JFK

To bastardize a pop culture question "Do you remember where you were when someone claimed they knew who shot JFK?"

Not long ago I wrote an article called "Myths, Faction and Pulp Non-Fiction", which discussed my guilty affection for three types of inaccurate history telling. The article also had the twin purpose of distinguishing more reliable historical ressources from sensationalist "True Stories". As time passes certain films and books that I loved years ago alter in worth to me. Some are locked, perhaps forever, in that little proverbial time capsule we call nostalgia. You love them in spite of and because of their faults - in this sense these films and books become like true friends. Then there are those real gems that "re-discover". You look back and you see why they have stood the test of time. Perhaps you do see more short-comings over time, but these are readily understood and forgiven because in many ways the item was ahead of its time and demands your respect as much now as it did when you first found it. Oliver Stone's film JFK does not fit into either category. At the time I loved it, now I see it for the travesty of pseudohistory and it really is. However, the factual tape recording "Who Shot John F Kennedy?" by Martin Fido happily straddles both the categories.

Now before someone says I have posted this in the wrong forum, please bear with me. This is not intended as a set of retrospective reviews. The JFK assassination conspiracy theories have floated around my consciousness almost as much as Jack the Ripper. Looking back I can't believe the absolute rubbish I swallowed. I'll never forget the moment a dear friend of mine asked me with a smug knowing smile on his face "Do you know who shot JFK?" I answered in somewhat timid and mumbled tones "No, but I generally follow the idea that it was not Lee Harvey Oswald". I wanted to sound cool and since Oliver Stone's Film that had been released about 3 years before it just wouldn't do to say the most obvious and the most likely answer. Hell no! That would be like saying Ghandi was a racist! Just not cool, man, just not cool. My friend did not wait for me to ask him. He was bursting to tell me. With that same grin on his face he revealed that it was... the driver! What followed was a dodgy video that gradually revealed scrambled film that had only been aired in Japan, depicting the driver of JFK's limo shooting over his shoulder. Without a hint of shame or irony, the narrator further explained the other footage, the one showing the side of JFK's head being blown apart, had been doctored. The whole video then went on to explain that it was all in line with a secret masionic (yep those guys again) conspiracy known as "The New World Order" - Clearly they weren't after points for originality. My doubts surfaced, but I didn't argue. In fact, I even discussed with other people as if I might even half believe it.

A couple of years later I picked up a series of True Crime tapes narrated by the criminal historian Martin Fido. I have remained a firm fan of Fido's work and bought up every tape I could find he produced. As time has gone on I have found that he has also made errors and unknowingly passed on as myths. He is very opinionated, which adds to the charm and has great storytelling ability. However, on the whole, his work is well researched and he has a passion for proper historical procedure. His review of the JFK case is an excellent example of historical debunking. I have not read anything since that has come up with a more sensible and succinct account of the case. In retrospect Oliver Stone's JFK is not entertaining enough to be slotted with the Jack the Ripper fictional movies I love to re-watch (Murder by Decree, Jack the Ripper TV series) and is an attack on sobre historical research. Fido's tape is both entertaining and very informative. More than the actual content and evidence provided on the subject, it is Fido's teaching on how to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions through the confirmation bias that I recommend the tape. It is a victory of common sense, reason and principle-led research over the most learned of conspiracy theorists. And it presents the closest verdict we have to an historical fact: Lee Harvey Oswald did kill JFK.

To Quote, (Because I still dont know how the quote button works)

That would be like saying Ghandi was a racist!

I suppose you did watch BS season 3 Holier than thou!

Anyway thats another story and a great article from Jamie, I concur on your points, nice post.

Regards,

Den.

Hi Den,

I didn't intend it to be an article actually. It was just a lengthy post on my experience with the JFK conspiracy theory. To be critical, I cited no sources for my argument on why I believed Fido was right, just that I highly recommend his tape on the case to anyone who wants a succinct account on the case and also some great simple rules regarding avoiding the pitfalls when researching history.

Jamie

PS And yes I did see the BS episode "Holier than Thou" and thought it was a much needed tonic.

You're right Jamie,

I really must watch my wording when replying to such posts,

I blame the flu, a freudian slip and lack of sleep muddying my senses,

although I do believe you could put up a compelling argument for your case if pushed.

Regards,

Den.

Thanks, Den. Rather a discussion on the debunking of the JFK conspiracy I just wanted to put across the subculture of JFK conspiracy theory and a) how I grew up, if you like and b) what did I learn? Fido helped me grow up and look at history more critically (or even just properly) and he really introduced me to what I would learn to be "confirmation bias".