Thursday, February 11, 2016
A TV Series ('11-22-63') As Dumb As The Book It's Based Upon
Actor James Franco (as 'Jake Epping' - 'Jack' in King's book 11-22-63) looks over a Dealey Plaza model in preparation to go back in time to try to stop Lee Oswald from killing Kennedy. Trouble is the TV series like the book is based on the "Oswald dunnit" myth.
As I noted at the time King's '11/22/63' came out, he admitted creating his lead character, school teacher "Jack Epping", to attempt to travel back in time to stop the "nasty, snarling" (in one perp walk photo King referenced in an MSNBC interview in 2011) Lee Harvey Oswald "from carrying out his foul deed". So King, having been suckered into the Oswald dunnit myth, decided to write an 849 page "gorilla of a book" to further the crass disinformation disgorged in the Warren Report.
The problem is that King's thesis is bollocks. It is based on the false historical presumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perpetrator and sole assassin. (Thanks to the Warren Commission, which was really a creature of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to an official government investigation such as the 1978-79 House Subcommittee on Assassinations which found a "96% probability of conspiracy")
That King, the media and the powers behind it could even believe they can sell this pile of ripe merde is beyond belief. Not only that, but that they could make an eight part adaptation of the book, and enlist 500 extras to participate in this sham - as well as actors like Chris Cooper and James Franco. (Not to mention shutting down the center of Dallas for 2 days to "recreate the scene" - according to a recent TV Guide account)
In his original 'Morning Joe' interview on Nov. 16, 2011 King declared:
"I am prepared to get my ass kicked by conspiracy theorists on my book tour!"
And indeed he did, as researcher after researcher held this horror hack's feet to the fire for getting abundant facts wrong and revising history wholesale in his gargantuan novel - that almost rivals Vince Bugliosi's bunkum ('Reclaiming History') in its fictional license and liberties.
When Scarborough pressed him for the basis, say avoiding a conspiracy plot, King was blunt.
"You know, Ockham's Razor and all".
Okay, hold it right there! Invoking Ockham only works properly when applied to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or phenomenon! The reason is simple: we expect all natural events or phenomena to conform to a limited number of defined natural laws, including: the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law), Newton's laws of motion, and the conservation of mass -energy. In addition, the primary attribute of most natural laws is the simplicity of their hypotheses, i.e. economy of assumptions.
The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is a fundamentally HUMAN driven act not a natural act or based on a natural phenomenon. It is imbued with human motivations, plans and agendas. Indeed, it is the plausible presence of human subjective contamination that automatically places the event in the realm of the unnatural so that Ockham's Razor cannot be logically applied.
In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, coronal mass ejections, asteroid flybys etc. and those which govern human affairs. The latter are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws- are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including putative conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is total nonsense.
From this point of view, King ought to be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing - or that Ockham's Razor could legitimately be generalized and used as a litmus test as if the Kennedy assassination were like a solar eclipse or the planetary occultation of a star.
King did refer in his 2011 interview to assorted "conspiracy theories" (which he claimed to have investigated), but they were all of the weakest variety: the Mafia -Sam Giancana Mob theory - i.e. the Mob whacked him because he set his brother Bobby - as Attorney General - loose on the mob with his hearings, when Giancana & Co. allegedly allowed JFK to win Chicago and hence Illinois electoral votes in 1960; or "the Cubans did it" conspiracy, i.e. a cabal of disaffected Cubans nailed him for not providing air cover during the Bay of Pigs and so allowing them to be captured by Castro's revolutionaries and imprisoned. And lastly, the 'Fidel did it" theory - that Castro engineered the assassination to get back at Kennedy (for allowing the assorted CIA attempts on his life)
Nowhere, at no point, either in his book or in his interview (or the Hulu adaptation), is the key evidence cited that character Epping would need: the CIA's 201-289248 CI/SIG file on Oswald (released after the JFK Records Act) bearing the letter ‘D’ on the cover sheet, indicating a CIA Staff D, or SIGINT (signals intelligence) operation run in concert with the National Security Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”
Most researchers who are serious understand that ZR/Rifle at the behest of Harvey was re-directed against JFK. The tipping point for most of us was when the spooks - like David Atlee Phillips, e.g
became aware of Kennedy's efforts at rapprochement with Castro, via aide William Atwood. (It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas.
This has been known for over 20 years by researchers and yet King's character (and King himself) were evidently too dense or clueless to patch it together.
King then ran off the rails, displaying even more lack of attention to historical details, by asserting to Joe Scarborough that:
"Oswald won Hell's Lottery!"
He made this offhand blurtation in connection to Oswald being hired at the Texas School Book Depository on Oct. 16, 1963, or a mere six days before the assassination. But it was no "lottery" that he won, rather being targeted by Ruth Paine to ensure he was there in order to play the patsy role. King made reference to Paine and her testimony that Lee left his keys, and other possessions as he left for work on the fateful day. All of which are lies.
Paine herself was a deceitful, untrustworthy witness who never truthfully acknowledged, either before the Warren Commission or a later New Orleans Grand Jury, that her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) in fact worked for the CIA - while her husband's (Michael's) mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was connected to Allen Dulles (the former CIA Chief) who JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. (James Douglass, 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p. 169)
Let us also recall that Dulles was appointed by LBJ as one of the Warren Commissioners. Between Dulles and Hoover (LBJ's good pal) all the documents and access for the Warren Commission could easily be managed and cherry -picked to drive the conclusion toward the lone nut nonsense. The latter did, however, serve a purpose in the warped reality of the Warrenites - as it justified the Commission avoiding the Oswald as KGB assassin ruse.
Ruth Paine, who King seemed to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon, also never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):
"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".
Adams then left a message with whoever took his call for Oswald to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone for Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason is to put the patsy in place.
Here in a nutshell is the real reason King chose to do the hackneyed "Oswald dunnit" theme for his book, as well as the streaming Hulu adaptation: He was bloody lazy and it was a damned sight easier to regurgitate the official humbug than having to do real research and dig up the actual conspiracy (which we now tie to the CIA and William Harvey in the NSA via the Staff D operations and Oswald's CI/SIG file).
Even TIME in its recent (Feb. 15, p. 55) write up about this farce essentially calls it out as being too simplistic to demand an 8-part series. ("The premise is so simple that conspiracy theories don't even enter into it.") The problem then becomes violating a fictional version of Ockham's by expanding the fictional purview far beyond what is actually needed to narrate the pseudo-account.
Thus, a single lone nut-based story ought to wrap up in 4 parts or less. Obviously, a real conspiracy theme - tracking down conspirators like David Atlee Phillips, George Joannides and others- would take more. Not to mention lead character Epping having to track down all three teams of assassins in Dealey Plaza (triangulation of gunfire) to stop JFK's murder as opposed to just one guy in one building. THAT would have delivered a real impact as well as logically- justified suspense, excitement as opposed to the phony, contrived alternative on offer from Hulu.
But as TIME notes: "Eight parts is too many and the series goes down several blind alleys".
Ignoring the main point that the whole Oswald dunnit angle is a blind alley, the biggest of all. At least King -- in his interviews- could have admitted he lacked the patience or background to put more ballast into his work. But rather than do that he again took the facile path of blasting "conspiracy theorists" like a true Warrenite toadie.
Apart from all these revisionist historical sore points, there is the technical one that it is simply impossible to go back in time 50+ years in a physical form. (Even leaving out the well -known 'grandfather paradox'). Stephen Hawking's own temporal axiom - which he cited in an April 1990 'PLAYBOY' interview(p. 83) - notes that even if a theoretical time travel technique could be developed one could never traverse to a time or event earlier than the point at which the machine was made. If that was in 1999 then one can't go back any further. (However, in my up and coming scifi novel, 'The Lancer Expedition', a team of historians and physicists is able to project its Goldstone bosons - linked to consciousness - back to the event to at least document what actually transpires.)
Rather than watch this tripe, viewers are better served by watching anything else, say like 'Amazing Race' or even 'Survivor'. Their time would be much better spent, especially in avoiding being propagandized by this BS.