Paul Is Dead and JFK Plot Theories

In writing about various conspiracy theories that have been spun over the years, I could replicate the information that is readily available on the Internet. But seeing that those who read my blog are already either pretty intelligent and well-informed about performing searches or have found my blog through a search (proving that they are capable in this area), I decided to instead focus on my own circumstances and reflections regarding those "theories".

With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.

Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.

Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!

In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.