August in polaroids

From JFK to the Boston Bombings: A Brief Look At Conspiracy Theories

Originally published in Lot's Wife, Monash Clayton's student paper.

Was Harvey Oswald solely responsible for the assassination of JFK, or was there a second gunman shooting from the ‘grassy knoll’? Did Neil Arm­strong take one giant leap for mankind’ on the moon, or was it a hoax by a government desperate to keep up with the Russians? Was 9/11 an inside job? Did the U.S. government have prior knowledge that the attacks were going to occur?

Conspiracy theories have, and continue to shadow some of the largest milestones and tragedies that have marked America’s history books. November this year will mark the 40th anniversary of the assas­sination of former U.S President John F. Kennedy. This, combined with the conspiracy theories that are still evolving in relation to the Boston Marathon Bombing, seems a fitting time to reflect upon the theories that have enduringly captured the attention and imaginations of citizens both in America and worldwide.

The Assassination of JFK

Shot by two bullets through the head and neck as he was riding in an open limo through Dallas on November 22nd 1963, the death of JFK is a moment that is etched into the hearts and memories of many Americans.

Sniper Harvey Oswald was convicted as the sole perpetrator, how­ever there was a significant proportion of the population who struggled to believe the official reports. Many thought the trajectory of the shot couldn’t have come from Oswald, who was on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, but perhaps from a second gunman on the now infamous grassy knoll of Dealey Plaza. Indeed a 2003 ABCNews poll found that these doubts have lingered, with 70% of Americans believing Kennedy’s death was the result of a broader plot.

The Moon Landing

Filmmaker and conspiracy theorist, Bart Winfield Sibrel, is perhaps one of the most well-known advocates of the theory that the moon landing never happened. In his 2004 documentary, Astronauts Gone Wild, Sibrel confronts nine Apollo astronauts and asks them to swear on a Bible that their mission and landing hadn’t been a fabrication. To the best of my knowledge, all of them refused.

This might cast doubt in the minds of some, but to be honest, if someone was pestering me as I was going about my day, undermining the proudest and greatest moment in my life, I’d probably be offended and refuse to swear it as well. Buzz Aldrin went so far as to punch him in the face.

For most, the waving flag in the moon landing footage is the smok­ing gun when it comes to proof that the astronauts were not in space. There is, after all, no wind on the moon. According to NASA, Buzz Aldrin twisted the flagpole to get it into the moon’s soil, causing it to ap­pear as though wind is rustling it.

9/11

Not having been alive for the two aforementioned events, it is 9/11 and all of its complexities that most intrigues me. On one end of the scale are the outrageously extreme conspiracies, which have gained momentum via the internet.

Thierry Meyssan is perhaps one of the most well-known of these; a Frenchman who in 2002 published a book entitled 9/11: The Big Lie, selling half a million copies worldwide. Meyssan was a supporter of the idea that a missile – rather than a Boeing airliner – crashed into the Pen­tagon, and that all of the attacks were an inside job, known to, or even orchestrated by, the government. There are those that believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions that had previously been planted. The collapse of Trade Centre Building 7 and President George W. Bush’s lack of immediate reaction upon hearing the news has also cast doubts in the minds of many.

However, multiple leaders in various fields, as well as a plethora of eyewitness accounts have convincingly debunked these various claims. Indeed, the whirlwind of these theories has, as is suggested inThe Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan (a book I can’t recommend highly enough for those interested), distracted the American and interna­tional public from the multiple unanswered questions and contradicting stories that were worthy of further investigation.

Some such questions revolve around a number of bodies, from the CIA and FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), to the United States Government itself. As Summers and Swan note, the FAA “seem to have been at best ineffectual, at worst fatally irresponsible, in the months and years before the attack.” It’s a statement that rings true for multiple governing bodies and intelligence agencies, in terms of security, and the irreverence of key information that, if treated with priority, could have foiled the attacks before the planes even left the ground that morning. The gift of hindsight can sometimes be a cruel one.

The official reports that were given to the American people follow­ing the attacks present an organised and efficient response in trying to divert or take down the planes. It has since been revealed that the oppo­site is true. Breakdowns of communication left many without information until it was too late; fighter jets sent off in the wrong direction; permission to shoot down the passenger planes given by the Vice President, who is not in the Chain of Command. It was essentially an ineffectual scramble that didn’t gain any useful momentum until the Twin Towers had ceased to exist in the New York skyline.

Of course these issues barely scratch the surface of the intricacies that preluded and followed 9/11 – so much so that even in the wake of the 9/11 Commission, many, including past and present U.S. senators; former military; CIA and FBI; and officers have called for further investi­gations.

The Boston Marathon Bombing

The Boston Bombing was recently brought back into forefront of the public’s mind with Rolling Stone’s recent front cover and feature article on one of the bombers, Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

There are those who believe, due to an alleged lack of evidence and shaky eyewitness testimony, that the Tsarnaev brothers were set up. In particular, theorists have come to the defence of the younger brother Dzhokar. Such theorists claim that photos of him at the crime scene have been photoshopped, and made to look like he wasn’t carrying his back­pack when he left the site.

Among other theories is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older, now deceased brother, was an FBI informant, due to him being known as suspi­cious to the FBI, but not flagged by authorities when he re-entered the U.S. in 2012.

To be sure, it isn’t just Americans who hold fears and doubts about all of the aforementioned events. One Google search on any topic will inun­date you with thousands of websites, documentaries and blogs dedicated to uncovering the truth.

Ultimately, at what point do we let the questions and the doubts lay to rest? Should we ever? Will the blurred line of culpability between the neglectful oversights of governments that have resulted in tragedy or deception, and the deception that is wilful, ever be one that can clearly be categorised in black and white?

Perhaps in another 60 or 100 years on from the JFK assassination, once all who might have experienced repercussions from the truth have died or are cloaked with the immunity of age and sickness, the truth will be revealed. Or perhaps we’ll never know and the facts in the history books will always carry a hint of doubt.

When denim and Daria ruled

Kurt Cobain, Kate Moss and itty bitty Olsen twins. Clueless, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Pokemon cards. Butterfly clips, crimped hair and sequin caps. 

House parties are great, but they're even better when the theme is '90s. 

July in polaroids

American Gun Control: Empty Promises?

Originally published in Lot's Wife, Monash Clayton's student paper.

The tragedy that befell Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut late last year is one that needs no introduction; a massacre that left 20 young students and six teachers dead. It shocked and saddened the entire international community, and ultimately left one topic welling in the minds of many: American gun regulation.

In the immediate wake of this heartbreaking event, President Obama made an emotional appeal to the American public, stating that, “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action.” What ‘meaningful action’ would equate to was unclear and as the months passed by, it seemed as though Sandy Hook was to become just another statistic.

However, in late March during a press release delivered to an audience of parents who have lost their children to gun violence, the President assured the public that the promise for ‘meaningful action’ had not been a meaningless remark.

A number of reforms were put forward, including compulsory universal background checks for anyone buying a gun, tougher penalties for anyone who buys a gun and then sells it to criminals, and measures to keep high capacity ammunition magazines off the streets.

“None of these ideas should be controversial. Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun?

“Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 per cent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?

“Why wouldn’t we do that?” he asked his audience.

However less than a month on, those questions are left ringing in the ears of Mr Obama and gun control lobbyists, after a watered-down version of the proposals failed to pass through the Senate, revealing how ingrained and never ending this debate is among the America people, and within American politics.

The measure fell six votes short of the 60 it needed to advance in the Senate, resulting with 54 in favour and 46 opposed. Of the 46 votes that opposed the measures, five were from Democrats, four of whom face re-election in North Dakota, Alaska, Arkansas and Montana, all of which are considered more conservative, and “gun friendly” states.

This outcome is also a reflection of the unyielding power and influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their prominent self-described role as “America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights”.

Over four million members strong, the NRA provides training courses for gun owners and educational programs for primary school children in gun safety, but what they are more prominently known for is their political influence, which in the lead-up to the Senate vote, was in full swing.

According to Reuters, NRA members and officials made an unwavering stream of calls to Republicans and conservative Democrats in the lead-up to the vote. In particular they urged swing votes such as Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, to go against the measure. Which he did.

It is a heavy blow for gun control allies and Mr Obama’s second-term agenda, who, in the wake of the announcement, was with Newtown family members.

“It came down to politics. All in all, this was a shameful day for Washington,” he said.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are more than 11,000 gun homicides and nearly 19,000 gun suicides annually in America.

Other statistics stand out.

Children aged 5 to 14 in America are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialised countries.

More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

A gun is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member or guest than in the death of an intruder, which is particularly concerning when it is considered that 47% of Americans say they have a gun in their home or on their property.

They are alarming statistics among many more, from a six billion dollar industry.

At its core it is a debate that boils down to two conflicting rights. The right to have a gun in conjunction with the Second Amendment, and the right of the public not to be unduly exposed to the dangers imposed by the widespread availability of guns.

Within the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights specifically states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Written after the revolutionary war in the 1700s, the Constitution is the most holy of US documents, and it is this particular sentence that is the crux of the debate for many Americans.

As DJ Cisek, 24, from New York explained, to enforce too many restrictions on guns would be in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and thus the rights and freedom of American citizens.

“It’s a fundamental right that the government is subservient to the people and you see that through the Second Amendment because, god forbid, if the federal government became too powerful, you always have the force of the people and the states,” he said.

“You would argue that today the likelihood of that happening is slim to none and I would tend to agree with that, but at the time they wrote that in the constitution it was really possible, and as such it has become a very important right to the American people.”

Jordan Johnson, 22, of South Carolina, agrees whole-heartedly with this notion.

“The Second Amendment was put into the constitution to resist tyranny, and the way we see it is that tyranny is not between two people, tyranny is the government against its people.”

“When you’re going to threaten to take guns away, something that I am using to protect myself, or my family, and then you’re saying rely on the government, because they have guns, I don’t think that’s the right thing to do.”

Johnson bought his first gun just after he turned 20, a hunting rifle, and since then has also purchased a shotgun and a handgun.

The former two he bought for recreational purposes, and will occasionally take them to a shooting range, but he keeps the handgun in the glove box of his car for safety and self-defence purposes.

John Nguyen, 24, who grew up in Michigan but currently resides in Memphis, Tennessee, sits on the other side of the fence.

“With any amendment, nothing can ever be set in stone. Things have to be allowed to change and evolve, which is true of any law or rule,” says Nguyen.

“An easy example is sports. There are always going to be changes to the rules of any sport, from American football to tennis, because technology is constantly evolving.

“I don’t see any issue with going back and reviewing and revising.”

Perhaps the most prominent new proposal by President Obama was “universal background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that criminals or people with severe mental illnesses can’t get their hands on one.”

In Australia, buying a handgun involves a 28-day waiting period, while in Canada potential gun owners have to provide the support of two people who will vouch for their legitimate reasons of purchase.

Even with background checks, currently a citizen in America can in most cases walk in and out of a store on the same day with a gun.

Despite this there are many, including Johnson, who feel that even this revision would not have much of an impact on crimes involving guns, but rather just punish the vast majority of gun owners who respect the powerful nature of guns and use them safely.

“You’re never going to be able to stop people from selling guns to each other; there are always going to be illegal guns. I think you need to stop putting so many regulations on citizens that abide by the rules,” says Johnson.

He continues, “Everyone that goes into a store to buy a gun, they know they’re going to get checked out. Criminals don’t go into a sporting goods store and try to buy a pistol, they know they’re going to have to get checked, so they go to the dude down the street that’s selling pistols out of the back of his car. They know they’re not going to be checked and the gun isn’t going to be registered to anyone.”

DJ Cisek, while in full support of the Second Amendment, feels that curbing the number of people affected by mental illness who can access guns is a step in the right direction.

“There are always going to be loopholes with people using guns that aren’t registered to them, or people with severe mental health problems that aren’t documented, but I think it’s an additional part of the process that is essential and to a certain extent, achievable.”

Ultimately, if any regulation could put even a small dint in the statistics quoted at the beginning of this article, then in the eyes of citizens such as Nguyen, it’s a sacrifice worth making.

“Increased gun control would prevent more of these massacres from happening. I’m not going to say it’s going to prevent all of them, no it wouldn’t. But would it prevent some of them? Yes. Would it prevent at least one out of 100 of them? For sure. And that’s enough for me, it really is. If it saves the life of one innocent child, it’s totally worth it,” Nguyen says.

Back in March the President assured that the lives lost in Newtown last December had by no means been forgotten.

However, with the Senate failing to pass the reforms that were proposed by Obama in that same speech, many are left begging the question; if 20 children slaughtered in their classrooms isn’t going to be enough for evolvement in gun safety, what will be?

May in polaroids

April in polaroids