this movie is just "Oliver Stone's fantasy," a charge that is anchored in the criticism of Stone's use of the Garrison character. However, Stone is motivated by his belief that "from day one the media never looked for an honest motive in Kennedy's killing." Instead, history surrounding Kennedy's death is not really history at all but a myth created by the retelling of what Stone believes to be a falsified story. Spending much of his time responding to critics of JFK, it wasn't the aim of Stone to add to conspiracy theories of Kennedy's death. To him it was about "the way we look at our recent history . . . it shifts from black and white to color, and then back again, and views people from offbeat angles." Stone took a momentous event in history, which had always been seen in black and white because of American's complete buy-in to what the media was telling them, and gave it more color, more possibility. But it also made serious implications, to which critics did not fail to respond.
-----
The Assassination of JFK. Prod. Dennis Mueller. Videocassette. Maljack Productions, MPI Home Video, 1992.
Belin, David W. Final Disclosure: The Full Truth about the Assassination of President Kennedy. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988.
Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy. Prod. Stuart Sender, Barbara Kopple, Bill Davis, Marc Levin. Videocassette. Embassy International Pictures, 1992.
Brener, Milton E. The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. Publisher, 1969.
Garrison, Jim. On the Trail of the Assassins. New York: Warner Books, 1988.
Image of an Assassination: A New Look at the Zapruder Film. Prod. H.D. Motyl. Videocassette. MPI Teleproductions, 1997.
Marrs, Jim. Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1989.
Prouty, Fletcher. Newsmaker Sunday. 19 Jan. 1992. Transcript of television show.
Stone, Oliver. “Oliver Stone Talks Back.†Premiere January 1992: 67-72.
Stone, Oliver. “Who Defines History?†Cineaste 19.1 (1992): 23-24.
United States. Warren Commission. Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964.
