11/22/63: Stephen King and JJ Abrams Lay an Egg

[Don Jeffries]

The mantra that "conspiracy theorists" simply can't accept that a great man could be taken down by a simple lone nut is almost as prevalent as the "someone would have talked" line; the "that many people couldn't keep a secret" came directly from the infamous 1967 CIA memo "Countering the Critics of the Warren Report."

King's central thesis, which mirrors the central thesis of the corrupt leaders which continue to misrule us, is that Oswald wanted to "be somebody," in King's updated parlance- a "fame junkie." As Denny points out, this hypothesis is contradicted by his protestations of innocence. I tried to ask Dan Moldea this same question years ago; if Sirhan "wanted to be famous," why did he deny the crime? He never responded, and I suspect King wouldn't either.

I don't believe for a second that King thinks Oswald acted alone. Neither does Tom Hanks. Certainly, neither needs more money, so there has to be some other motivation for them to willingly peddle such destructive fairy tales. I talk about King in my book- like so many "liberals," and despite the fact he is a native New Englander, he admits to never "being a fan" of Kennedy. We see this same curious dislike of the Kennedys on the part of many, many high profile "liberals."

My guess is that, although he cavalierly dismisses all "conspiracy theorists," King swallows every one of Judith Campbell Exner's inconsistent allegations against JFK. In which, of course, he follows the lead of professional "journalists" and practically the entire "left" today. And I bet he reveres every other Democratic Party president of the modern era.

[James DiEugenio]

By the way, I should add something else about the embroidery of the mini series. (I cannot speak for the book.)

See, in addition to having Ruby on screen for maybe a minute or so, the Oswald story is picked up only upon his return from Russia.

Therefore, all the bizarre things that are so prickly about his time in the military and his defection can be bypassed.

Things like the Russian examination, the Rosaleen Quinn testimony about Oswald being fluent in Russian while in the Marines, his association with the U 2 and the newest radar operation machinery, the false defector program, the phony hardship discharge and lack of inquiry into it, Oswald's staying in two five star hotels in Helsnki, etc etc etc

See, with all that eliminated, and the complete cutting out of New Orleans and Mexico City, then you can excise any and all intel connections to Oswald.

The two in combination allows the viewer to ignore the whole obvious scenario of Oswald as CIA agent provocateur and Ruby as organized crime errand boy.

Edited June 1, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

By the way, I should add something else about the embroidery of the mini series. (I cannot speak for the book.)

See, in addition to having Ruby on screen for maybe a minute or so, the Oswald story is picked up only upon his return from Russia.

Therefore, all the bizarre things that are so prickly about his time in the military and his defection can by bypassed.

Things like the Russian examination, the Rosaleen Quinn testimony about Oswald being fluent in Russian while in the Marines, his association with the U 2 and the newest radar operation machinery, the false defector program, the phony hardship discharge and lack of inquiry into it, Oswald's staying in two five star hotels in Helsnki, etc etc etc

See, with all that eliminated, and the complete cutting out of New Orleans and Mexico City, then you can excise any and all intel connections to Oswald.

The two in combination allows the viewer to ignore the whole obvious scenario of Oswald as CIA agent provocateur and Ruby as organized crime errand boy.

Now if we can only stop assuming that Oswald's intel connections had a hand in the Kennedy Assassination.

They certainly had a hand in the Oswald Assassination!

Having a hand in the Kennedy assassination would have been a major breach of tradecraft for the guys who had Oswald killed.

Compartmentalization of intel operations is rarely considered by Pet Theorists, sad to see.

[James DiEugenio]

Getting back to King, because of these excisions, and what they ultimately mean, one really has to wonder if they were deliberate or not.

I mean in a nine part series, the producers really had enough room to put them in there.

At the very least in passing.

But in reality, virtually none of it is there.

So the result is you get the WC version of both Oswald and Ruby, maybe even worse since Ruby is there so briefly.

And remember, the WC volumes actually did include the Corliss Lamont pamphlet.

(BTW, isn't it a little startling that none of the early authors noticed that? I mean Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Popkin, Thompson, Sauvage etc,)

Edited June 2, 2016 by James DiEugenio