Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Conspiracy paradigm

From "Jim DiEugenio's presentation from NID 2010" in Justice for Kennedy:
"One of the things that Jim Garrison did that was immediately buried when Blakey came in is he wrote a remarkable letter, a really wise and prescient letter to Jonathan Blackmer, who was a lawyer designated by Bob Tannenbaum to run the New Orleans investigation and in this letter he warned Blackmer that you could not rely on the usual investigative techniques to solve this case because the crime scene evidence used to indict Oswald in both the Tippit murder and the Kennedy murder was so suspect that it would be demolished in court if you had to actually go by the real rules of evidence which, of course, the Warren Commission did not, but it would never stand up under cross-examination. Therefore, the way to solve the case was you had to find a paradigm that would be justified internally by the evidence yet the overall design would fit the shape of the plot. Now, what did he mean by that? He meant this, Johnnie Roselli did not control Ruth and Michael Paine, George Bush did not stop Jim Humes from dissecting the neck wound, Felipe Vidal [Santiago] and John Martino did not fake the pictures of Kennedy’s brain, LBJ did not send a picture of a KGB agent to CIA HQ in order to match a false description, H. L. Hunt did not provide that very long piece of paper that was taken down by the police at the TSBD which the only way Frazier could have had under his arm was if he was King Kong and he did not produce a rifle that Oswald never ordered. How many of you know that? The so called rifle “found” in the Texas School Book Depository does not match the order form either in length or in style. This is a point that David Belin if you read the testimony on this issue tried to keep out of the record. It does not match. It is something that has never been explained. And Roy Truly did not escort Oswald around the Clinton / Jackson area [of Louisiana] in August of 1963.

So, Garrison concluded that if your paradigm did not fit these circumstances then you had to revise it until it did. And that was the only way that you would solve this case. Now I actually believe it’s possible to do this today, in other words to present a comprehensive and cohesive case that fits these circumstances. And we have to, unlike what Baker said last year that to give the case currency you had to read his book I believe the best evidence to give this case currency is what has happened to this country. Again, I’m old enough to have been around back then when Kennedy was president. The United States isn’t anything like it was back then. When Kennedy, probably the best line in Manchester’s whole book, when Kennedy arrives in Dallas he says we’re really in nut country now. Well, the nuts have taken over. The teabaggers have taken over the country. And it would not have happened if the JFK case had not occurred. Because the JFK case enabled the following assassinations, of King, and RFK. And that resulted in the coming of power of Richard Nixon and the eventual decline of this country, socially, economically, and politically. Now this is a message you won’t find on the so called Liberal blogosphere, like Daily Kos, and Huffingtonpost, etc. In fact, they’ve been given instructions to keep the conspiracy stuff out. Unless this country ever develops a media that is going to be honest about its past it will never be able to solve the problems of the present. And unless we the JFK case stay on our guard we run the risk of what is happening to us what happened to the 9/11 movement. I don’t know if you’re familiar with people like Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear etc. But, it is one of the things that marginalized them in world record time. So, we can’t let our guard down and we can’t succumb to sensationalism. We have the proper data and background in our grasp, all we need is the opportunity. And sooner or later when things get bad enough which they are well on their way to being bad enough we are going to be needed and we have to be ready. Okay?"
So if you say x did y, x has to have been able to control not only y, but all the other aspects of the conspiracy, including removing or blocking or disabling all the institutional protectors who are in place to prevent the conspiracy from succeeding. Usually, x has to be also able to control and direct the cover-up (although in the JFK assassination, the plot involved a trick, the prospect of war with Russia, which appears to have convinced non-conspirators to go along with the cover-up).

Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear are three of the most . . . unfortunate . . . of the Truthers.
blog comments powered by Disqus