A) Conclusive? Which part of this is conclusive?
B) At what point have the CIA, FBI and JCS admitted taking part in a coverup?
C) Likely benficiaries and theoretical motive do not a solid conclusion
make, my friend.
>Now ask yourself this: Why has the media never really investigated the
>crime. Why have they been content to parrot the government's findings. Why
>don't you ever read about any of this in the New York Times?
Beg pardon? If there is a SINGLE person on this list, or anywhere that
newspapers and TV reach, who has not heard the majority of this many many
times, I'll eat my copy of the Zapruder footage. "Who really killed JFK"
cannot be considered one of the great un-asked questions of the era.
I understand that the truth would be an interesting discovery. However, and
I must allow that perhaps I'm the only one who thinks so, WHO CARES?
Half the people involved are dead, the rest are no longer involved in public
service to any extent--what would be the impact of ferreting out what really
happened? We'd all say, "Oh, so THAT'S it" and return to worrying about
1996. It only took us another 10 years to discover how crooked each branch
of our government could really be--the conclusive news that the same hubris
of power existed in 1963 would be no stunning revelation.
I admire your tenacity and dedication to a task, but I'd prefer to see that
zeal applied to something that might improve the future rather than rewrite
the past. Finding out it was the wife of Henry Cabot Lodge shooting from the
grassy knoll will not change any of the problems we face today. (I expect
that to be the next revelation from the released Nixon tapes, by the way).
Maybe it's a result of being from the cynical baby-bust generation, but
geez, get over it...
M
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark Bunster * In such an ugly time
mbunster@saturn.vcu.edu * the true protest
Survey Research Lab * is beauty
Va. Commonwealth U. *
Richmond, VA 23284 * -Ochs