Hartwell Perspective on Government Conspiracies
Introduction
by Dean Hartwell © 2007
Some people in the United States make a joke out of conspiracy theories. They call those of us who believe in some of them “conspiracy nuts” and speak with disdain about symbols of conspiracy thought, such as the grassy knoll near where President Kennedy was shot.
Conspiracy theory here means the idea that members of the government act together to perpetuate a heinous crime. Rarely do theorists name all of the players since conspiracies are usually planned out with the intent to cover up the names of those who participated.
These essays take conspiracy theories seriously and describes three of them in detail. Though readers may see a logical connection between two of them, the John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy assassinations, I do not imply or express a link among all three.
Except for one thing: I have offered proof that all three theories are more likely to be true than not.
My three selections, the tragedy of 9/11, the JFK assassination and the RFK assassination, meet the requirements for true conspiracy theories. First, I establish the presence of government activity. In each situation, the proof of this presence comes up differently. But all of them involve actions that private citizens do not have the means and opportunity to carry out and cover up.
For instance, you will read that during the attacks of September 11, employees of the Federal Aviation Administration complained of an extraordinary amount of dots on their computer screens. These dots obscured the actual flights taking place at the same time that hijackers were taking over airplanes and flying them! You will see that only a certain government employee had the means to control this outcome.
Second, in each case the official theory fails to show stronger evidence than a dissenting theory and does not make logical sense. Frequently, contradictions in official testimony over key issues occur and evidence contradicting the official theory gets ignored or suppressed.
For example, you will read that shortly after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the agency in charge of investigating, the Los Angeles Police Department, tore down wall panels and ceilings that may have contained bullets. They had already found the “right” number of bullets, it seems. They also harassed a young Kennedy volunteer who had information on possible accomplices to the accused murderer. She recanted, but it was most likely to get the police off her back.
And third, each event has its scapegoats, all of whom are likely to have been misquoted and misunderstood, especially when professing their innocence. Each scapegoat, interestingly, is the only suspect announced officially by the government.
A case in point that you will find is that of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John Kennedy. When the evidence against him fell a little short of an adequate case, prosecutors and police started calling Oswald a “Marxist” or a “Communist.” Since the nation had a collective fear against Communism, this charge helped create an imprint in the public’s mind of Oswald’s guilt, despite the charge’s irrelevance.
Not every conspiracy theory is true. Far from it. There are some official theories of infamous events in the United States that I find more evidence to support. I believe that Sara Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme both acted alone in their separate assassination attempts on President Gerald Ford in September 1975. I believe that John Hinckley was the only gunman in his attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life in March 1981. I also support the official government theory that we have landed safely on the moon several times.
Check the Internet. Conspiracy theories abound on these and other events. Perhaps some people are creative or even deceptive. I still don’t know where the moon rocks came from if they are truly from earth. Wouldn’t scientists be able to (and be willing to) tell if rocks presented to them were from our planet?
Some conspiracy theories have evidentiary support and some do not. For this reason, it is well worth our while to investigate theories that have facts to support them. It also helps when theories have some public backing as it is difficult for anyone to come up with and publicize one’s unique theory. These theories tend to go nowhere and are usually untrue.
People who read these essays may wonder about other events in our history and ask why they are not included. In time, maybe they will be, but for now I do not see enough evidence to support these examples:
Some will ask why we should care whether the government conspires against its own people. I would say that if the government can murder President Kennedy, it can do the same to any of us. But, in fact, it already has.
Consider the National Guard shootings of four college students at Kent State in 1970. A large group of students organized to protest President Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia. The Guard showed up in riot gear, anticipating a clash. However, none of the students injured or killed there were in any way a threat to the Guardsmen. The fact that the Guardsmen involved were acquitted in court does not detract from the fact that our government will use force against perceived agitators.
Consider the Tuskegee Experiment, in which the Public Health Services (PHS) and the Tuskegee Institute in 1932 invited 400 poor black men to participate in a study. All of them had syphilis but did not know it. Even when penicillin was found to be the cure for the disease in the 1940s, the PHS and the Institute never told the men of their status nor did they treat them. They instead waited for scores of them to die so that they could research their autopsies.
Consider the sluggish government response to the inception of the AIDS crisis. While thousands of people died from AIDS-related illnesses, President Reagan would not say the word and watched as misconceptions of the disease spread throughout the world. The government had spent millions of dollars on flu shots just a few years before, declaring it an epidemic, but when a disease perceived as a “gay disease” went out of control, the government turned a deaf ear for many years about treatment, education and sympathy.
Government conspiracy occurs in lesser ways as well. Viet Nam draft resisters went to prison after they tried to “put the government on trial” by saying that they could not support an immoral policy. The courts, representing the government, simply disallowed this defense.
These essays serve as a lookout for future conspiracies acted on by members of the government who represent the public. Whenever an explanation offered by an authority makes no sense, we must turn off our blinders and recognize that we, the people, are possible targets. A fully-informed, critically-thinking public will always be the best defense against the deepest corruption our government can offer.