Response 1: ‘JFK’Reflecting on the arguments made by the author of ‘JFK’, it can be seen that the motives of the author remained to be inclined towards adapting a very open mind towards the topic. Here, the experience of taking part in understanding the situation, the issue, and other related facets surrounding the case have contributed to a wider perspective in the issue. Such dynamics indeed provided better means to address the issues involved and demonstrate competency in deriving the differences between facts and conspiracies.
Assessing the manner that the author provided on how the government may have been involved in the assassination plot remains to be limited. The arguments provided does not seem to jive effectively with the reasoning given by the writer and became merely an act of stipulation. If these were really a conspiracy theory or not, it would have been better to point out specific situations that involved the original case and try to separate facts from fiction. Given that there had been numerous attempts by media to elaborate on these issues, it is important for each one to understand the facts of the matter.On the other hand, with regards to the issue of the mafia and the Kennedy assassination, the writer made a good contribution by arguing the two scenarios relationship.
However, one would need to clarify the argument concerning this. A fair question that can be asked involves Why was the president targeted? Why not Bobby Kennedy instead? Simply arguing that Kennedy angered the mafia does not necessarily justify the assassination attempt. It must have been meticulously planned. Despite the fact that there had been a clear motive, it would have been best if the author expounded more on this issue to gain better ways to inform readers about such perspective.
Response 2: JFK: Covering Up the FactsReacting to this post, the author made a good attempt to single out what he/she thinks remains to be the most essential conspiracy theory affecting the Kennedy assassination. Specifically, it takes into account determining the value and role of how the media including Stone sensationalized the issue to demonstrate a new story and perspective concerning the issue. Though this person did not accept that there had been conspiracy theories about the issue, one thing questionable about this stance showcases how misleading the reasons were used. Rather, it was just a simple elaboration of vague ideas of comparing specific theories side-by-side.
One aspect that remains clarification in the post provided involves the statement of Richard Helms where issues such as re-routing plan took place. Deriving the sentence made by the contributor, it can be seen that he closely associated with these patterns related to Clay Shaw and David Ferrie without giving further explanation. It would have been best to identify the connections with these three so as to provide readers with insight on as to how these perspectives remain associated with one another. These dynamics in turn increases the effectiveness of the main argument concerning how conspiracy theories have no bearing in the Kennedy assassination.
Lastly, the argument provided by the author concerning the analysis of shots was well founded and provided with accurate insights coming from both Stone’s depiction and the actual fact. However, the perspectives shown by this specific discussion lacks sufficient evidence and citations to determine the actual truth. Using experience from watching TV alone may prove to be deceiving or incomplete especially if one may assess the validity of the shootings from the vantage point of distance, position, and impact.
