MovieChat Forums > JFK (1991) Discussion > Biggest mistake of the movie: It made th...

Biggest mistake of the movie: It made the conspiracy too big

posted 8 years ago by P-K-One
34 replies | jump to latest

Conspiracies do exist. However, most people are incompetent and prone to talk. So the probability of a successful conspiracy drops with the number of people involved and the number of actions they take.

The conspiracy this movie presented would have included dozens if not hundreds of players. Many of those players would carry out non-essential tasks that made no sense and would just increase risk.

For example, "Mr. X" says that he read on the papers in New Zealand about Oswald being the killer 4 hours before he was officially charged with the crime. And he said that to him this looked like a planted story because that newspaper could not possibly have had that information at that time.
Let's think about this for a moment. Most newspapers get their stories from news gathering associations. Those organizations gather news and then sell stories internationally. It's the only way for a newspaper to get foreign stories without having correspondents in every city on earth. If you wanted plant a story you would have to do it through them. And that can not happen through General A (Or CIA director B or somebody equally high) because that would raise suspicion. So General A has to send one of his subordinates B to a contact in the associated press. And that contact would then have to disseminate a story that he knows is false (because the story he gets is "Oswald charged with assassination" although at that point Oswald has not yet been charged). So instead of one conspirator (General A) you now have two conspirators (General A and his subordinate B) and one person who has a good reason to be suspicious (the Associated Press Contact). That is a huge additional risk and what is the benefit?
People in New Zealand who would not care either way get a story 4 hours earlier that they would get anyway. Because Oswald will be charged and then that story would get out on its own. So why bother?

The more likely explanation is that the press made a bad call. They knew Oswald had been arrested and was being questioned. He was likely to be charged and "likely to be charged" became "charged". It would not have been the first or last bad call by the press.

Stuff like that makes it seem like the movie desperately grasps at straws trying to connect disjointed elements into something that just does not fit.

I think the movie would have been better if:
A) the conspiracy was smaller and tighter (For example, a single CIA cell that works with disgruntled Cubans. They gave those Cubans paramilitary training and use them for the assassination. That cell manipulates Oswald and plants the evidence).
B) If Costners character had dismissed some leads. In an investigation you always have leads that do not pan out. If you get something from every lead and attach it to your theory that does not mean that you are tracking a big conspiracy, it just means you are not critical enough in your investigation. Just one or two scenes where they question somebody and then go "Yeah, that guy was nuts and coked out of his mind. He was just feeding us some crap because he wanted to be in the spotlight."

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

What you're saying sounds logical, but that doesn't make it accurate.

The conspiractors referred to it as "The Big Event" and many people knew it was coming well in advance. The magniutude of the incident, one in which systemic evil aligned to isolate and conspicuously eliminate a Commander in Chief who was actually trying to help the people by attempting to make that system more fair (to say nothing of the system's rigid maintenance of the LoneNut lie for more than half a century) is why the assassination will go down in history as the premiere political conspiracy of all time.

You can't top it. Even Caesar has nothing on it.

In the case of Kennedy's murder, the "paranoid loons" are the ones who've actually got it right.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] jaseace 8 years ago

Awesome documentary for anyone who's really into history and the JFK conspiracy... It's called JFK to 9-11 a rich man's trick. Goes all the way back to ww2 for perspective. There were around 4 hit squads with 8 diff snipers , Oswald never did any shooting. Fascinating stuff based on fact. It's 3 and a half hours long but it was so poignant and interesting you barely notice

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

Seen it. It's pretty interesting until it starts claiming Oliver Stone is a CIA plant and his movie just disinfo.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] Johnpatricko 8 years ago

But isn't Oliver Stone the one who made the 9/11 film backing the official story? And I believe he made a film about GWB.

I don't see why it's far fetched he would be a "disinformation junkie" as Mel Gibson stated in the movie "conspiracy theory" long before he backed the government stance on 9/11.

I haven't seen this documentary though, but your comment has me intrigued.

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

"Everything is a Rich Man's Trick" is on Youtube.

Oliver Stone wasn't convinced 9/11 was an inside job, but that doesn't make him a CIA disinfo agent. But the video implied that his "JFK" was CIA disinfo and that kind of allegation hurts "EIARMT".

But much of it is interesting nevertheless.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] Johnpatricko 8 years ago

I just think it's strange that people thought he was a disinformation junkie in the 90s, long before he did World Trade Center, the George W Bush movie, and now the Snowden movie. Perhaps he is useful in controlling the narrative?

If I was in control, using a respected director to push my version of events to a worldwide audience is a no-brainer.

On a side note it is my humble opinion that if you can find enough evidence from the 60s to support a JFK conspiracy (and to be fair, even the HSCA found a conspiracy probable), then there's no excuse to accept the official story on 9/11 with the abundance of information - and the access to it. Anecdotally when the information started becoming more and more talked about, there suddenly appeared an abundance of wild haired theories that derailed legitimate discussion and labeled everyone crazies.

[–] yahko_kun 8 years ago

I think the main part of the movie is when Mr.X tells Garrison: "Make arrests. Stir the sh7tstorm. Hope to start a chain reaction of people coming forward. Then the government will crack. Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth."

Essentially it didnt help anyone to come forward - especially if so many people were involved.

As far as something was brewing up is a big stretch because there is always something brewing up but nothing ever happens, and if it doesnt its not connected directly to the brewing up. The left hates the right and vise versa.

[–] rgibson-20 8 years ago

PT has a whole closet full of tin foil.

[–] Stevicus-2 8 years ago

So instead of one conspirator (General A) you now have two conspirators (General A and his subordinate B) and one person who has a good reason to be suspicious (the Associated Press Contact). That is a huge additional risk and what is the benefit?
People in New Zealand who would not care either way get a story 4 hours earlier that they would get anyway. Because Oswald will be charged and then that story would get out on its own. So why bother?

I think Mr. X was trying to drive the point home that "nothing was left to chance." One thing to keep in mind is that the Cold War already created a somewhat "conspiratorial" culture within government. There was already a culture of secrecy and compartmentalization where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. (It even worked its way into popular culture and has created more than a few true believers out there.)

The military, intel community, law enforcement - along with anyone in the private sector who is expected to be loyal and patriotic - they're driven to follow orders. They're not necessarily going to be "in" on any conspiracy; all they have to do is follow orders and maintain secrecy "for the sake of national security." The apparatus to do all this was already in place, along with an untold number of employees who signed legal documents in which they promised to maintain secrecy. If anyone did reveal classified government information, they would be arrested, lambasted in the press, branded a "traitor" - and many other unpleasant things which would be extremely powerful inducements for people to keep quiet.

Remember that the country was just coming off the McCarthy era when blacklisting people for "disloyalty" was the order of the day. And blacklisting focused mainly on the media, so the idea of the government having some measure of control over the press is not all that far-fetched. In addition, the country had also come off the Cuban Missile Crisis, and most everyone knew how high the stakes in the Cold War were getting.

As to why they would even bother to do it at all, probably because it's a way of planting the idea that "Oswald acted alone" first and foremost in people's minds. It's a way of controlling public perceptions so that rumors and speculation don't go wild early on. After a traumatic event like this, it's important for the government to make sure the public is informed that "everything is under control." Maintaining public order and stability is vital.

The more likely explanation is that the press made a bad call. They knew Oswald had been arrested and was being questioned. He was likely to be charged and "likely to be charged" became "charged". It would not have been the first or last bad call by the press.

Stuff like that makes it seem like the movie desperately grasps at straws trying to connect disjointed elements into something that just does not fit.

The press will report what the government tells them. If someone in an official government capacity told them "Oswald has been charged," then the press can and will report that with a clear conscience.

I think Mr. X also mentioned that the press had the entire backstory on Oswald rather quickly. Usually during fast-breaking news events, information is disseminated in a slow trickle, since it takes time to gather all the facts and pertinent information and organize it in a coherent way to present it to the public. Mr. X was suspicious because the story on Oswald was apparently put together so quickly - as if it had already been prepared ahead of time.

I think the movie would have been better if:
A) the conspiracy was smaller and tighter (For example, a single CIA cell that works with disgruntled Cubans. They gave those Cubans paramilitary training and use them for the assassination. That cell manipulates Oswald and plants the evidence).

I think this was briefly touched upon in the argument between Brousard and Garrison when Brousard conceded that it could have been some rogue element within the government. So, if it was just these rogue agents with whom Oswald was associated, then it wouldn't necessarily involve a massive government conspiracy.

Oswald himself was a bit of an enigma.

B) If Costners character had dismissed some leads. In an investigation you always have leads that do not pan out. If you get something from every lead and attach it to your theory that does not mean that you are tracking a big conspiracy, it just means you are not critical enough in your investigation. Just one or two scenes where they question somebody and then go "Yeah, that guy was nuts and coked out of his mind. He was just feeding us some crap because he wanted to be in the spotlight."

They dismissed the Warren Report because it smelled like BS. They were interviewing people who were scared to testify or to go on the record.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

The military, intel community, law enforcement - along with anyone in the private sector who is expected to be loyal and patriotic - they're driven to follow orders. They're not necessarily going to be "in" on any conspiracy; all they have to do is follow orders and maintain secrecy "for the sake of national security." The apparatus to do all this was already in place, along with an untold number of employees who signed legal documents in which they promised to maintain secrecy. If anyone did reveal classified government information, they would be arrested, lambasted in the press, branded a "traitor" - and many other unpleasant things which would be extremely powerful inducements for people to keep quiet.

Excellent points. One proven government conspiracy that involved the FBI, CIA, and local police officers collaborating on operations targeting American citizens was COINTELPRO

So the idea that individuals within the Dallas PD, FBI, and CIA could collaborate on a conspiracy in Dallas in 1963, is not at all far fetched.

When people argue that a conspiracy against JFK had to involve too many people for the secret to have not leaked in advance, have them look up the COINTELPRO program. That was a conspiracy that was only revealed accidentally years after many US citizens were killed under suspicious circumstances or unjustly imprisoned.

The more likely explanation is that the press made a bad call. They knew Oswald had been arrested and was being questioned. He was likely to be charged and "likely to be charged" became "charged". It would not have been the first or last bad call by the press.

You could also add that Oswald was an admitted Marxist who had lived in the Soviet Union and had a Russian wife. At the peak of the Cold War, it probably looked like an obvious act of terrorism.

That's the modern day equivalent of a devout Muslim who had spent time living in Syria or Afghanistan being accused of killing President Obama.

It would be very easy for the press and people in general to jump to conclusions about terrorism if that happened.

The press will report what the government tells them. If someone in an official government capacity told them "Oswald has been charged," then the press can and will report that with a clear conscience.

I think Mr. X also mentioned that the press had the entire backstory on Oswald rather quickly. Usually during fast-breaking news events, information is disseminated in a slow trickle, since it takes time to gather all the facts and pertinent information and organize it in a coherent way to present it to the public. Mr. X was suspicious because the story on Oswald was apparently put together so quickly - as if it had already been prepared ahead of time.

The press in the early 60's was far more loyal and deferential to the government than it is today. People in general trusted Institutions like the government, the banks, the elite members of the press more than they do today. So it was far easier for the government to control the information that got revealed to the public than it is today in the age of the Internet, Google, YouTube etc. Information travels farther and faster today. The government can still keep secrets but it's nearly impossible today for governments to coverup or mislead citizens on how tragic events unfolded.

50 years ago there were no smartphones, far fewer surveillance cameras, not everything was broadcasted live on TV. The Zapruder film and other films of the Kennedy assassination were suppressed initially. Life Magazine only released the film to the public after being ordered to do so by a judge. That's a clear example for how much the press was in cahoots with the government back then.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

If you're interested in a Small Conspiracy JFK assassination flick, I recommend "Executive Action".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk

I view Oliver Stone's 'JFK' as a great thriller. Possibly one of the best political thrillers ever. I don't think the inaccuracies and dramatic license taken with the people involved necessarily matters.

The larger thesis of the film, about how the Kennedy assassination was a turning point in terms of the National Security State and the Vietnam war may be larger truths.

By that I don't mean LBJ and the Pentagon had a role in JFK's assassination. I'm referring to the fact that JFK was an obstacle to the Pentagon's desire to escalate American military involvement in Vietnam. His death removed the last big obstacle to their desire to expand operations in SE Asia.

As for the National Security State, we know the FBI and CIA did lie and obstruct the Warren Commission's investigation. It was only the beginning. The Church Committee hearings in the 70s exposed other lies and abuses committed by the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

So I do think this movie is still relevant and well done despite the historical inaccuracies.

[–] P-K-One 8 years ago

I disagree. I think by making the conspiracy so unbelievably large they made the whole thing cartoonish and unbelievable.

I mean, look at it this way:
Nixon couldn't keep secret that he had a couple of guys bug an office.
Reagan could not keep secret that he funneled money to the Contras.
Clinton could not keep secret that he got two (two!!!) blowjobs by an intern.
Bush could not keep secret that there existed a memo warning of terrorist attacks by Bin-Laden.

But we are supposed to believe that somebody in the 60s managed to coordinate a conspiracy involving the CIA, NSA, FBI, White House, Mafia, exile Cubans, Local Police and various players in the military-industrial complex and nobody ever found more than hints? Nobody ever talked? To me that sounds more like a parody of conspiracy theorists than anything else. At the 3 hour mark in the movie I half expected somebody to walk in and claim that aliens were involved and Garrison fully buying it.

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

But we are supposed to believe that somebody in the 60s managed to coordinate a conspiracy involving the CIA, NSA, FBI, White House, Mafia, exile Cubans, Local Police and various players in the military-industrial complex and nobody ever found more than hints? Nobody ever talked? To me that sounds more like a parody of conspiracy theorists than anything else. At the 3 hour mark in the movie I half expected somebody to walk in and claim that aliens were involved and Garrison fully buying it.

But those things have come out. The conspiracy, and essentially its scope, is known.

But the mainstream media ignores almost all of it. So it stops there.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 8 years ago

The mainstream media ignores it because its a pile of shyte, PrometheusTree64. Its only loonies that keep regurgitating those fairy tales, even a brain damaged baboon would find that nonsense difficult to believe.

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

The mainstream media ignores it because its a pile of shyte, PrometheusTree64. Its only loonies that keep regurgitating those fairy tales, even a brain damaged baboon would find that nonsense difficult to believe.

Osk, you really need to let your fellow shills make the LN posts for you. You never help your points with your usual blur of "shyte" and "fairy" and "baboon" stuff.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

No, they didn't come out. There's no evidence for the conspiracy except perhaps questions about evidence. There's no one who has talked who was in on it. There's no memos or recordings or any evidence.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

Nixon couldn't keep secret that he had a couple of guys bug an office.
Reagan could not keep secret that he funneled money to the Contras.

Those two were exposed accidentally. People made mistakes, got arrested, and revealed the conspiracies(Iran also played a role in exposing the Contra thing). Had no one screwed up and gotten arrested we might've never learned about these conspiracies.

Imagine how many things the Plumbers who broke into Watergate did that we don't even know about because they weren't caught for those crimes?

Clinton could not keep secret that he got two (two!!!) blowjobs by an intern.
Bush could not keep secret that there existed a memo warning of terrorist attacks by Bin-Laden.

I don't think the above two examples count as conspiracies. I get your point about the inability to keep those things secret, but they didn't really fall under the umbrella of national security where there's an infrastructure in place which is meant to control information and keep secrets.

As Steve mentioned earlier, the National Security State has an infrastructure built around keeping secrets. Things are so compartmentalized within the government that CIA employees are sometimes lied to in order to prevent the real truth from being leaked. False stories are also sometimes published within the government in order to hunt spies or leakers.

Here's an article on the technique if you're interested - "‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/eyewash-how-the-cia-deceives-its-own-workforce-about-operations/2016/01/31/c00f5a78-c53d-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

But we are supposed to believe that somebody in the 60s managed to coordinate a conspiracy involving the CIA, NSA, FBI, White House, Mafia, exile Cubans, Local Police and various players in the military-industrial complex and nobody ever found more than hints? Nobody ever talked?

They had plenty of conspiratorial leads but due to National Security, the investigators were instructed to focus on Oswald only. Several FBI and CIA agents have come around to admitting that leads were dropped and evidence was suppressed.

If there really was a conspiracy, the best opportunity to expose it was in the immediate aftermath. After a few years, suspects and witnesses die or disappear. We can never know for certain if there was a conspiracy at this point.

But there were "hints" and people did talk.

To me that sounds more like a parody of conspiracy theorists than anything else. At the 3 hour mark in the movie I half expected somebody to walk in and claim that aliens were involved and Garrison fully buying it.

Keep in mind that Jim Garrison was the subject of Stone's film.

I agree that Jim Garrison's theories were a bit over the top. IMO, the biggest problem with the film is the way it sort of makes Garrison look more like a hero than borderline crazy or possibly a fraud as he was in real life. Maybe it would've been more fair or honest to leave it open-ended sort of like the X-Files TV show, whereas, it doesn't let the viewer know if the paranormal/supernatural stuff is real or just imagined.

Perhaps leaving open-ended the question of whether Jim Garrison was really onto something or just crazy might've gotten the film, JFK, less grief from political pundits and mainstream historians. I don't think Stone's film actually tells the viewer that there was a conspiracy. It just shows alternative scenarios. But at the same time, it does paint Garrison in a light that was far more honorable and heroic than he seems in real life.

Garrison's investigation did uncover some important things about the autopsy and it got the Zapruder film released. But he did some crazy and corrupt things too that got omitted from the film.

On balance I think it was a great film and I'm not really bothered by how improbable it makes Garrison's theory on the JFK assassination look.

[–] P-K-One 8 years ago

Look, I know you think you make sense but you don't.

Those two were exposed accidentally. People made mistakes, got arrested, and revealed the conspiracies(Iran also played a role in exposing the Contra thing). Had no one screwed up and gotten arrested we might've never learned about these conspiracies.

And that is what I am talking about. 5 people break into a hotel and slip up. 2 people have sex and somebody hears it.

What is the probability that dozens or hundreds could be involved in a conspiracy and nobody would slip up?

I get your point about the inability to keep those things secret, but they didn't really fall under the umbrella of national security where there's an infrastructure in place which is meant to control information and keep secrets.

...
The existence of CIA black sites.
Illegal arrests and renditions.
Presidential kill list.
Assassination of US citizens abroad.
e-Mail sniffing programs.
NSA phone recordings.
Firing at civilians from combat helicopters (The Bradley Manning leak).

This is all in the national security apparatus, all in the last 10 years. If I really cared about stuff like that, I could probably continue this list until next Tuesday and still not manage to list all government leaks.

And that is just the actual government. In Garrisons conspiracy there are also exile Cubans, the Mafia and the dalas police department.

I agree that Jim Garrison's theories were a bit over the top. IMO, the biggest problem with the film is the way it sort of makes Garrison look more like a hero than borderline crazy or possibly a fraud as he was in real life.

And that was my entire point.

Btw, wanna hear my pet theory? This one is really simple and happens to cover all the things shown in the movie that were factual:
Oswald was an American intelligence agent. After he came back from a mis-information operation in Russia he got tasked with infiltrating Pro-Castro groups in the US. During that time he worked closely with the agents who trained the Anti-Castro exile Cubans.
Somewhere along the line he suffered a nervous breakdown and developed a strong Anti-Kennedy sentiment. He hatched a plan to assassinate Kennedy. If there was an additional shooter, he recruited him out of the Anti-Castro Cubans.
Oswald, alone or with one additional guy, assassinates Kennedy.
At this point all hell breaks loose. When the guys up top realize that the president just got killed by one of their own agents they panic. They try everything in their power to silence Oswald and bury every connection between them and him.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

And that is what I am talking about. 5 people break into a hotel and slip up. 2 people have sex and somebody hears it.

What is the probability that dozens or hundreds could be involved in a conspiracy and nobody would slip up?

I don't know how to calculate something like that. There are an infinite number of variables.

All I'm saying is that if no one is caught with their pants down, none of the people involved with those conspiracies would've talked. And Iran Contra was a large conspiracy involving lots of people at various levels of the government.

As for the Kennedy assassination, if there was a conspiracy, I think Oswald's arrest was an accident or unintended. I don't see how killing Oswald live on TV could've been part of anyone's original plan. That's more of a Plan B thing because they were afraid he would talk. The original plan might've been to meet him after he left the Book Depository and take him to Mexico then kill him but someone may have screwed up or things didn't go completely as planned.

The existence of CIA black sites.
Illegal arrests and renditions.
Presidential kill list.
Assassination of US citizens abroad.
e-Mail sniffing programs.
NSA phone recordings.
Firing at civilians from combat helicopters (The Bradley Manning leak).

This is all recent stuff you've listed. Today, heck yeah, it's nearly impossible for the government to cover stuff up for very long. Eventually someone will get a book deal or movie deal and tell the public everything.

50 years ago, pre-Google, pre-smartphones, pre-superfast transfer of information like we have today, it was far easier for the government to control information. The press was also more loyal and deferential to the government 50 years ago. Going against the government was generally viewed as unpatriotic.

US intelligence was involved in many conspiracies abroad and some at home.

Thanks to Congress in the 1970's we did learn a lot about the illegal things the National Security State was doing but that was only because the agencies were forced to reveal those operations. And even then, agencies like the CIA still lied and suppressed information.

In Garrisons conspiracy there are also exile Cubans, the Mafia and the dalas police department.

I'm not defending Garrison's theories. I have many criticisms of his work.

I'm just arguing that Big Conspiracies involving lots of people DO happen and if they get exposed, it's usually by accident...

Btw, wanna hear my pet theory? This one is really simple and happens to cover all the things shown in the movie that were factual:
Oswald was an American intelligence agent. After he came back from a mis-information operation in Russia he got tasked with infiltrating Pro-Castro groups in the US. During that time he worked closely with the agents who trained the Anti-Castro exile Cubans.

Somewhere along the line he suffered a nervous breakdown and developed a strong Anti-Kennedy sentiment. He hatched a plan to assassinate Kennedy. If there was an additional shooter, he recruited him out of the Anti-Castro Cubans.
Oswald, alone or with one additional guy, assassinates Kennedy.

At this point all hell breaks loose. When the guys up top realize that the president just got killed by one of their own agents they panic. They try everything in their power to silence Oswald and bury every connection between them and him.

I too think it's probable that Oswald was in some form or fashion working for one or more intelligence agencies. I don't really know why he would've wanted to kill JFK. Most evidence supports the fact that he liked Kennedy.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

The existence of CIA black sites.
Illegal arrests and renditions.
Presidential kill list.
Assassination of US citizens abroad.
e-Mail sniffing programs.
NSA phone recordings.
Firing at civilians from combat helicopters

Right. I mean, where are the Chelsea Mannings or Edward Snowdens of this? Do people really think that you could get together hundreds of people in the US government to assassinate the president and not one of them would object to it?

And it's not like you can handwave this away as "it was the cold war" like Freedom does. These kinds of leaks happened back then too. Remember Mi Lai? The Pentagon Papers? Glomar Explorer?

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

Those two were exposed accidentally. People made mistakes, got arrested, and revealed the conspiracies(

Exactly. That's the point. Every person you add to the conspiracy and every layer you add to it increases the risk that something goes wrong. Yet what CTers like you and Stone want us to believe is that we had a conspiracy to kill JFK that involved hundreds of people in numerous different federal, state, local, and private institutions and that this was managed to be pulled off without a hitch and with no one every blabbing about it.

You've got to be an idiot to believe that.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

Exactly. That's the point. Every person you add to the conspiracy and every layer you add to it increases the risk that something goes wrong.

In the Kennedy assassination, something DID go wrong. Oswald got arrested. That couldn't have been planned

Yet what CTers like you and Stone want us to believe is that we had a conspiracy to kill JFK that involved hundreds of people in numerous different federal, state, local, and private institutions and that this was managed to be pulled off without a hitch and with no one every blabbing about it.

I'm not a CT'er but COINTELPRO is a real Conspiracy that involved hundreds of people within the Federal government working with the CIA and Local law enforcement. It was exposed by accident. There were no whistleblowers.

As for the JFK assassination, I'm a skeptic. I don't believe we know all the facts about JFK's murder. But I don't have a theory about what actually happened or how it all happened.

As for big conspiracies, you can't compare today's world to 50 years ago. Due to technology, governments can't control information as well as they were able to do in the past...

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

In the Kennedy assassination, something DID go wrong. Oswald got arrested. That couldn't have been planned

On the contrary. Stone and other CTers argue that Oswald's arrest was all part of the plan. How else can they explain that this guy who they had framed up so well gets picked up so quick. Stone asserts that they had information about Oswald ready to go once he was picked up and he and other CTers allege that the DPD planted the "A Hiddel" ID which they found on Oswald as they arrested him.

I'm not a CT'er but COINTELPRO is a real Conspiracy that involved hundreds of people within the Federal government working with the CIA and Local law enforcement. It was exposed by accident.

But COINTELPRO involved fairly routinized surveillance work by the FBI and it only lasted fifteen years before it was exposed by Media Pennsvylania burglars. You're arguing that a much vaster conspiracy to do something blatantly illegal and treasonous which involved hundreds, if not thousands, of conspirators in virtually every organization within the federal government, plus the DPD, the media, and shadowy criminal or semi criminal organizations like the Mafia and anti-Castro Cuban exiles managed to pull off a perfect conspiracy and cover it up for sixty years without one single leak. That just doesn't happen. And it didn't happen back then. Again, look at things like the Pentagon Papers, My Lai, etc etc

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

the DPD planted the "A Hiddel" ID which they found on Oswald as they arrested him.

I don't know if it was planted on him but the explanation of when and where the "A Hiddell" ID has some strange inconsistencies.

For starters, none of the DPD documents from 11/22/63 mention the Hiddell ID. They mention other items found in Oswald's wallet but not the Hiddell ID.

Officer Bentley, who arrested Oswald and later claimed to have found the ID on him didn't mention it in any of the contemporary news reports from that day. In fact, he claimed to have found a drivers license and Credit Cards in Oswald's wallet and everyone knows by now that Oswald didn't have any credit cards or a drivers license.

An FBI agent claims the A Hiddell ID was actually found BEFORE Oswald's arrest. He has accused the DPD of lying about where Oswald's wallet was found. There is video and photographic evidence corroborating parts of the FBI agent's account although the surviving DPD officers have not admitted to any coverup.

So, like so much other evidence in the Kennedy assassination investigations, there are inconsistencies with the accounts of the ID Oswald used to purchase the rifle and without that key evidence, it's much more difficult to link Oswald to the rifle.

But COINTELPRO involved fairly routinized surveillance work by the FBI and it only lasted fifteen years before it was exposed by Media Pennsvylania burglars.

It involved worse offenses than illegal surveillance. Including murders and framing of Black Panthers.

You're arguing that a much vaster conspiracy to do something blatantly illegal and treasonous which involved hundreds, if not thousands, of conspirators in virtually every organization within the federal government, plus the DPD, the media, and shadowy criminal or semi criminal organizations like the Mafia and anti-Castro Cuban exiles managed to pull off a perfect conspiracy and cover it up for sixty years without one single leak. That just doesn't happen. And it didn't happen back then. Again, look at things like the Pentagon Papers, My Lai, etc etc

It's much easier to keep a secret between criminals than between government officials. Yet, COINTELPRO and other government conspiracies were kept secret and only exposed accidentally. Which proves the government CAN keep secrets...

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

I don't know if it was planted on him but the explanation of when and where the "A Hiddell" ID has some strange inconsistencies

The A Hiddell ID definitively links Oswald to the gun. There's really only two options: a) it's Oswald's ID and he ordered the gun or b) the conspiracy planted it on him.

It involved worse offenses than illegal surveillance. Including murders and framing of Black Panthers.

No, it didn't. There's a complete and total difference between COINTELPRO, which members could see as falling within the legitimate national interest, and assassinating JFK, which has no justification.

Again, there's just no way that you keep a secret like this with the hundreds (at minimum) required to pull off the Oliver Stone CT version of the assassination.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] Freedom1981 8 years ago

Again, there's just no way that you keep a secret like this with the hundreds (at minimum) required to pull off the Oliver Stone CT version of the assassination.

The Manhattan Project and COINTELPRO involved thousands yet was kept secret.

Through Compartmentalization and the involvement of fewer people than the thousands involved with those other examples, it would've been very easy to keep a conspiracy against JFK secret.

Within the Intelligence community and organized crime, Compartmentalization is much deeper. They go as far as creating false stories in order to keep stuff secret from people within their organizations.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

But that's the whole point. You can't pull off things like this without screwing up. As Noam Chomsky has said, these information systems are very porous. Things leak out. Yet we've had none of that in the JFK case. Despite sixty years and lots of different people cycling in and out of government there's been nothing.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] saz_guitar 8 years ago

The Manhattan Project employed well over 100,000 people and was kept a total secret for many years. The JFK assassination happened 20 years later, and in that 20 year span- the height of the Cold War- govt and military techniques of secrecy, control, blackmail, coercion, assassination, black ops, etc were very likely hardened, enhanced and perfected.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 8 years ago

It was a military project and was only secret for a few years during war time. That's completely different than sixty years on having not one of thousands of involved parties in multiple organizations speak out. Where's the Chelsea Mannings or Edward Snowdens of the Kennedy assassination? And remember, the actions which the NSA was doing in those case are ones which were arguably legal, or at least just slightly beyond the level of legality but still aimed at fulfilling the legitimate interests of the government. Same thing with the Manhattan Project. What you're talking about wwith JFK is that hundreds, potentially thousands, of people in dozens of different organizations conspired to commit a crime and not one of them spilled the beans in fifty years.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] christomacin (4527) 4 years ago

It remains unclear if or to what extent Stalin was aware of the Manhattan Project even before Truman was told.

[–] rgibson-20 8 years ago

Garrison was a nut. Stone is a nut. It's not surprising they would have nutty theories. Have you ever seen the number of shooters Garrison posited at one point or another?

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

This was a Hollywood movie, and it is a pretty solid possibility that Oliver Stone works for the CIA in some capacity.

[–] MaximRecoil (4049) 3 years ago

"Conspiracies do exist. However, most people are incompetent and prone to talk. So the probability of a successful conspiracy drops with the number of people involved and the number of actions they take."

That logic is only valid for conspiracies comprised of ordinary citizens. The general public doesn't consider anything to be a fact until it's confirmed by an "official" source. So what happens when the "officials" are also the conspirators? In that case, if they really want to keep it under wraps, it doesn't matter who talks, because all the "officials" have to do is deny it, or simply ignore it.

In the case of the JFK assassination, the majority of the public believes it was a conspiracy:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/one-thing-all-americans-agree-jfk-conspiracy-n815371

But is it considered a fact that it was a conspiracy? No. If you read a history book, encyclopedia, etc., it presents the official story as fact. So even in cases where most people don't believe the official story, the government still says, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

[–] Harleydude666 (51) 3 years ago

No it didn’t you dope. It’s gave you a handful of conspiracies so you would have an open mind that any one of them could be true. The film wants you to think and come away with that we shouldn’t believe everything the government and media feeds us. Oliver wants us to expand our minds here. The point went right over your head