Saturday, March 3, 2018

More Conspiracy

When Donald J. Trump became President of the United States he promised to release some of the classified files from the John F. Kennedy Assassination. President Trump has done just that, slowly since takin office he has been releasing these top secret documents to the public (Morley). Nearly 19,000 pages have been released (Keystone), but what do they say? Researches and conspirators alike have combed through these pages over and over to find not much of anything. The main point that they reveal is that Oswald had an escape route planned. He had previously visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico the September prior to the assassination of President Kennedy (Warren). So did the CIA or FBI know about Oswald's movements before? The answer is yes. he was on both agencies watch lists but they did nothing. There were many signs and warnings that when off that they neglected. This is where the conspiracy that the CIA and or FBI were behind the assassination. Kennedy already didn't like the CIA saying that they should "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (Keystone). These simple words made Kennedy a target for the CIA (Warren), this giving them motive to help Oswald carry out the assassination (Keystone). They could turn a blind eye as Oswald prepared and preformed the violent assassination. With these new documents being released the case for a conspiracy involving the CIA grows stronger and stronger.

Another conspiracy called the Cambridge connection. MI5 headquarters in Cambridge received a phone call anonymously that said to be ready for big news, and to call the US embassy in London(Keystone). This was interesting because this phone call took place 25 minutes before the actual assassination (Keystone). How was this possible? This could only mean one thing, that somebody else knew about the assassination, and that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in the murder (Morley). People knew what was going to happen before it actually did, and with the timeline provided by the Warren Commission there would be no time for Oswald to call himself to make the tip.

These two bits of evidence don't help the case that there was no government cover up, and really lowers the trust that people have in the government. If I'm being honest, in my opinion the Cambridge connection to me was a big deal as to whether Oswald acted alone or not. From what I've read so far there wasn't anything solid enough to convince me of a conspiracy, but this really makes me think again. The release of all the documents doesn't help the trust in the government because it look like they were hiding something in the first place keeping the documents hidden. I am still convinced that there is no conspiracy, Oswald may not have acted alone though, the Cambridge call makes me think again.



Works Cited:

Keystone. “The Most Popular JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories.” The Week UK, 9 Nov. 2017,
        www.theweek.co.uk/55933/who-killed-jfk-a-guide-to-the-kennedy-conspiracy-theories. 

Warren, Earl. “Chapter 5.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records
        Administration, www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-5.html#chronology. 

Morley, Jerrerson. “Twitter Fingers On the Grassy Knoll.” NewsWeekGlobal, 7 July 2017,
        eds.a.ebscohost.com.dist.lib.usu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=3276657b-b2b7-4033-
        8c91-bba7a2545edd%40sessionmgr4009.                         

                        

1 comment:

  1. Blog analysis by Ayzia Johnson.
    This argument, a blog titled “More Conspiracy” by Zachary Crump, is written about the assassination of President Kennedy. Zachary Crump is a student at Utah State University. As an undergraduate student, he has spent weeks studying and researching this conspiracy theory. This exposure to the content of the argument gives him credibility in writing about this topic. This essay is geared toward a vague audience. Perhaps he is writing to fellow college students who are interested in the event of Kennedy’s assassination. He does not appear to be targeting any major group of officials to evoke change or action.
    The authors purpose for writing this essay is to entertain the possibility of a conspiracy, without trying to convince anyone either way. He presents facts about secret documents being released and about a suspicious phone call that might suggest that Oswald was not the only one involved in the assassination. These facts could reinforce someone’s belief in a conspiracy, but the author makes the claim that he is not convinced that there is any governmental conspiracy involved.
    The author uses credible sources from the National Archives and Records Administration, as well as less credible news report sources. The claims made in each source bolster up his argument, and the lack of credibility supports the claim he makes that he is not convinced.
    There is a casual, slightly analytical tone to this essay. This is reinforced by his sentence structures and his organization and examples. Crump uses casual questions throughout such as “ but what do they say?” and “How was this possible?” These questions make his essay feel like a conversation and pull the audience in for a friendly chat about the subject. His use of the phrase, “If I’m being honest, in my opinion…” detracts from the analytical tone he set up when talking about the sources and reinforces the casual nature of the paper. It is easy to disregard an opinion and a casual statement. This soft claim fits well with the incongruent bits of arguments and analysis. The way he uses the sources and examples also add to the analytical tone of the essay.
    The strongest persuasive appeal in this post is ethos. Crump relies heavily on what the sources say in the body of the post. He relies on the credibility of the sources to carry the argument he makes. He paraphrases the sources throughout the post and uses parenthetical citation to back up the claims. This persuasive appeal could have been stronger if the sources had been introduced more clearly and convincingly. Crump leaves it up to the reader to verify the credibility of the sources he uses.

    ReplyDelete