Grassy knoll

Forty years since JFK got whacked and there is no shortage of TV documentaries about the man, his life - and, of course, his death. Watched one over the weekend which was interesting primarily because it sought to prove that there was no conspiracy theory: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and his bullets weren't magic.

I hate conspiracy theories. I hate the way that whenever you argue with a conspiracy theorist, whether it's about JFK, Princess Diana or whatever happens to be the conspiracist's plat du jour, they always answer every point you make with a knowing, pitying smile and say something like: "That's exactly what you're meant to think... it's all part of the conspiracy." I think most things in life are best explained in the most simple way. The problem is that saying, for example, Princess Diana died - like thousands of other people every year - because she was in a car that was being driven too fast by somebody who had had a bit too much to drink just isn't very sexy, is it?

Still there was something a bit too pat about this programme, narrated by Gavin Esler and shown on BBC2. The bulk of the evidence relied on a dude who had spent ten years (surely not?) making a 3D computer simulation of Dealey Plaza and matching his simulation up, frame by frame, to the famous Zapruder footage of the assassination. Thus, it was possible to view everything that happened from every conceivable angle. The only problem was the computer simulation was about as convincing as watching a bunch of Space Invaders performing Hamlet.

I can well believe LHO had the motive to kill Kennedy (a deep desire to be somebody and make his mark on the world). And I can believe it's theoretically possible for one person to fire off three rounds in eight seconds or so and still hit a moving target (though I wish Esler had actually got somebody to do this for real). But other things still nag away - and were nimbly skipped over in the narration. No matter how many times I watch the Zapruder footage, it still looks to me like the second shot that hits JFK is coming from a different direction to the first. I know the eye can deceive, but I'd have liked a better explanation than Esler's "when a body is hit by a bullet sometimes it goes backwards and sometimes it goes forward."

Still, it was good to watch Oliver Stone get a polite kicking. History is history and movies are movies. One depends on solid evidence and argument. The other trades in emotive manipulation. In "JFK" Stone confuses the two and has suckered millions of people who don't know any better.

Comments

[Phil Knoll]

Hi, My name is Phil Knoll.

I am a son of German immigrant. I am now the VP of the Duke Energy. I am a fool. Heil!

Good to watch Oliver Stone get a polite kicking. I enjoy screwing people. The history is history and movies are movies.

[tom truth]

Simple is what you are! and if you like living your life around bullshit so be it.

[Jacob]

The movie JFK was what it was, 'a movie' and I dont think Stone ever tried to imply otherwise. The theatrically 'added' last 'speech' by Costner's character points at the camera and the viewers saying 'its up to you' making it obviously clear that it was not a 'historically' correct depiction. But the points raised in the movie remain unchallenged by Esler's unushually amatuerish effort.

[phil]

I saw the Esler program on JFK. I've never seen such a grossly biased and amateurish 'analysis' of the assassination. Either Esler is a disinformation agent or needs lessons in elementary logic. For instance, he was at pains to establish Lee Harvey Oswald as a 'nobody' trying to be a 'somebody' by carrying out an infamous act for all the world to see. In that case why did Oswald continually deny shooting JFK, and describe himself as a "patsy"?

I wrote to Esler last year after the first showing of this program and challenged him to explain the various points I raised. I received no reply. If he was sincere he would have found the time.

We don't need people like Esler trying to brainwash another generation with fairy stories.