Jfk Conspiracy Theory Essay
My dealings with the man were always cordial, though not productive. I read as much of his mammoth Reclaiming History as I could. I came away agreeing with him that there were many implausible JFK conspiracy theories out there–in addition to the also-implausible anti-conspiracy theory that he advocated.
And that was what was problematic about Bugiliosi’s intellectual approach to the JFK story. The idea that you could get at the truth about JFK’s death by refuting every false theory strikes me as very odd. A historian would never write a book about the causes of World War II by trying to refute every interpretation but his or her own. Why would you address the JFK story in such a backhanded way?
“Because there are so many bad theories out there,” he said when I …show more content…
As for the contradictory evidence, Vince often dealt with it by saying that, since all conspiracy theories were wrong, any evidence that might lead one to believe a conspiracy theory could not be reliable. This, of course, was a circular argument that wonderfully reinforced the conclusions he already drawn. Vince drove laps around this argument, endlessly proud of his dedication to truth and oblviious to the fact that he wasn’t getting anywhere.
Like a lot of JFK obsessives, Vince wanted to talk about theories more than he wanted to talk about facts..I asked him, for example, what he made of the George Joannides story? What could explain the actions of a man whose paid assets among the anti-Castro Cubans had contact with Oswald before JFK’s assassination in 1963 and who came back to block Congress’ investigation of this fact 15 years later.
Did he think the CIA man knew about Oswald before the assassination and chose not to report what he knew? Or was he running a psychological warfare operation that involved
And that was what was problematic about Bugiliosi’s intellectual approach to the JFK story. The idea that you could get at the truth about JFK’s death by refuting every false theory strikes me as very odd. A historian would never write a book about the causes of World War II by trying to refute every interpretation but his or her own. Why would you address the JFK story in such a backhanded way?
“Because there are so many bad theories out there,” he said when I …show more content…
As for the contradictory evidence, Vince often dealt with it by saying that, since all conspiracy theories were wrong, any evidence that might lead one to believe a conspiracy theory could not be reliable. This, of course, was a circular argument that wonderfully reinforced the conclusions he already drawn. Vince drove laps around this argument, endlessly proud of his dedication to truth and oblviious to the fact that he wasn’t getting anywhere.
Like a lot of JFK obsessives, Vince wanted to talk about theories more than he wanted to talk about facts..I asked him, for example, what he made of the George Joannides story? What could explain the actions of a man whose paid assets among the anti-Castro Cubans had contact with Oswald before JFK’s assassination in 1963 and who came back to block Congress’ investigation of this fact 15 years later.
Did he think the CIA man knew about Oswald before the assassination and chose not to report what he knew? Or was he running a psychological warfare operation that involved