Read this article on the bungling mishap at the Oscars. Professor John McAdams thinks it has relevance to the JFK assassination.
That was plenty interesting, I'll admit, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the JFK assassination, and I am amazed that McAdams thinks it does. What happened at the Academy Awards was a mistake, an accident, but the official story of the JFK assassination is not that someone killed JFK by accident. On the contrary, the official story has it that Oswald pulled off an amazing shooting feat- even though he was a ne'er-do-well Marine who was never in combat and who practically flunked his last shooting test, and did no shooting afterwards except to shoot at rabbits with a shotgun- and he had trouble hitting them.
The Academy Awards provided an explanation for how their disaster occurred. The guy giving out the envelopes had two of each one, and he gave the duplicate of Emma Stone's award to Warren Beatty for Best Picture apparently because he was distracted right before that. And he may have been distracted by Emma. But, in the JFK assassination, the explanation is that Lee Harvey Oswald was focused at that time in his life on his family, including his newborn daughter, getting his family back under his roof, and making a go of it at this new job he started so that he could pay for it all, and yet, his mere sighting of the Presidential motorcade route in the newspaper during his lunch break at work triggered something in his brain which caused him to dash all of that and seek instead to shoot Kennedy, even though it was certain to torpedo everything that he was living for and striving for.
So, you certainly can't compare Cullinan, the envelope bungler, to Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, that wasn't John's intention. He wants to compare Cullinan, not to Oswald, but to the lackadaisical and incompetent Secret Service agents who failed to protect the President.
But, wait a second. First, that's NOT part of the official story, and John McAdams should know that. No Secret Service agent was blamed for any wrongdoing after the assassination. On the contrary, the gist of the story was that nothing could be done. I am reminded of the interviews of Detective Leavelle and Graves after the Oswald shooting in which they glibly said that nothing could be done to save him either, that it happened too fast, that there was no time, etc. Leavelle said it was a single-action pistol, therefore, what could he do? And frankly, the same attitude prevailed concerning the failure of the Secret Service agents to protect JFK. There really wasn't a hint of criticism against them except from Abraham Bolden- and you know what happened to him. LBJ even gave a Purple Heart type award to his SS agent Rufus Youngblood for saving his life. But, LBJ never issued the slightest criticism of the agents who failed to save Kennedy.
And the whole thing is a joke because we have a photograph of Secret Service Agent Emory Roberts talking on the phone in the follow-up car right during the shooting. Who should we assume he as talking to? He wasn't talking to his bookie. He wasn't talking to his mistress. The implication here is not "mistake" but rather "complicity."
John McAdams, you have been deceiving yourself (and others) about the JFK assassination for so long that your convictions are like your religion. You fanatically defend the official story, and you'll grasp onto (like it's a life preserver) anything that you think may help justify continuing to believe in it. And that's what you're doing here. But, on the bright side, I am making you a little more famous.