Personal Memory

 One dark night in late winter, 1975, the buzz of a doorbell invited me to become a part of history that has haunted the American consciousness like an abusive memory.

I was a broadcasting major at Amarillo College.  My student job was to run film for our college television station, KACV.  It was a small operation running old black and white movies at a small college in a small city. Films came in two 16mm reels and required a seamless on-air transition between the parts.  A back door near the projectors in the station control room opened onto Memorial Park—dark in the evening—and a colleague and I had only moments before returned from outside where we had smoked a joint.  It is important to make that point to characterize my state of mind.

We were anticipating changing the reel of a projector when the station’s front door buzzed.  I was startled and not a little paranoid.

I neared the large glass front doors and I realized I did not know the man.  He did not appear to be the police and seemed a bit anxious himself.  When he saw me he wildly waved his arms, trying to get my attention.  I sensed there was an emergency.  I wondered if I reeked of weed. I cautiously opened the door slightly and he loudly blurted “can you transfer film to 3-quarter inch tape?”

He said he had been driving on I-40 on the way to L.A. and saw a sign for Amarillo College and had hoped to come across a television station.  He said he had a copy of the Zapruder Film which would be shown on national television for the first time and he needed to make a copy on tape. I had never heard of the Zapruder Film.

His enthusiasm was enough to pique my interest and open the door for him and lead him back to the control room. I wanted to see what was on the film and so did my colleague. He was as intrigued as I that a stranger who had been driving all day to get to Los Angeles to show a film had randomly stopped at our station.

We loaded the film onto a projector. The man narrated what we were seeing.  He described President John Kennedy’s car coming from behind the sign on Dealey Plaza.  Kennedy is clutching his throat and Governor John Connolly is turning around. Then the President’s head is blown away; pieces of his skull and brains explode into the sky and onto the back of the car.  Jackie Kennedy rose and turned to the rear. A secret service man jumped onto the bumper and the car sped away. I will always remember what the guy said next. “That’s Jackie picking up his brains, man.”  The next thought sent chills up my spine. The shot didn’t come from behind.  You see his head go back. That shot was from the front.  Oswald wasn’t alone.”

I had never seen such graphic real violence and certainly not on television.  I had watched news film from the Vietnam War and the violent protests in the sixties, but I had never seen a man get his head blown off, much less President Kennedy.  I was sick at my stomach and understood I was a witness to something profound.  The high intensified it.

I can’t remember the guy’s name but he said he was taking the film to the television show “Good Night America.”  It was hosted by Geraldo Rivera. The guy, who may have been Robert Groden, said the country would be seeing the film for the first time on network television.  The short film did premiere March 6, 1975 (Rivera, 2019).  I thought it would change everything.  It did not.

The Zapruder Film was shot in color November 22, 1963 by Abraham Zapruder using an 8mm camera as the President’s car passed in front of him. The Warren Commission, which had viewed black and white stills of the film, had nevertheless concluded Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone (National Archives, 1964).  There was considerable shock when people saw the film; however; outrage ultimately led to the formation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976. By 1978 the Committee concluded there probably was a conspiracy involved in the assassination. Acoustic evidence had been presented to the Committee which seemed to boost the conspiracy theory — which was later apparently debunked by other acoustic experts. There have been many conspiracy theories related to the assassination and many efforts to debunk them (Bugliosi, 2007).

I do not “solve” here the question of who killed Kennedy or add to its conspiracy theory.  I examine the rhetorical space the Zapruder Film inhabits in the larger question of conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories have become more prevalent in contemporary political culture. These creations, mostly from the right wing of American politics, are a result of the public memory of the Kennedy assassination. In this essay I argue that the Zapruder Film simultaneously reinforces and deconstructs conspiracy theory in American public memory.  It produces this paradox by inducing sanctification, resisting authority, and inspiring imitation.

Sanctification

When Kennedy was President many Catholics had an assortment of photographs on the wall.  There might be a photo of Pope John XXIII.  There could be a crucifix.  There could be a photograph of President John F. Kennedy.  Kennedy was, in fact, the first Catholic president in a country that was profoundly anti-Catholic for much of our history.  The catholic image of Christ on the cross…as one who suffers…whose blood and body is consumed in the sacrament, leading to transubstantiation.  The paradox of sanctification is realized as the film invites us to be killer and victim, to experience death and perpetual life simultaneously.  In the public memory of conspiracy theory, Kennedy is remembered as a martyr, yet is resurrected as one of the paradigms of what conspiracy theory implies—both as a truth that has not been clarified and as a falsehood that is intentionally arcane.

The Zapruder Film is the cross upon which hangs the martyr in his death. It is not my intention to equate John F. Kennedy with the Christian Jesus, but to compare the emotional impact of witnessing an intimate murder.  For Christians the image of Christ on the cross, the Passion of suffering— although not literally witnessed— is symbolically represented for the devout to ponder the lethal violence perpetrated on their savior— their utopian promise of salvation. Kennedy promoted a utopian vision as well, a promise to make American lives better.  Jackie Kennedy was the first to publicly refer to the Kennedy White House as Camelot, referring to the musical, but hearkening back to Christian Arthurian legends of pursuing the noble and good— the Holy Grail.  Both Jesus Christ and JFK stood up to the prevailing authorities of their day, desiring to implant a vision of a new world into the dreams of their followers.  Jesus was crucified.  Kennedy’s utopian dreams were violently shattered in that moment depicted in the Zapruder Film as the Presidents head explodes; blood sprays into the air and Jackie instinctively climbs onto the back of the limousine to retrieve pieces of his skull.  It is a horrifying sight, visceral and corporeal, very much like the Passion of Jesus Christ who must endure torture until His death.  To be clear, Kennedy was not Christ-like, although he was the first Catholic president, and hated by some for that fact during his campaign (Carroll, 2015).

Watching the graphic Zapruder Film we identify through a Burkean lens with the victim— the man who never sees death arrive.  His murder is public, and yet because of what the film reveals, it is intimate.  Our empathy with seeing a vulnerable human being having his life ripped from him by human hands brings the horror home. We mourn the senseless loss of life and we fear our own vulnerability.  Four American presidents have been murdered: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy.  Others have been shot or shot at.  Staring at iconic photographs after the lethal fact there is an emotional distance between death and reflection.  The Zapruder Film is one of the most graphic depictions of an assassination that can still be viewed on the internet.  The original film—material and subject to disintegration— is now an immortal digital image, a symbol of Kennedy’s martyrdom.  Long past the actual event we, as viewers, are able to identify with the act of violence.

In A Rhetoric of Motives Kenneth Burke explains “identification” thusly: An imagery of slaying (slaying of either the self or another) is to be considered merely as a special case of identification in general.  Or otherwise put: the imagery of slaying is a special case of transformation and transformation involves the ideas and images of identification.  That is, the killing of something is the changing of it, and the statement of the thing’s nature before and after the change is an identifying of it (Burke, 1969).           

Two primary narratives existed before the assassination.  The belief from more conservative quarters was that Kennedy was straying from conservative political precedents.  He considered deescalating the war in Vietnam (Galbraith, 2003).  He failed to provide support for the Cubans who had invaded the Bay of Pigs for the purpose of removing Fidel Castro (Bohning, 2005).  He supported the civil rights movement and enforced desegregation (Dallek, 2003). Anti-Catholic bigotry simmered in hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, even as Kennedy’s election seemed to diminish some of the animosity (Zeitz, 2015).  He was scorned by the right for supporting the U.N. and accused of treason (Gopnick, 2013).  Liberals, on the other hand, were inspired by his idealism and the very actions listed above that angered the right-wing.  He was young, a war hero, was married to a beautiful, intelligent and glamourous woman from a good family.  He, himself, had come from an established and colorful family from Massachusetts.  The Kennedy family was the first to represent something of a pseudo-aristocracy in America. They hobnobbed with Hollywood, closely aligning themselves with the likes of Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe. JFK was an icon of the times, a celebrity of optimism in a post-war decade of optimism.  He was rich, yet supported ordinary Americans, much as Roosevelt had done in the thirties.  FDR and JFK and ultimately LBJ represented the expansion of socialistic economic policies. Liberals believed he was capable of changing the politics of the nation (O’Brien, 2005).  It was a beautiful dream for many that was transformed by the slaying depicted in the Zapruder Film.

From the moment CBS newscaster Walter Cronkite announced the death of JFK, holding back a tear, those who loved the President redefined their identification with him.  The romantic dream of a modern charismatic politician and his promise of great and courageous days ahead became a nightmare of profound loss.  Only the death of a family member could have been more devastating.  Unlike the destruction of Europe 20 years before, America had emerged from the war relatively unscathed; in fact, globally it had become the most powerful nation in the world.  It would not be an overstatement to suggest that psychologically, much of the world’s belief that America could be its international savior, was diminished as well.  Adding to the mystique of the Kennedys, depicted days later, is the image of the entire Kennedy family standing stoic at the sight of the flag-draped coffin.  JFK’s son, John-John, salutes it as it passes.  The photographer, Dan Farrell, said “it was the saddest thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life” (Ferrell, 2018).  Yet that image inspired many after Kennedy’s death to continue to believe in his message of hope and optimism, and above all, strength in the face of adversity.

The reality of the man became the faith that endured.  An entire segment of the American and global population is consubstantiated in a potential Kennedy cult.  Burke describes the human ambiguity of substance: “he is both joined and separate, at once a distinct substance and consubstantial with another” (Burke, 1966).  Consubstantiation is a Lutheran version of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the faithful identify with Christ by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine.  The Catholic transubstantiation is “the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration” (Oxford Dictionary, NDA).  The Zapruder Film is a graphic visual Eucharist of the potential JFK cult who, by watching, consume the flesh and blood of a would-be savior.

The pseudo-divinity of the sacrificed JFK, as an idea, precedes Christianity.  Jung would suggest such an archetype lies dormant in the collective unconscious (Jung, 1959).  J.G. Frazer, author of The Golden Bough would define the archetype as a common mythological trope that transcends cultures: Osiris in Egypt, Adonis in Greece (Frazer, 1976).  These gods would die but would not necessarily be resurrected.  Kennedy is not likely to be resurrected as the New Testament describes Jesus Christ’s journey.  Yet the Kennedy idea, represented as utopian idealism and charisma, is continuously evoked to describe subsequent politicians and leaders, such as Bill Clinton.  Kennedy the man is more likely to be remembered as an Adonis figure, a sexual, charismatic god, considering his many marital transgressions—notably with Marilyn Monroe.  In this sense he is not like the Christ figure.  The Catholic Kennedy wore his sexual prowess on his sleeve and his death, a symbolic death of fertility, would resemble Adonis’ death, slain by a wild boar.  Subsequently, returning to the Arthur myth, the land’s fertility is negatively affected by Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere.  Fertility only returns — the land is the King’s body — when Parsifal finds The Holy Grail— the cup from which Christ drank at The Last Supper.

These various divine associations consciously or unconsciously contribute to the emotional power of the public memory of the sacrificed president.  The Zapruder Film as an image is symbolic of the death of a dream, yes, but also a constant visible reminder that the murder cannot easily be explained away by authorities who are invested in the story of a single killer.  The actual assassination, thanks to the Zapruder Film, has become mythic, a shared narrative of conspiracy larger than one man killing one president. Yet because the film materially exists, there remains the image of one real man cruelly gunned down.  Burke suggests such an example is evidence of the paradox of substance.

Resisting Authority

The paradox of resisting authority comes in the naming process.  In the sense that it is unsolved—that it can resist naming because of the ambiguity of it— it has its own authority.  It exists apart from naming, yet in its nature it is named.  It is named by what it depicts.  The ambiguity of it allows its own authority.  In public memory it remains solved and unsolved.

 While we may read about historical assassinations that authorities claim to have solved, hoping to close the book on doubt, today we can still see Kennedy’s head lurch back and to the left.  Back and to the left supports a viable theory of a conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The description of the assassination, however, is not what is known today as a “conspiracy theory.”

In its contemporary usage the term “conspiracy theory” has been defined as being fearful of a conspiracy that doesn’t exist (Goertzel, 1994), or believing in conspiracy when there are more ordinary explanations (Aaronovich, 2009) — a nod to Occam’s Razor. However, believing it is possible that a group can organize around a lethal intention is acknowledging conspiracy and practical theory.  Julius Caesar met such a fate.  No doubt had Caesar’s execution not been so public the Occam’s of the world could have suggested the clumsy man simply fell on his knife several times.  Identifying something as a conspiracy theory can also mean there is no “proof” of a conspiracy. Yet “proof” for one person may not be so for another.  For example, lack of scientific proof does not necessarily negate a mountain of circumstantial evidence, especially in legal questions.  Neil Postman would argue the American public has been conditioned to be too enamored of the authority of the scientific method, no matter how it is applied (Postman, 1992).

Even without the Zapruder Film, The Kennedy assassination is rife with bizarre yet true events that are out of the ordinary: the magic bullet theory, the Oswald CIA connection, the fact he said he was a patsy, and the fact he was murdered before providing his story—also a public execution seen live on television. The Zapruder Film offers history a material artifact — eternally visible direct evidence of the moment and method of Kennedy’s murder. The Occams of the world say, despite all the other bizarre parts of the story, it is most probable that Oswald was just an extraordinary shot.

By insisting on the ordinary explanation, authorities such as those in the Warren Commission, or skeptical authorities who have researched the issue, or the authorities in the American government who might have been pleased by the removal of Kennedy — although they played no part in the murder— are content, indeed anxious, to put the issue at rest.  Applying Burke’s terministic screen (Burke, 1966), they impose one reality and, therefore, annihilate any other.  Using “lone gunman” as the premise of a subject means certain implicit terms “necessarily follow” (Burke, 1966).  The image of Oswald holding a rifle and Communist newspapers will dominate any discussion of the assassination— although those photos were also controversial (Gidman, 2015).  Even beginning a discussion with a more ambiguous term, such as “The Warren Commission” achieves the same purpose because its conclusion was that Oswald acted alone.  Postman (1992) agrees. “Language has an ideological agenda that is apt to be hidden from view.” How questions are asked matters, or even IF questions are asked.  For whatever reason, rather than doggedly pursuing irregularities in the investigation of the President’s murder, Dallas authorities came to the quick conclusion Oswald was a lone-gunman (probably because he had allegedly killed a Dallas police officer.)  They hunted him down and arrested him. The authorities believed they needed to control the naming.  That belief extended to higher authorities who subsequently believed the conspiracy theory must be laid to rest.  Although Vice-President Lyndon Johnson—who some theorists believe was involved— immediately thought the Cubans were involved. “I never believed Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger” (Holland, 2004).  Ultimately the Zapruder Film has its own authority in this narrative—back and to the left.   

The conspiracy in this event is potentially the truth.  It bears no resemblance to the extravagant ravings of political operatives seen in contemporary theories: PizzaGate or the Seth Rich death, or the Sandy Hook school shooting.  Because of the Zapruder Film, the Kennedy assassination infers an actual conspiracy existed to kill the President of the United States, which infers extraordinary organization.

 Today, for many, the term “conspiracy theory” is an all-encompassing phenomenon, relativizing the real assassination with all the made-up garbage.  It is an example of what Postman (1992) describes as “symbol drain,” a degradation of a symbol’s original meaning and importance. Despite the fact the original symbolic meaning of conspiracy theory represented something of substance, over time the substance has been trivialized. “The more frequently a symbol is used the less potent is its meaning (Postman, 1992). Today the term “conspiracy theory” is so prevalent, younger Americans, learning of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory may think it has no authority.  Nevertheless, as of 2013, one study has indicated 59 percent of Americans do believe there was a conspiracy, despite authorities telling them otherwise. (Enton, Oct. 23, 2017) Regardless of the efforts to name the historical event, coupled with the scorn thrown at “conspiracy theorists,” the most integral evidence of the Kennedy assassination —the film and what it depicts— resists the authority to define, control, and deflect other possibilities.

The Kennedy assassination was not the first powerful conspiracy in United States history.  The Anti-Masonic Party was formed in 1828.  It was the first third party in the country and was suspicious of Masonic influence.  The Know-Nothing Party was formed in 1855 and was primarily suspicious of growing Catholic immigration into the country (Aaronovich. 2009). These Protestant nativists always suspected the Pope of trying to undermine Protestant institutions.  Although John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, he had been supported by others, some of whom were subsequently executed.  Today some researchers suspect Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor but did nothing because he wanted the U.S. to enter the war (Dallek, 2018).  It is because of the Zapruder Film that the Kennedy assassination remains a profound American issue more than 50 years later.  Before its network debut in 1975 the original film had been copied and then passed around to several institutions, causing damage.  Zapruder himself did not want Frame 313, the frame that shows the head shot, to be made public because he said it gave him nightmares (Consequently, learning of the damage to the film, some conspiracy researchers argued the bullet which hit the President’s head could have come from Oswald’s rifle.  However, because the frame was missing, they argued Kennedy’s head could have jerked forward by the blow, and then in reaction, jerked backward but the frame showing that was missing. That theory was debunked as the complete version of the film had been restored by 1975 (Rosenbaum, 2013).

Returning to Burke’s ambiguity of substance, it is the uncertainty of the event that has no doubt compelled many researchers over the years to declare whether the murder was the result of a conspiracy and if a cover-up conspiracy by the FBI or CIA occurred.  Yet no authority has been conclusive because the Zapruder Film resists being defined in the larger conspiracy theory.  If there had been no film, the authorities ultimately would have put the issue to rest and the American public would have accepted the conclusion and eventually would have regarded the conclusion as truth.  Many people are so uncomfortable with ambiguity, they will quickly jump on board the authority train if they believe a controversial subject has been settled by an authority.

Foucault describes “docile bodies” in Discipline and Punish— a population that has been conditioned by bourgeois power and has internalized the control authorities expect of it (Foucault, 1975).  In 1963, only a few years following the Red Scare in the U.S., when Minnesota Senator Joseph McCarthy hauled private citizens into Congress to testify about their political allegiance—and as the expected public conformity of the fifties was at its highest—most Americans would have had little desire to doubt the government.  In the sixties, however, the culture was changing. A new generation questioned authority over a number of issues.  Many of those “radicals,” so named by authorities, questioned the government’s conclusion in the Kennedy assassination.  By 1975, having lived through the Vietnam War, the release of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, there was little doubt the American government was quite capable of lying to the American public if that meant protecting its own interests.  When the Zapruder Film was shown that year to a generation eager to question authority, who saw Kennedy’s head pushed back and to the left, many television viewers were certain of a conspiracy. As mentioned above, the House Select Committee subsequently came to its own conclusions but that authority ultimately did not clear up the ambiguity. In fact, many of the records related to the Kennedy assassination remain hidden in the National Archives.  The Archives have released some documents, the latest in 2018, although they have been redacted.  Furthermore, 520 documents remain withheld (National Archives, 2018).

Whoever killed Kennedy—conspiracy or not— intended to usurp the authority of the President, and by extension, the American people who had elected him.  If Oswald was, in fact, a lone gunman, his authority as one who has slain another was taken shortly afterward by Jack Ruby.  Ruby, suffering from cancer, died of a pulmonary embolism in prison shortly before the appeal of his conviction in 1967.  The subsequent ambiguity that lingers over the naming of the assassin—even today Oswald is generally referred to as “alleged assassin”— and the uncertainty of motives of various players in the narrative, serves to weaken the authority of the lone gunman theory.  If the assassination was, in fact, a conspiracy, it would serve the purpose of all involved to promote the lone gunman theory.  With Oswald dead, there would be little incentive for many to pursue a conspiracy theory.  Much of the investigation would involve speculation and quite a lot of bizarre circumstantial evidence.  The authority of the lone gunman theory would generally be accepted by most people over time.  The Zapruder Film resists the authoritative narrative that Oswald acted alone.  Furthermore, as late as 2007, researchers studying the bullet fragments declared the lone gunman theory flawed (Bryner, 2007).  It is arguable whether the researchers would have felt compelled to study the issue had the film not existed to perpetually keep the interest alive so long as people are able to view it on the internet.  The search for the “truth” continues.

Inspiring Imitation

Finally, the paradox of inspiring imitation has evolved from the source of “back and to the left.”  The Zapruder Film is exhibited in the JFK film, which took a few artistic liberties.  Truth Is imbedded in artifice. In the public memory, a film that is graphically violent, is now seen as less so because it has the veneer of Hollywood.   The film is both a profound warning of political danger—yet because of the subsequent imitations of it—it is also merely a harmless episode in our history, an inspiration for literary or political purposes—a graphically violent real death of a president of the United States that is apparently fit to be parodied.  It is the conspiracy theory of all conspiracy theories and for some it has no relevancy beyond that.

“Back and to the left— back and to the left— back and to the left— back and to the left” (Stone & Ho, 1991).  So repeats Kevin Costner, portraying New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the 1991 film, JFK, directed by Oliver Stone.  In the film Garrison is showing the Zapruder Film to the jury in the trial of Clay Shaw, accused of conspiring with Lee Harvey Oswald and others to assassinate President Kennedy.  That JFK scene was parodied on the Seinfeld television show in 1992 in the episode “The Boyfriend” (David & Levin, 1992). The scene is known as “the magic loogie theory,” a nod to the magic bullet theory which was used by The Warren Commission to try to avoid acknowledging a second assassin shot Kennedy from the front and to the right.  Stone’s film was intended to be a serious examination of the conspiracy theory surrounding the assassination, based on two books— one by Jim Garrison and another written by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. To be fair the Seinfeld episode parodied the movie, but the Zapruder Film was precisely the subject of the parody. There is and is not a separation of the sources.

The actual Garrison trial was considered a shambles by many.  The jury took less than an hour to reach a verdict (Bugliosi, 2007).  Garrison’s credibility was questioned.  Furthermore, in the JFK film Stone took some liberties with the facts for dramatic purposes.  Consequently, both Garrison and Stone were criticized by conspiracy debunkers for their depictions of the assassination.  The subsequent Seinfeld parody, although clever, trivialized the Zapruder Film —not so much the Zapruder Film as the Stone film JFK.  In fact, it was not even so much the whole film but the repetitive “back and to the left,” that felt artificial.

The term, “back and to the left” is a simple description of the direction Kennedy’s head appeared to move when shot.  It bears no real connection to the actual Zapruder Film which can be, and has been, interpreted in other ways.  Yet “back and to the left” has become a metonymy for the film, a representation of the assassination three-times removed— the actual assassination, the Zapruder Film, and the JFK film.  If someone sees the Seinfeld segment another level of symbolic separation would exist.  Now, “back and to the left” represents all these things and could arguably be identified as an ideograph of conspiracy theory, referring to McGee (1980), especially in terms of representing the political implications of those who believe in conspiracies and those who do not.  That implication—those who do and those who do not—is a gross simplification of the entire subject.  This contemporary view of conspiracy theory that tends to fall along political lines —those who believe them tend to be politically right wing.  Those who do not believe them are usually not right wing political supporters.  Nevertheless, the political identification with the theory fails to address the central question behind any potential conspiracy:  is it true?

Recently there have been quite a number of conspiracies seemingly invented by political operatives to sow doubt in the electorate.  The strategy in keeping a conspiracy active includes simple repetition.  Seth Rich was connected with Wikileaks, the 2016 DNC email hack and the Clinton Foundation.  Seth Rich was connected with Wikileaks, the 2016 DNC email hack and the Clinton Foundation, and on and on.  Fox News’ Sean Hannity repeated this political mantra constantly on his show (Greenberg, 2019).  The Sandy Hooks school massacre was a hoax (Sakuma, 2019).  Infowars’ Alex Jones repeated the lie often on his radio show. QAnon is a contemporary right-wing conspiracy theory that believes liberal government officials in the “deep state” are involved in child-sex trafficking.  QAnon believers are frequently seen at President Donald Trump’s political rallies. In June of 2018 a well-armed QAnon believer, Matthew Wright, held the Hoover Dam hostage for more than an hour. A QAnon promoter was publicized on Fox News (Coasten, 2018).

For the majority of Americans these stories are nothing but dismissible narratives perpetuated by credulous people.  Nevertheless, the fact that the President himself has promoted such narratives (Sabbagh, 2019) puts such theories in a different light.  In his 2016 campaign for President Trump accused Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s father of being involved in the Kennedy assassination (McCaskill, 2018).  It was an odd statement when it occurred but it was a clue to either a personality flaw or a strategic method.  The Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory was now, apparently, synonymous with all the bizarre theories that have circulated in the media.  It was not, indeed, significant anymore as a potential American coup d’etat.  It had an equal status with the theory that Hillary Clinton and her Campaign Manager, John Podesta, had been operating a human trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor (Kroll, 2018).  The Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and its evidential foundation had apparently been trivialized and undermined in the public memory.

Disinformation campaigns have long been a favored tactic used by authoritarian governments to control and divide their populations or to attack other countries.  The Soviet Union called such tactics “active measures”. There has been much research since the 2016 election to gauge the effect of propaganda memes, “fake news,” and such (O’Connor, 2017 ).  However, what these measures do to a population is to invite uncertainty.  Theodore Adorno and colleagues wrote The Authoritarian Personality in 1950.  One of Adorno’s most pervasive quotes comes from that influential work: “Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality” (Adorno, 1950).  Authoritarians, according to Adorno, will impose their authority upon others to control their environment.  Conversely, the “others,” who are intimidated by authority will be tempted to accept that authority if the world around them is uncertain.  Foucault’s “docile bodies” learn to exist in a world of disinformation if they know what to expect and how to conform to it.  The authority creates the world for the others, much as Hitler did for The Third Reich.  “Truth” has little relevance in such an environment.

The Kennedy assassination has little relevance in such a world.  It is used as just another example of a narrative that can be shaped to fulfill one’s political imperative.  However, there is one piece of the assassination that ultimately undermines all such attempts to trivialize it— the Zapruder Film.  No matter how many skeptics debunk various aspects of the conspiracy theory, both plausible and outlandish, the Zapruder Film will live on the internet, constantly communicating the same message—back and to the left.

Conclusion

In the public memory the Zapruder film plays a number of roles within conspiracy theory.  It becomes for many something of a religious experience, akin to the Christ’s martyrdom, a Jesus who stood up to both Jewish and Roman authorities — a mythology that has formed an essential part of Western psychology.  The ambiguity of the Kennedy assassination has allowed the film to linger in public memory because it has been named and subsequently unnamed by many researchers.  The lack of a “truth” for the assassination has meant the film itself is its own authority because it is simply what it is: an accurate portrayal of the murder of a real man in history.  Furthermore, in the public memory it is both honored and trivialized, a piece of evidence to be studied seriously and a paradigm that can be cited as a justification of false political narratives.

I was old enough to remember when Kennedy was killed.  I remember my parent’s reactions.  As the trope goes, “I remember where I was.”  It was truly a significant time in America, although I was in Germany.  The television played the “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech more often than not.  Kennedy was revered around the world as an avatar of hope, peace, promise and forgiveness—a pseudo-holy figure.  He was also hated by many who were not so idealistic.  The first time, in an altered state, when I first saw the Zapruder Film under the circumstances I described— as something that had been hidden from much of the population— I was immediately convinced there was a second gunman, therefore there was a conspiracy, and it has yet to be solved.  If there was a conspiracy, because of the ambiguity of the circumstances, there is no way to know how large it was, what the implications were.  Equally, there is no way to know how relatively small the “truth” is regardless of the ample circumstances that point to an extraordinary cover-up.

Until the “truth” is known the Kennedy assassination, and by implication the Zapruder Film, will remain relevant, intellectually and emotionally because of the violent death of the President that is still visible to all.  Nevertheless, the proliferation of conspiracy theories these days can serve to convince people not to believe what they see.  The tendency of authoritarians across the world to gaslight their people is strong.

Not only has gaslighting become common among the world’s governments, but so has a lack of respect for the truth.  The lack of a responsible internet has made the reporting of lies as simple as reporting the truth.  I suspect I could post a false conspiracy and someone would pick it up and run with it.  I am suggesting in our global community, fraught with wars, tensions, a warming planet, growing populations and dwindling resources, there are authoritarian forces at work to unify the world under one late capitalist government.  It is not a utopian vision, but one of control and repression. Those with money will rule and have a good life. The vast majority of the world’s population will suffer.  It is, in fact, the premise of many of the dystopian visions being produced today—which are foreshadowing it—to prepare us for it.  It will be known as the New World Order, named after an 80s rock band formed from the remnants of Joy Division.  The conspiracy evolved from the Kennedy assassination, when the rich and influential corporate leaders in those days realized Kennedy was on a path of destructive optimism, so they murdered him, covering up the conspiracy with the single gunman conclusion. Subsequent presidents were decided upon by members of The Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones and other secret organizations that supported the power of the rich authoritarians.  Ultimately the only thing that will motivate people to resist the authority’s disinformation will be the “truth.”  However, there is even now a prophecy that a savior will arise to free the people from their subjugation.  The savior will be nothing more than an old 8mm film.  Pervasive graffiti on the walls of houses, bureaucracies and government churches will spread a simple message inspiring revolution.  Back and to the left.  Back and to the left.

References

Aaronovitch, David (2009). Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. London: Jonathan Cape.

Adorno, Theodor, et al.(1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper Bros.

Bohning, Don (2005). The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba, 1959–1965. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, Inc. ISBN 978-1-57488-676-4.

Bryner, Jeannie (May 18, 2007). JFK Lone Gunman Theory Flawed. LiveScience. Retrieved from: https://www.livescience.com/1560-jfk-lone-gunman-theory-flawed.html.

Bugliosi, Vincent (2007). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. New York: Norton.

Burke, Kenneth (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-01546-0.

Burke, Kenneth (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. University of California Press.

Carroll, Rory (Sept. 12, 2015). America’s Dark and Not- Very- Distant History of Hating Catholics. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/america-history-of-hating-catholics.

Coasten, Jane (December 31, 2018). Why Conspiracy Theories Matter. Vox. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/2018/12/31/18144710/conspiracy-theories-trump-2018-qanon-soros-false-flags.

Dallek, Robert (2003). An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Dallek, Robert (2018). Pearl Harbor and the “Back Door To War’ Theory.” EncyclopediaBrittanica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-and-the-back-door-to-war-theory-1688287.

David, Larry & Leven, Larry (February 12, 1992). The Boyfriend. Seinfeld.

Enton, Harry (Oct. 23, 2017). Most People Believe in JFK Conspiracy Theories.FiveThiryEight. Retrieved from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/.

Farrell, Dan (2018). John F. Kennedy Jr. salutes his father’s casket in Washington, Rare Historical Photos. Retrieved from: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/john-kennedy-salute-1963.

Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.

Frazer, James George (1976). The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion. Part 1: The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings. Vol. 1. London: The Macmillan Press.

Galbraith, James K (Sept. 1, 2003). Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK Ordered a Complete Withdrawal From Vietnam. Boston Review. Retrieved from:   http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam.

Gidman, Jenn (2015). Verdict is in on Whether Lee Harvey Oswald Photo is a Fake, Thanks to 3D Tech. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/20/newser-lee-harvey-oswald/74264150/.

Goertzel, T (December 1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology. 15 (4): 731–742.

Gopnick, Adam (October 11, 2015). The John Birchers’ Tea Party. The New Yorker. Retrieved from: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-john-birchers-tea-party.

Greenberg, Jon (April 18, 2019). Mueller Report Aims to Squash WikiLeaks Seth RichConspiracy Theory. Politifact. Retrieved from: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/18/mueller-report-aims-squash-wikileaks-seth-rich-con/.

Holland, Max. (June, 2004) The Assassination Tapes. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/.

Jung, Carl G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Ed. Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, & Gerhard Adler. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kroll, Andy (Dec. 9, 2018). The Former Clinton Campaign Chairman is Among the Victims Still Recovering from a Vile Conspiracy Theory That Ended in Gunfire. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/.

McCaskill, Nolan D (May 3, 2016). Trump Accuses Cruz’s Father of Helping JFK’s Assassin. Politico. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730.

McGee, M.C. (1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal  of Speech, 66, 1-16.

National Archives (April 26, 2018). New Group of JFK Assassination DocumentsAvailable to the Public. National Archives. Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-45.

O'Brien, Michael (2005). John F. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: Thomas Dunne.

Gabe O’Conner, “How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016

Election,” NPR , April 3, 2017, Accessed from: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election.

Oxford English Dictionary (NDA). Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/transubstantiation.

Postman, Neil (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books.

Rivera, Geraldo (2019). Geraldo. Retrieved from: http://index.geraldo.com/folio/biography.

Rosenbaum, Ron (October 2013). What Does The Zapruder Film Really Tell Us?Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-does-the-zapruder-film-really-tell-us-14194/.

Sabbagh, Dan (April 25, 2019). Trump Repeats Unproven Claims of GCHQ Spying. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/24/donald-trump-repeats-unproven-claims-of-gchq-spying.

Sakuma, Amanda (May 31, 2019). Alex Jones Blames “Psychosis” for His Sandy Hook Conspiracies. Vox. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/18289271/alex-jones-psychosis-conspiracies-sandy-hook-hoax.

Stone, Oliver & Ho, A Kitman (1991). JFK. Los Angeles: Warner Bros. Warren Commission Report (1964). National Archives. Retrieved from: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report.

Zeitz, Josh (Sept. 23, 2015). When America Hated Catholics. Politico. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/when-america-hated-catholics-213177.