JFK

Natter CastNatter Cast San Francisco, CA
Live casting the podcast .. many thanks to the commissioner for requesting this .. one of my favorite films 

* Is it a blood libel against homosexual men? I think so, but I also think Oliver Stone tried to deflate that. Garrison's book makes it pretty clear he thought it was a Big Gay Assassination. He was also paranoid about being set up in a men's room. Bit of a fixation, he had.

* My experience matches Aron's .. I saw this in the theater when it came out .. at the time, I knew the basic facts of the JFK case, including that most people thought something fishy happened, but had no idea there were any specific suspects .. the film blew me away, so I started reading the source material and after about a year I came to the conclusion it was probably just Oswald.

* On conspiracy theories: some are right (there was an MKUltra, there were Mrs. Evers boys), some are wrong (we didn't fake the moon landing) and some...are not even wrong. I put the JFK film in the "not even wrong" category because it contradicts itself far too much. Oliver Stone combined his personal theory (it's all about Vietnam) with Jim Garrison's (it's a big gay conspiracy) and Jim Marrs' (it was the intelligence community.) Well, the military, the intelligence community and the closeted homosexual underworld of 1963 are three groups that don't have a hell of a lot of common ground. Certainly not enough to trust each other with high treason.

* One of the interesting things to me in conspiracy culture is the notion that "the public is asleep." In this case, the myth being put forward is that everyone just accepted the Warren Report like good little sheep and only a few brave investigators asked questions. But this is not the case. Polling immediately after JFK's assassination and throughout the 60s indicated that most people felt it was part of some sort of conspiracy (mafia, russians, CIA, whatever.) Especially with Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King added to the mix. So in fact conspiracy theorists are not resisting popular biases. They're pandering to them. That's why JFK conspiracy books sell much better than Case Closed 

* Aron makes a good point about the comforting nature of conspiracy theories. It's a perverse thing. Those who traffic in theories think they're asking the tough questions everyone else is too afraid to ask, but it's actually more comforting to imagine that there's a solid, committed, powerful enemy behind everything than to admit that a POS like Lee Harvey Frickin' Oswald could end a presidency with a bullet. We want to fight the power. So there has to be a power. 

* Historical background on the "Vietnam motive." It's true that Kennedy spoke of non-interference in Vietnam and not wanting a "pax Americana." But the film doesn't contextualize these statements at all. Johnson was saying the same stuff ("I will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys should be doing for themselves"). At the time those statements were made, the general consensus was we didn't want to go in to Vietnam. We wanted the South to win the war on their own. But then weeks before JFK was assassinated, the president of South Vietnam was assassinated and the government fell. It had become apparent to everyone, including JFK, that America was going to have to go in. He was, in fact, making moves in that direction when he died. If anything, JFK's assassination delayed our intervention in Vietnam. 

* We recently did a deep dive on Zodiac and it's interesting to see the contrast with JFK. Zodiac makes a compelling case that Arthur Leigh Allen was likely the killer. But all of the evidence against him is circumstantial. And while Robert Graysmith's book also fixates on Allen, he takes pains to point out that circumstantial evidence is never enough to convict. There are a lot of little detailed questions in JFK's death and Lee Harvey Oswald's life that give us "hmmm..." moments, but fundamentally this case like all others breaks down to the physical evidence and the physical evidence against Oswald is much stronger than the physical evidence of a half dozen gunmen firing from different angles. The magic bullet, as mentioned in the cast, had a straight trajectory and was realistically warped. There is no analysis of the wounds on Kennedy and Connely that is consistent with any specific suggestion for multiple shooters firing from multiple angles. It might have been someone else in the book depository framing Oswald, but it was someone in the book depository. It does not matter who Marina's friends in Russia were. The physical evidence doesn't support the theory and this is when conspiracy theorists engage in the handwaving they accuse everyone else of. The Oswald theory might not be 100% right, but no other theory is even wrong.

* On the House investigation in the 70s that found a "probable conspiracy:" this was based on acoustical analysis of an audio recording of the shooting from an open microphone on a patrolman's motorcycle. Long story short, the acoustical analysis isn't reliable.

* On the records: they keep those sealed for national security reasons but also to protect people who are still alive .. there are gumars and bookies all up in there :)

Thanks for a great cast, guys!


And (plug plug) Natter Cast did our own coverage last year .. Gary, Donielle and I went pretty deep on each of the claims in the film .. Stone's version, the mainstream version, our own interpretations

http://nattercast.libsyn.com/natter-cast-podcast-200-jfk

A_Ron_HubbardCapeGabetelephoneofmadnessAlkaid13

Comments

  • * On conspiracy theories: some are right (there was an MKUltra, there were Mrs. Evers boys), some are wrong (we didn't fake the moon landing) and some...are not even wrong. I put the JFK film in the "not even wrong" category because it contradicts itself far too much. Oliver Stone combined his personal theory (it's all about Vietnam) with Jim Garrison's (it's a big gay conspiracy) and Jim Marrs' (it was the intelligence community.) Well, the military, the intelligence community and the closeted homosexual underworld of 1963 are three groups that don't have a hell of a lot of common ground. Certainly not enough to trust each other with high treason.
    I have this fun little image in my head with all three groups sitting around their respective war room tables planning how they're going to assassinate JFK and then three different guys run into the three different rooms and says, "Someone just assassinated JFK" and they all kind of look at each other, adjourn their respective meetings, and go to the same bar in the DC area without knowing the other groups were doing the exact same thing. It's like a high stakes "I worked on this story for a year..." meme
    Natter Cast
  • Natter CastNatter Cast San Francisco, CA
    ... and they all kind of look at each other, adjourn their respective meetings, and go to the same bar in the DC area without knowing the other groups were doing the exact same thing. It's like a high stakes "I worked on this story for a year..." meme


    mylifeaskirk
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited October 18
    I like how you said “we went to the moon”. 

    i agree the US did. But don’t agree stating it as 100% fact. 99% yea. But neither you or me went there so no matter how much you believe it you can’t say “we”. 

    Like Aron mentioned in the cast it’s fun when you’re drunk/high to talk conspiracies. I can’t recall how many nights I’ve had where me and friends got crazy into 9/11, JFK, etc. I love it. It’s fun but you always wake up the next day and just go back to living life and never actually questioning anything. 

    As someone who studied history on a masters thesis level I truly believe that we are told by those who write it. Or as they say “the winners write history” And that ends up not always being the full truth. 

    JFK has so much bullshit in it that it completely discredits it as something that can be seen as a “here are the facts you decide” piece of media. 

    I am someone who believes that the military industrial complex holds an immense amount of power in the US political system and has swayed decisions for their benefit. Did they kill Kennedy? I don’t know. Is it weird that records are withheld still that could potentially incriminate people in power? Yes. Is it weird that LBJ is from Texas and had the power and influence to change things like the route of the motercade? Yes. Is the Warren Commission completely unbiased and an excellent piece of investigative work by the top levels of the US government? Probably not. Did “weapons of mass destruction” end up being a huge lie that benefited the MIC? Yes. Did Osama end up being in Afghanistan? No. Did the MIC benefit from the 2 wars on terror? Yes. 

    To me JFK is simply a cautionary tale of don’t believe everything you are told and to question the truth. I would never take such a farce at face value. But I do think it teaches an important lesson that people who truly care about the well being of our country and want the truth will take the necessary measures to try and uncover it. 
    Natter Cast
  • I just read Tim Synder’s book “On Tryanny: 20 lessons from the 20th century”.

    it has nothing to do with JFK but it’s an amazing book to read. And the messsage it tells is very poignant about how power is taken away from people and what we can do to make sure it doesn’t happen. Highly recommend reading it. 
    Natter Cast
  • There was (is?) a video game called JFK Reloaded that simulates the assassination and shows the paths of the bullets you fire (you are the assassin), replays from different camera positions, etc.. In the game, shooting from Oswald's position in the book depository, it's possible to pretty much exactly reproduce the event (e.g. Zapruder footage, bullets deflecting through JFK and John Connally). It's just a game, but the ballistics are accurate enough that I have no doubt that JFK was shot from that book depository window.
    Natter Cast
  • There was (is?) a video game called JFK Reloaded that simulates the assassination and shows the paths of the bullets you fire (you are the assassin), replays from different camera positions, etc.. In the game, shooting from Oswald's position in the book depository, it's possible to pretty much exactly reproduce the event (e.g. Zapruder footage, bullets deflecting through JFK and John Connally). It's just a game, but the ballistics are accurate enough that I have no doubt that JFK was shot from that book depository window.
    Yea but that’s a game. It has a written code. The code could easily be “gun fired in right spot=head shot plus deflection. I really don’t see a game proving anything. 
    gguenotGiovanni
  • Hatorian said:
    There was (is?) a video game called JFK Reloaded that simulates the assassination and shows the paths of the bullets you fire (you are the assassin), replays from different camera positions, etc.. In the game, shooting from Oswald's position in the book depository, it's possible to pretty much exactly reproduce the event (e.g. Zapruder footage, bullets deflecting through JFK and John Connally). It's just a game, but the ballistics are accurate enough that I have no doubt that JFK was shot from that book depository window.
    Yea but that’s a game. It has a written code. The code could easily be “gun fired in right spot=head shot plus deflection. I really don’t see a game proving anything. 
    Whoa, meta-conspiracy. The game shows you the paths of the bullets from rifle onward; there's nothing bizarre about them. It's difficult to get results close to Oswald's, but not impossible (it's easy to kill JFK, but difficult to copy Oswald's shots exactly). For one thing the game disproves the claims that the bullets would have to fly through the air in weird S-shapes to cause those injuries to the men. Also, the idea that Oswald wouldn't have time to fire 3 rounds is BS -- from the book depository window the car is moving as slow as hell after it turns the corner.
  • game designers have done all sorts of crazy things. Like they did a study that showed if a player doesn't get a kill in their first multi-player match they are more likely to stop playing. So developers for Gears of War actually adjusted people's strength, aim and damage to make sure they were more likely to get a kill and then set it back to normal. developers can do anything with code. 
  • no conspiracy buddy...just facts. Develops fuck with the mechanics of games. 

    https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/2/16247112/video-game-developer-secrets

  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited October 20
    I’ve solved it!

    who said he wanted to go to the moon within the next decade? JFK. 

    Who has a secret base on the moon? Nazis

    what did that one guy say in the movie? “Fascism is coming back!” 

    Boom. Nailed it. Hitler did it. Unfortunately for him Neil Armstrong and the original Space Force had their revenge and shut that shit down in 69. 
  • Natter CastNatter Cast San Francisco, CA
    edited October 22
    Recommended for folks interested in JFK, Vietnam and government manipulation in the 60s and 70s: The Falcon and the Snowman.

    Evidently the same people who were disciplined enough to assassinate the president without leaving a trace of their handiwork ALSO thought that giving Christopher Boyce a security clearance was a good idea :)

    This isn't a bad film. It's a little too heavy on the Lifetime romantic tragedy 80s teen adventure, but the performances are solid and it's wonderfully paced. 


Sign In or Register to comment.