I would just love to dilute my show with all of these theories, but it needs to be said that when we throw all kinds of pasta against the wall it doesn’t always stick and then I have to go back and try to recover by getting down to brass tacks.
I have always been asked directly who I think killed Kennedy and after being coy by reciting the lyrics from the Rolling Stones song “Sympathy for the Devil:”
“I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me,” I throw out a few names that I feel were involved. In fact, when I appeared on Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” I was asked by the producers and camera people if I would name names on camera. I did, and the unbelievable thing was – they never made it on the air.
It was interesting that, out of all the names that I mentioned, the producers wanted me to elaborate on George Herbert Walker Bush.
I was sensing some political trap and I merely stated that much of the theories on Bush were all tied to “The Org” and its relationship to the CIA. It is documented that Bush was in Dallas, Texas the morning of the assassination, took a flight to Tyler, Texas afterwards to announce to a group of Kiwanis club members that the President had died and then phoned the FBI to tell them that he had an idea who was responsible for the death of President Kennedy.
This way it could be said that he was in Tyler and not in Dallas that day and still he knew or had some idea who might have killed the President.
There is really no way to illustrate what a nation goes through when their President is assassinated, let alone try and figure out how one gives tribute to man 50 years after he was murdered in broad daylight during a visit to Dallas, Texas.
The question is what version of the event will these new generations learn and will they even care?
Younger generations may not understand how the sights and sounds of the time were indelible. The horse sauntering through the street with the flag-draped caisson behind, the muffled drums that echoed through Washington DC and were carried through the nearly 50 million television sets that watched the proceedings.
The historical visuals have been shown on many television specials 50 years later, from ‘John John’ Kennedy saluting his fallen dad, to Walter Cronkite, America’s news voice, shedding tears.
Unfortunately, each one muddied the waters a little more and, after the Warren Commission’s investigation, the official narrative was used to stifle any and all theories that were produced to obfuscate the ritualistic murder of a president in 1963.
I feel in some ways that the staying power of Kennedy’s “Camelot” is waning and the only reason for the retrospective is out of frustration that the truth about the case has still been kept under wraps, even after it was promised that after a generation that the files would be opened.
To younger generations, the Kennedy legacy is one of history and not of experience. Imagine a time in history that you have experienced, but that generations after you have the same interest in it as they would the Lincoln assassination. Even then, that type of history is a subject of a required history essay for a good grade.
Names, places and ideas are lost in the accepted history and the conspiracy history is equally forgotten. There are many authors and investigators that have admitted that they have said all that there needs to be said and until there is anything mind blowing coming out of the sealed documents it becomes a history lecture that becomes an excuse to catch up on ‘Walking Dead’ episodes on Netflix.
However, I have been reading about how, 50 years after the death of Kennedy, there are people that are confused about how we should commemorate the moment in history where our 35th President died.
Is it wrong or does it sully the tribute to Kennedy to mention or give a public forum to express these opinions? Is it an undignified, or disrespectful to open up a discussion about the idea of a conspiracy against Kennedy?
Authorities are saying that it is inappropriate, some say that it gives ‘crazies’ an opportunity to speak and therefore should not be allowed.
Is avoiding the obvious the best approach to a tribute?
The 1960’s was a time that obviously was not safe for national leaders in the United States and credulity was stretched to the point of exploding on the scene with numerous assassinations that are the foundation for the dialogue for modern conspiracy and its research.
Now people that want to meet in Dallas are not even able to ask why?
Occupythegrassyknoll.org writes: “Dealey Plaza is a public park and a designated National Historical Site that has been open to the public over the five decades since President Kennedy was assassinated there.”
Now it is being blocked by people who want to silence any talk of conspiracy.
What this censorship is also breeding is the possibility of a hostile ‘occupy’ scenario where protestors arrive and create chaos, leading to mass arrests and violence.
Is this a way to honor a fallen leader that we revere as an American champion for peace and constitutional rights?
Today, the important topic that should be discussed while the vultures circle the grassy knoll is why the American people are inclined to believe that conspiracy was planned against our 35th president and why many of the conspirators remained as smiling, glad-handing politicians, able to make policies and literally create the spin for the mainstream narrative especially Richard Nixon and his replacement Gerald Ford.
How are we able to not see that those who lead the intelligence apparatus – like Dulles and eventually George Herbert Walker Bush – were simply appointed to be foxes that guarded the hen house and had their hands in everything from Bay of Pigs to Watergate?
The authorities in Dallas that are orchestrating the invitation only gathering want you to believe that all of the so-called conspiracy yarns are paranoid or improbable.
Discussion of these stories and facts are how a nation copes with the loss of a president who would be king. While we must boil the subject down to basic known facts, it is also important to understand that making the complex simple is not so simple.
Limiting the conversation to the same tiring narrative will most certainly keep the lies and misconceptions alive and the cover up will endure.