There Was A Conspiracy To Kill President Kennedy

[Rakhmetov]

In 1978, former Nixon aide and Watergate felon Harry Haldeman published his autobiography The Ends of Power (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ends-Power-H-R-Haldeman/dp/0812907248/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280928411&sr=1-10). In the book he disclosed information on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/USAkennedyJ.htm): "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. The CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA... in fact, Counter intelligence Chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators."

Michael Parenti--- Dirty Truths

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1644452194036300213#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1355673472758352799#

[Obs]

Who cares?

[Blackscare]

Well no shit.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, I don't really have much doubt someone within wanted him dead, but I find no relevance on why we should care. He was still an anti-communist bigot. Yes, a watered-down one, but a bigot at that.

[Amphictyonis]

dQnnHK81xMU
E Howard Hunt death bed confession ^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt

That show is kinda kooky though but they're interviewing E Howard Hunts son with a taped confession. Could be bullshit? Who knows.

[Amphictyonis]

Who cares?

It had something to do with communism. I think Kennedy was holding back on attacking Cuba? I can't say for certian. I haven't payed much attention to the issue. If anything it would snap many of the 'patriotic' idiots out of their worship of the military industrial complex. Maybe not though, it may make them even more right wing "anti government" while being blind to the hand that controls the government (the private sector).

And they blamed it on Communists.

[Robocommie]

It had something to do with communism. I think Kennedy was holding back on attacking Cuba?

Bay of Pigs?

[The Vegan Marxist]

It had something to do with communism. I think Kennedy was holding back on attacking Cuba? I can't say for certian. I haven't payed much attention to the issue. If anything it would snap many of the 'patriotic' idiots out of their worship of the military industrial complex. Maybe not though, it may make them even more right wing "anti government" while being blind to the hand that controls the government (the private sector).

And they blamed it on Communists.

I would say it was more along the lines of Kennedy and Khrushchev about to do peaceful bilateral relations. This pissed off a lot of people within the govt. And the Hearst news corporation didn't hold back on Kennedy either.

Either way, it's irrelevant. He's dead. Who cares.

[Sasha]

well, if it is proven it was an conspiracy it would still shock a lot of liberals, some more might take the jump to our team

[Rafiq]

^^^ or they'd jump to Alex Jone's right wing team.

[Robocommie]

Okay, in all fairness, I will point out that Kennedy did eighty-six Operation Northwoods, and from a right-wing perspective he fucked up Bay of Pigs and let the Soviets put missiles on the US' back door. Particularly hawkish anti-Communists in the US military or intelligence community back in the '60s might have been behind it because they thought he was fucking up.

IF it was indeed a conspiracy. It really could be that Oswald was nuts. That seems too simple, but it's completely plausible.

[La Comédie Noire]

I never found the evidence very compelling that Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger conspiracy.

I really like Parenti, but the fact he characterizes Oliver Stone's JFK as a "highly factual movie" is laughable.

[MellowViper]

^^^ or they'd jump to Alex Jone's right wing team.

I think Alex Jones is too pro-capitalist for them to jump. I'm not sure though. In Jones' logic, the inequalities of capitalism would just magically disappear if the government stopped subsidizing corporations. he views government as the all encompassing, corrupting force of corporations, and not the corporations their selves that use their immense capital to fund campaigns and lobbyists that get the government to hand them over all the contracts and anti-labor legislation they want. So, yah, there may be something to that, being that many liberals don't see anything intrinsically with big business. I don't think all or most would make that leap though. There are plenty that are fans of Micheal Moore and Ariana Huffington, people that Jones hates with a passion, that qualify as social democrat but not socialist.

I mean, Oliver Stone and Bill Hicks both think/thought the CIA did Kennedy, and they would both definitely qualify as anti-consumer capitalist. Neither of them were the libertarian, anarcho-capitalists that Jones is.

[Rafiq]

Wait.. But didn't Micheal Moore openly say he was a Socialist?

[Amphictyonis]

Wait.. But didn't Micheal Moore openly say he was a Socialist?

LOL Thanks for the laugh :)

[Rafiq]

No seriously I'm confused... I heard him say he was a Socialist once.. Can you explain? I mean, I'm not arguing against you, but It seems im missing something.

[Amphictyonis]

No seriously I'm confused... I heard him say he was a Socialist once.. Can you explain? I mean, I'm not arguing against you, but It seems im missing something.

He's an idiot. A total idiot. Completely full of idiocy. A monument to the word idiot. If there's a new socialist sect called "idiots" then he's a socialist :) He supported Ralph Nader once but is basically a bullhorn for Democrats in times of election. He's a fake. A liberal. His silly documentary on capitalism was, well, idiotic. I obviously don't like liberal bullhorns ;)

[Rafiq]

Meh, I don't hate him, I prefer him than any Right wing US leader.

[Amphictyonis]

Socialist
gXL998q7skI


Idiot

K73nW4fPEwk

His Capitalism Love Story thing was a bad joke. A total liberal capitalist critique of capitalism and the bankers he was so angry at are the ones who put Obama in office. Micheal Moore just needs to go away.

[Milk Sheikh]

Bay of Pigs?

From Parenti's book:

JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his noinvasion guarantee to Khrushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapproachment with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency, his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.
Source:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/JFK_Assassination_DT.html

JFK was more or less a socialist.

[NKVD]

From Parenti's book:

JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his noinvasion guarantee to Khrushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapproachment with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency, his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.
Source:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/JFK_Assassination_DT.html

JFK was more or less a socialist.

JFK was more or less a progressive, which is as far left as you can get in America.

[Bethechange]

Have any of you considered the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist and had a motive to kill JFK? After his defection to the USSR he became disillusioned-on returning Oswald became focused on Cuba as truly revolutionary. It may not have been a political action if he killed Kennedy, but at least possible.

As to Kennedy himself, much of his career has been heavily romanticized by US liberals and his Presidency dubbed "Camelot". In fact, Kennedy was very much a hard-line Cold War anti-communist. He was close allies with McCarthy during the anti-communist investigations of the 1950s. His brother Bobby served as counsel for McCarthy's committee in the Senate. At the time he was even close with his future rival Richard Nixon, the Vice President then.

In the 1960 Presidential election when Nixon became his opponent for the Presidency, Kennedy advocated supporting "democratic" exile forces, especially against Cuba. Its true Kennedy refused to support the CIA Bay of Pigs operation with air support, but his concern seems to have been more of not escalating the Cold War conflict than anything else from what I understand. Kennedy in fact imposed an embargo on Cuba which remains even today, as we know.

Additionally the Kennedy brothers perhaps realized their mistake, vowing to overthrow Castro by covert operations (including numerous assassination attempts). This had included funding groups of Cuban exiles which were terrorist by any definition, who targeted civilians. It is true Kennedy refused to support the most extreme proposed operations, such as false-flag attacks in the US which could be blamed on Castro and used as an invasion pretext. He felt the CIA was out of control, attempting to reign them in. Noting this does not mean they had a part in his death.

In domestic policy Kennedy in fact was far less radical than Johnson or numerous others, vacillating on Civil Rights (his brother had MLK wiretapped as well). Kennedy recalled a small number of US military advisors to South Vietnam, which has been interpreted (incorrectly, in my view) as evidence he would not have intervened on a full scale. This remains an unknown.

Most of the other evidence is highly technical (whether or not Oswald could have fired the shots, the doubly entry wounds to Kennedy and Connally, etc.) I have examined these as well and concluded it was not only possible but far more likely that Oswald alone killed Kennedy.

At least one thing can be certain: Kennedy was not socialist, any definition of this, no matter what has been said then and now on the right. He was liberal, but not even to the extent of his successor (or Nixon, in many cases). It may be what Malcolm X said, "chickens coming home to roost." In any case, I don't much care.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think for liberals, the desire to believe in a JFK assassination conspiracy has to do with a related myth held by many of the conspiracy-believers (such as Oliver Stone) that JFK was about to pull troops out from Vietnam. JFK was actually fairly convinced on the war, whereas LBJ was the only member of his administration who actually opposed sending troops - and yet when he became President he escalated and re-escalated, so even if JFK had somehow suddenly changed his mind about Vietnam, I'm 98% certain he would have still done more or less what LBJ did.

So one liberal misconception connected to this myth is that Presidents just make policy as individuals rather than seeing that wars and economic policy are really just managed by people like the President. It's a lot like the idea that the Iraq war happened because Bush was just bloodthirsty or mad at Saddam or something rather than seeing the war as the result of the logic of imperialism.

The other related misconception that liberals have that makes this conspiracy attractive to them is that Vietnam and the authoritarian crack-downs of the government during the civil rights and social movements was somehow "the wrong track" and a detour from what the US government is about. In their view the JFK assassination had to be a conspiracy because X group (the right wing, the bohemian grove cabal, or whatever other group of conspirators) needed to derail the "good US". In reality, the US is always an imperialist nation and a very repressive one at that and so the establishment doesn't need a conspiracy to install a Bush or Nixon for this - Clintons and Woodrow Wilsons have done a great job cracking down on the left and going to war for empire.

I think the same logic applies to the more left-leaning of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists - somehow America got "off track" because some evil circle of conspirators orchestrated a faked traumatic even in order to pull the wool over our eyes. I guess if you think that the Republicans and Democrats really do represent the wishes of the people, believing that someone is pulling strings is one way to make sense of the way politicians often don't seem to be following the wishes of their voters.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Here's what Michael Parenti said on "why the CIA assassinated Kennedy".

To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today. In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.

In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban émigré, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."

Granted, I don't actually believe any of this...:lol:

[Diello]

It was the Comedian.

[Ocean Seal]

He's an idiot. A total idiot. Completely full of idiocy. A monument to the word idiot. If there's a new socialist sect called "idiots" then he's a socialist :) He supported Ralph Nader once but is basically a bullhorn for Democrats in times of election. He's a fake. A liberal. His silly documentary on capitalism was, well, idiotic. I obviously don't like liberal bullhorns ;)
For what its worth he does make things very clear as to who we have to blame. While he's not a socialist he has more power to influence the people. His Capitalism a Love Story was pretty decently done without being too shocking. He might even cause some liberals to jump ship onto our side after naming the banks as the culprits for economic downturns.
I despise liberals as well (and very intensely) mostly because of their elitist anti-worker politics, but Moore did seem to at least attempt to breed a slight class consciousness. Obviously, it is very difficult to defend Moore, but in terms of relativism he does raise a few good points and reaches an audience wider than what most Americans socialists have the ability to do as of now. Even a small crack in the wall of capitalist lies should be welcomed, so that later we can use it to finally bring their wall crashing down upon them.

[Rodolfo]

No, there wasn't. JFK was killed by a lone and deranged pro-Castro Trotskyist - Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's take a look at the evidence.

First of all, none of Oswald's co-workers saw him at the time of the shooting or for 30 minutes prior even though he went to work that day. This would have been extraordinarily good luck for any alleged conspirators. Oswald brought a long package to work that day (the rifle). He told his co-worker that they were curtain rods. No curtain rods were ever found in the Texas School Book Depository. When he was arrested he was asked about the curtain rod story and he denied even bringing a package to work. He did not say, "I brought curtain rods - this is where I left them, go find them!" even though that would have been the perfect alibi. Instead he tells the police a dozen verifiable lies. None of the bullet fragments in the car could be connected to any other guns but Oswald's. Study of the X-rays and photos of the victims all indicate that the shots all came from the general direction of Oswald's place of employment. Seven months prior to the assassination Oswald attempted to assassinate right wing General Walker. The bullet narrowly misses his head. We have Marina Oswald's (wife) testimony for this. A scientific test known as neutron activation analysis was performed on the bullet found in Walker's home. It proves that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. This proves Oswald was fully capable of homicide in order to achieve political goals.

One also has to ask oneself how it was possible for the conspirators to so fortuitously have gotten Oswald his job at the TSBD only weeks before the assassination (while he applied for jobs at many different places around the same time)? There are such things as coincidence and just plain good luck but if there was a conspiracy then the conspirators had the very best luck in the world. God, Fate & the Universe must have been on their side. Oswald did it in order to become an important revolutionary. He was the type of person who wanted to become a figure of world historic significance (his diary was entitled 'historic diary'). Oswald was the sad product of a pathological mother (whom he would often beat). He daydreamed of one day becoming U.S. commissar and of heroically aiding Communist Cuba. Parenti and others don't really have a leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, there wasn't. JFK was killed by a lone and deranged pro-Castro Trotskyist - Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's take a look at the evidence.

First of all, none of Oswald's co-workers saw him at the time of the shooting or for 30 minutes prior even though he went to work that day. This would have been extraordinarily good luck for any alleged conspirators. Oswald brought a long package to work that day (the rifle). He told his co-worker that they were curtain rods. No curtain rods were ever found in the Texas School Book Depository. When he was arrested he was asked about the curtain rod story and he denied even bringing a package to work. He did not say, "I brought curtain rods - this is where I left them, go find them!" even though that would have been the perfect alibi. Instead he tells the police a dozen verifiable lies. None of the bullet fragments in the car could be connected to any other guns but Oswald's. Study of the X-rays and photos of the victims all indicate that the shots all came from the general direction of Oswald's place of employment. Seven months prior to the assassination Oswald attempted to assassinate right wing General Walker. The bullet narrowly misses his head. We have Marina Oswald's (wife) testimony for this. A scientific test known as neutron activation analysis was performed on the bullet found in Walker's home. It proves that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. This proves Oswald was fully capable of homicide in order to achieve political goals.

One also has to ask oneself how it was possible for the conspirators to so fortuitously have gotten Oswald his job at the TSBD only weeks before the assassination (while he applied for jobs at many different places around the same time)? There are such things as coincidence and just plain good luck but if there was a conspiracy then the conspirators had the very best luck in the world. God, Fate & the Universe must have been on their side. Oswald did it in order to become an important revolutionary. He was the type of person who wanted to become a figure of world historic significance (his diary was entitled 'historic diary'). Oswald was the sad product of a pathological mother (whom he would often beat). He daydreamed of one day becoming U.S. commissar and of heroically aiding Communist Cuba. Parenti and others don't really have a leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

I was skeptic at first and would've believed the stuff you said in this post, but after actually going over what the conspiracists say, I have stopped acting like a pompous "I am too rational to believe in conspiracies" lefty.

There was a conspiracy. Does it matter in the greater scheme of things? Not really.

[Bethechange]

Personally I am not a pompous "I am too rational to believe in conspiracies" lefty. Do conspiracies occur? Sure. Conspiracy is just two or more people plotting to commit a wrongful act. These happen quite often. However, the evidence does not support that for the Kennedy assassination, in my opinion.

[North Star]

The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they pain JFK as some kind of heroic liberal or closet socialist. That's not the case at all. Kennedy wasn't trying rapprochement with the USSR as much as stopping the Cold War from getting hot. Oswald had plenty of reasons for killing Kennedy, unfortunately the government handling things the way it does has left some inconsistencies that people pounce on. Kennedy was a typically leader of US imperialism. His admiration of some on the left I think are a case of these people being totally in awe of him when they were younger and have decided that his death was some kind of golden age of American liberalism despite JFK's typical imperialist policies.

[Bethechange]

I think that summed it up in a nutshell.

[Ismail]

JFK was more learned than other Presidents, but that just made him a more effective servant of capital.

Prairie Fire, a RevLeft user, made a good post (http://ravenresist.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/three-observations-of-october-2007/) on her now-inactive blog in October 2007 on this very issue.

It is quite difficult to be in the political left for any amount of time, and not hear at least a few conspiracy theories.

Admittedly, much of what is known as confirmed factual events to the left is considered wild conspiracy theories by the general public, always has been ( in the case of the plain cloths cop who was forced to admit his infiltration of a protest at Montabello Quebec, I found this to be a great victory, as most people consider the idea of police infiltrators to be a ridiculous, unfounded conspiracy; we in the left know that this phenomenon is very real.).

Anyways, I’m talking about the conspiracies that are still considered conspiracies, even among the informed left-wing. The general proliferation of these theories is large, and they are a dime a dozen.

The most popular conspiracy theories among the political left are “who shot JFK” and “Was 9/11 an inside job” ?

With the Kennedy assassination, there has been an abundance of compelling evidence compiled to possibly implicate the CIA, the Miami Cuban exiles, etc, but still it is inconclusive. The same goes for the September eleventh world trade center attacks, where the United States government is by and large considered the culprit.

I don’t place much stock in these theories. It’s not that I don’t think that there is any merit to them, or that they false; perhaps what they are saying is true, that these events were an inside job.

I just don’t care. It has no relevance to my life, nor is it relevant to the peoples of any nation.

These conspiracy theories about JFK and 9/11 are not only diversions from the everyday hardships of the people of the world, but in actuality, they are the epitome of ethnocentrism.

See, I don’t need to know if agents of the United States government were behind the death of JFK. I know that they were behind the deaths of many prominent black panther party members and American socialists, and that is enough for me. I would like to know conclusively whether the United states government killed Anna Mae Aquash, not JFK.

I don’t need to know if the Miami Cubans had a hand in the Kennedy assassination; they weren’t exactly saints before then. They have had their hands in numerous acts of sabotage, terrorism, subversion and murder of Cubans over the decades since revolution, so whether or not they had a hand in the JFK incident becomes incidental trivia rather than an incriminating sin.

I don’t need to know if the United States government was behind the destruction of the world trade center on September 11th, and the subsequent deaths of 3,000 people. I already know for a fact that the United States government has been behind the destruction of entire cities on every corner of the earth, leading to the death and indirect deaths of Millions. I already know that the US government kills their own citizens covertly. What is so mysterious or scandalous about 9/11, whether the US government had a hand in it or not?

See, this is what I’m talking about: ethnocentrism. Three thousand Americans die, it’s a landmark world tragedy that must be marked every year indefinitely; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die, it’s a newspaper clipping, a “current event” of interest, nothing more. As Koba correctly remarked on the subject ” A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

These conspiracies are beyond irrelevance, as they pass into the realm of service to bourgeoisie reformism and capitalist apologism. Who the hell cares about JFK anyways? Whether he was gunned down or not, JFK was a bourgeoisie front-man who launched an unsuccessful invasion of socialist Cuba, and continued the funneling of aid and “military advisers” into South Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict (even sanctioning the “removal” of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem when he refused to cooperate); to be an apologist for this mans regime is in-excusable liberal reformism.

Even 9/11, while I will pay respect to the dead as much as any other dead, is not “the key ” to unlocking some sort of great mystery. By pursuing the trail of “who dunnit”, you are not going to come to any real earth shattering revelation. If the US government did orchestrate the entire thing, that may be tragic but not at all surprising; the entire history of the United States government is a litany of all of the peoples who have been crushed underneath it’s jack boot, both domestically and internationally.

I am sad to report it, but even the local “communist party” in my area, the Communist party of Canada, heavily deludes themselves with these reformist conspiracy quests. When they spout rubbish about JFK to me, I am sickened. Why do you care? JFK was a virulently anti-communist, anti-worker oppressor! Yes I said it ; it needed to be said! Stop this nonsense!

The reason most people are attracted to these diversions is that they mostly center around one question: Is the American government undemocratic, and willing to subvert the will of the people at all costs? This is probably why these conspiracies hold no interest for me, as I know the answer: Yes. Yes, your government is undemocratic, yes they are willing to kill you for their own gains, yes the American government and ruling class will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. You don’t have to analyze the Zapruder film; analyze the the pictures from the police murder at Kent State, and you’ll find the answer you are looking for.

So, now that hopefully I have established that the American government is undoubtedly undemocratic, we can move on from these conspiracy theories to the more relevant question: What are we going to do about this un-democratic American state, and this government that oppresses the people?

[Jose Gracchus]

Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK. Can we move on?

Also: Michael Parenti often says stupid things.

[Sensible Socialist]

There is enough doubt surrounding the assassination that I cannot believe the governments record of events. If they would come clean, we could all come to an informed conclusion. That said, I don't subscribe to one set of theories or another on who or why JFK was killed. Frankly, it would be interesting to know, from a historical standpoint, and it might give us more proof to use against the state in arguments with actual people, but JFK was one man. An anti-communist man who we shouldn't sympathize with.

[RadioRaheem84]

Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK. Can we move on?

Also: Michael Parenti often says stupid things.

Is your stated mission to just as arrogant as you can be in every post?

The point is that there could've been a possibility of a conspiracy in the assassination and there is nothing ridiculous in believing that.

This notion about people trying to paint Kennedy as some heroic liberal is spurious. Even if he was still dedicated to Cold War politics, he was still the ire of other elements within the National Security State.

Look, I know it's intellectually cool to not believe in a conspiracy surrounding JFK's murder, but anyone who just confidently asserts that Oswald killed JFK, end of story like that, clearly has not read everything involved with the case.

And I don't respect the conspiracy theorists like Jim Marrs, Flethcer Prouty or Alex Jones, but I do respect Peter Dale Scott in most cases.

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm sorry but there is simply no reputable scholarship on the topic, and Michael Parenti is just spreading gossip (he's not a historian, and look no further than the piece of crap that is The Assassination of Julius Caesar, an un-Marxist and misleading polemical book masquerading as history if there ever was one). Chomsky's replies on the topic and his book on "Camelot" are much better at defusing the myths around Kennedy and this idea he put a bug up the national security apparatus to such an extent that a conspiracy is credible. Its crap, and a waste of time and embarrassment for workers and communists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ok so Chomsky is an expert historian on JFK but you uselessly bash Parenti? Even though Chomsky himself believes there was possibly a conspiracy to kill MLK? Look the way you use the word reputable leads me to believe your idea of reputable is highly selective and most likely geared toward the mainstream consensus. The case is not closed on the subject and the mere fact that your citing Chomsky as the definitive word tells me you have not studied the case closer.

Also your little quip against Parenti was childish and reeks of Chomsky fanboyism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Look I understand your point of the case being a waste of time for the working class, but I take the position of a lot of leftists skeptical of the Warren Commission take; so what? Who cares, the government conspires to do a lot of things and killing leaders in not beneath them. The people that piss me off are the ones that adamantly use the JFK assassination to distract the working class and dive off into rabidly wild conspiracies.

But what pisses me off even more though are the people that say there was no conspiracy with such confidence as if to just discount anyone with questions. It's an arrogant and obviously presumptuous position to take and one mired in accepting a mainstream consensus (and likewise distinguishing themselves from the "nuts"). It's posturing.

[Sensible Socialist]

I'm sorry but there is simply no reputable scholarship on the topic
An easy thing to say when you're controlling who is an isn't "reputable."

You don't need detailed scholarship to know that the government explaination is shaky, especially considering their history of lying. It seems that as much as we detest the state, we seem intent on accepting their word as true when it comes to many issues.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think there is no sense prolonging skepticism where the positive evidence of any alternative explanation is pretty nil. Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor?

If I'm really being that unreasonable, just provide the evidence, and we can see how conclusive it is. This is a discussion board.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ok so Chomsky is an expert historian on JFK but you uselessly bash Parenti?

[...]

Also your little quip against Parenti was childish and reeks of Chomsky fanboyism.

That says it all, at least to some extent.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think there is no sense prolonging skepticism where the positive evidence of any alternative explanation is pretty nil. Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor?

If I'm really being that unreasonable, just provide the evidence, and we can see how conclusive it is. This is a discussion board.
We could be here for days discussing the case. It's really meaningless in the greater scheme of things anyways, because either way it's the government doing what it does best, nothing more. I cannot see how it would be so damning to find out if they did do it? It's not like you can deny they've never done something as ghastly as bring involved in assassinations. Point is I think conspiracy denial in the JFK case among the left is more posturing to keep the kooks out or to keep the left respectable.

Most of the time the liberal establishment argue against conspiracy because they fear it will undermine institutional legitimacy. All throughout their denials of conspiracy they keep on acting aghast that someone would stoop so low as to accuse the government or prominent figures within the government of doing such horrendous things.

[Psy]

I think there is no sense prolonging skepticism where the positive evidence of any alternative explanation is pretty nil. Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor?

If I'm really being that unreasonable, just provide the evidence, and we can see how conclusive it is. This is a discussion board.
Well how is Oswald the simplest theory? How can a "sniper" that according to KGB records and testimony from fellow Marines that he was a horrible shot, make such a shot? For Oswald to do it Oswald would have had to purposely shoot poorly in his Marine training and when hunting in the USSR.

The simplest theory is it was professional hit for example the CIA was regularly assassinating political targets in Asia and Latin America at the time, not that it was the CIA, the CIA is just one of the many powers that could have easily sent skilled snipers to shoot JFK while using Oswald to take the fall.

[North Star]

A conspiracy to assassinate MLK makes is far more plausible then one or two of the following killed JFK: USSR/Castro/Texan Oil Barons/Military-Industrial Complex/Mafia/LBJ

[CornetJoyce]

The obvious candidate for mastermind of the JFK assassination is his archMcCarthyite brother Robert, who lusted after the presidency and had been spending much of his time in the Justice Department trying to assassinate Castro.

[Jose Gracchus]

Ok so Chomsky is an expert historian on JFK but you uselessly bash Parenti? Even though Chomsky himself believes there was possibly a conspiracy to kill MLK? Look the way you use the word reputable leads me to believe your idea of reputable is highly selective and most likely geared toward the mainstream consensus. The case is not closed on the subject and the mere fact that your citing Chomsky as the definitive word tells me you have not studied the case closer.

I didn't say Parenti was wrong because he wasn't a real historian. I said he writes shit and he's also not even a real historian to boot. There's plenty of good left history out there, Parenti just isn't it. He's better on political commentary, like Repression in Academia. I never said Chomsky was the "final word", I said his assessment of the relationship of Kennedy to the national security apparatus and the conspiracy theories is closer to the mark than Parenti's. I also never said this was attributable to Chomsky's qualifications as a historian, I simply recommended his take on it.


Also your little quip against Parenti was childish and reeks of Chomsky fanboyism.

What a clever smear. Parenti provides no real argument, no positive evidence, nothing but circumstantials and vague suggestions. Basically, rumors. As a professional scholar, he should be ashamed of that work, and if I wanted stuff of that content, I'd go to the supermarket counter. It has nothing to do with being a "Chomsky fanboy." Since I'm closer to left communism and internationalist anarchism than anything else nowadays, I would say Chomsky's core theoretical base is more radical liberal than anything else, and I wouldn't recommend him on any revolutionary topic. I was simply stating Chomsky on Camelot is better than Parenti's book. Sorry you can't handle that and resort to petty name-calling (and have the hilarious audacity to say I'm being 'childish'; as if calling me a "fanboy" is less so than saying someone's book sucks).

Oh but I forgot, I'm too arrogant. Do you want a flower-gram with this reply?


That says it all, at least to some extent.

Nice one-liner without any real contribution that could possibly be challenged. Are you more sore about me making fun of that piece of shit you adore about Caesar, or that I made fun of conspiracy theories given you like to spread Discovery Channel rumor and bullshit about secret failed Soviet manned spaceflights?


We could be here for days discussing the case. It's really meaningless in the greater scheme of things anyways, because either way it's the government doing what it does best, nothing more. I cannot see how it would be so damning to find out if they did do it? It's not like you can deny they've never done something as ghastly as bring involved in assassinations. Point is I think conspiracy denial in the JFK case among the left is more posturing to keep the kooks out or to keep the left respectable.

Most of the time the liberal establishment argue against conspiracy because they fear it will undermine institutional legitimacy. All throughout their denials of conspiracy they keep on acting aghast that someone would stoop so low as to accuse the government or prominent figures within the government of doing such horrendous things.

In other words, you cannot provide an iota of positive evidence for an alternative theory. Why is it so hard for some to realize that "feels fishy, I don't like it" is not proof of shit?


Well how is Oswald the simplest theory? How can a "sniper" that according to KGB records and testimony from fellow Marines that he was a horrible shot, make such a shot? For Oswald to do it Oswald would have had to purposely shoot poorly in his Marine training and when hunting in the USSR.

The simplest theory is it was professional hit for example the CIA was regularly assassinating political targets in Asia and Latin America at the time, not that it was the CIA, the CIA is just one of the many powers that could have easily sent skilled snipers to shoot JFK while using Oswald to take the fall.

You obviously don't understand the terms "positive evidence," "Occam's Razor," "alternative theory," or, for that matter, "history."

I mean I was hoping someone would bring something to the table, but this whine-fest and rumor-mongering only reinforces my initial impressions.

[Psy]

You obviously don't understand the terms "positive evidence," "Occam's Razor," "alternative theory," or, for that matter, "history."

Occam's Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions.

Assassinations by bourgeois states even of its leaders were the norm long before the JFK assassinations. Also no professional sniper was able to mimic the shots with the Carcano rifle and ever sniper that tried commend at how shit the rifle is even with a working scope yet Oswald supposedly did the shot with a defective scope while being a horrible shot.

Thus you have evidence that the shot is highly improbable meaning even if Oswald did it was had to be a pure fluke of physics that despite all the odds working against Oswald he pulled of a shot the best snipers still can't with the Carcano rifle.

[RadioRaheem84]

Calling leftists you disagree with pieces of shit, thinking I believe in entertainment television conspiracies on the Discovery Channel, throwing a fit because someone called you out on your double standard of praising Chomsky's take on JFK but denouncing Parenti with your weak criteria of what is acceptable. It seems that you're the one that's lost it buddy.

The self assured posturing is simply just that posturing. I said that we could be arguing the case for days because there is so much involved and I do not consider it a productive endeavor at all. But if you want to I can oblige your silly ass, considering I can already tell you know jack shit about it.

You're the one that is not bringing anything to the table, IC, except more pompous presumptuousness that you mistake for confidence in the mainstream account.

The issue was that I believe there was probably a conspiracy and all self assured almost knee jerk reactions to the contrary was just posturing by people too quick to distinguish themselves from the kooks out there. It's a position that just comes with the attitude that you like to take, but then mistake it for rejecting positions that do not offer" positive evidence" or what ever other selective criteria you impose. The fact that you even use that language leads me to believe that you've read mostly the legal defenses of anti-conspiracists like Gerald Posner or Vincent Bugliosi, not historians.


I mean I was hoping someone would bring something to the table, but this whine-fest and rumor-mongering only reinforces my initial impressions.


Oh the audacity! The nerve! For shame on all of us for smearing the good name of revleft with these cockamany conspiracy theories that no reputable person would believe in! Out with them I say, let it never grace the pages of this fine forum for it will forever taint the rational discourse that defines it!

Your initial impression was right, :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

That says it all, at least to some extent.

Pretty much, I mean he just jumped right into it, denouncing Parenti while praising Chomsky's work as he was Arthur Schlesinger or something. I was talking about the JFK case, not trying to have a pit fight between the two leftist scholars (whom I both respect). Even though I said that JFK still being a cold war warrior to the end is spurious in light of theories concerning his assassination he still brings up Chomsky's Camelot as if it means something. I beg to differ after reading some pretty good stuff by Peter Dale Scott, but in his words it wouldn't be as reputable of a source as Chomsky is on Lenin or as JFK for that matter.

It made me wonder if he was more adamant about denouncing Parenti or JFK conspiracy theories. But now that he is calling Parenti a "piece of shit", I can back away and let him have his rant.

[RadioRaheem84]

A conspiracy to assassinate MLK makes is far more plausible then one or two of the following killed JFK: USSR/Castro/Texan Oil Barons/Military-Industrial Complex/Mafia/LBJ

Well of course! Because Chomsky said so and made it more reputable to believe there could've been one against MLK.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Bill Bonanno, of the US 'Mafia,' claimed that jfk was shot from a sewer grate, by mobsters, affiliated with cuban exiles, condoned by the CIA.

Claimed that LHO was silenced by jack ruby, a mafia associate with ties to Casa Nostra

[La Comédie Noire]

That Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK alone is the conclusion that best fits the evidence. I have yet to see anything that would persuade me otherwise.

[Jose Gracchus]

Calling leftists you disagree with pieces of shit, thinking I believe in entertainment television conspiracies on the Discovery Channel, throwing a fit because someone called you out on your double standard of praising Chomsky's take on JFK but denouncing Parenti with your weak criteria of what is acceptable. It seems that you're the one that's lost it buddy.

Can you read? I openly quoted and replied to DNZ, not you in saying that.

Apparently you don't know what a double standard is. It is not saying "Guy X's book A sucks for reason Z, and Guy K has a decent take on a semi-related topic Q." Try again.

And once more, I said Parenti's Assassination of Julius Caesar is shit, and my point is the lengths he will sometimes go to push a political view regardless of the scholarship and evidence.


The self assured posturing is simply just that posturing. I said that we could be arguing the case for days because there is so much involved and I do not consider it a productive endeavor at all. But if you want to I can oblige your silly ass, considering I can already tell you know jack shit about it.

You don't want to provide even a single quote or single major concrete reason we should have an alternative theory. Rather you're extremely defensive, I imagine because you're projecting onto me what people usually regard your conspiracy-mongering as. My original remark was not even in reply to you, and I just want you to provide evidence for your claims, not allude to how much evidence there is (while yielding none).


You're the one that is not bringing anything to the table, IC, except more pompous presumptuousness that you mistake for confidence in the mainstream account.

I'm not the one pushing an alternative positive claim. You seem to be confused who the burden of proof is on - the burden to provide evidence is on you, since you're saying something else happened. So why not let us know what it was and what your evidence is.


The issue was that I believe there was probably a conspiracy and all self assured almost knee jerk reactions to the contrary was just posturing by people too quick to distinguish themselves from the kooks out there. It's a position that just comes with the attitude that you like to take, but then mistake it for rejecting positions that do not offer" positive evidence" or what ever other selective criteria you impose. The fact that you even use that language leads me to believe that you've read mostly the legal defenses of anti-conspiracists like Gerald Posner or Vincent Bugliosi, not historians.

I'm asking you to provide evidence, and my original remark was not even addressed at all at you, I just find dwelling on this topic to be tedious and mostly pointless. But since we're past that point, and apparently you've researched it a lot, why don't you provide some evidence and summarize the reputable versus crap literature on alternative accounts, rather than freaking out that I must be calling you into disrepute or whatever.


Oh the audacity! The nerve! For shame on all of us for smearing the good name of revleft with these cockamany conspiracy theories that no reputable person would believe in! Out with them I say, let it never grace the pages of this fine forum for it will forever taint the rational discourse that defines it!

Your initial impression was right, :rolleyes:

I don't see where I said this was the major issue at hand.


Pretty much, I mean he just jumped right into it, denouncing Parenti while praising Chomsky's work as he was Arthur Schlesinger or something. I was talking about the JFK case, not trying to have a pit fight between the two leftist scholars (whom I both respect). Even though I said that JFK still being a cold war warrior to the end is spurious in light of theories concerning his assassination he still brings up Chomsky's Camelot as if it means something. I beg to differ after reading some pretty good stuff by Peter Dale Scott, but in his words it wouldn't be as reputable of a source as Chomsky is on Lenin or as JFK for that matter.

I never made an argument from Chomsky's authority. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why can't you provide any of it when it comes to alternative theories of the JFK assassination? "There are holes in the official story" is not proof something else happened.


It made me wonder if he was more adamant about denouncing Parenti or JFK conspiracy theories. But now that he is calling Parenti a "piece of shit", I can back away and let him have his rant.

I said his Assassination of Julius Caesar is a piece of shit, because it is. Ask greymouser, who is a Marxist who has really studied classical antiquity. I said his discussion of the JFK assassination is rumor and not reputable for a scholar of his level.


Well of course! Because Chomsky said so and made it more reputable to believe there could've been one against MLK.

The guy didn't say anything about Chomsky. You're just livid I said anything bad about Parenti's works and anything good about any of Chomsky's. Calm down, there's no NGNM for you to rally hysterics against here.

[Jose Gracchus]

Occam's Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions.

Assassinations by bourgeois states even of its leaders were the norm long before the JFK assassinations. Also no professional sniper was able to mimic the shots with the Carcano rifle and ever sniper that tried commend at how shit the rifle is even with a working scope yet Oswald supposedly did the shot with a defective scope while being a horrible shot.

Thus you have evidence that the shot is highly improbable meaning even if Oswald did it was had to be a pure fluke of physics that despite all the odds working against Oswald he pulled of a shot the best snipers still can't with the Carcano rifle.

That's not how Occam's Razor works. You need an alternative theory which explains the facts equally well to support it, not just be like Official Story X has holes, so uh, Unproven Supposition Z must be true!

[RadioRaheem84]

I never made an argument from Chomsky's authority. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why can't you provide any of it when it comes to alternative theories of the JFK assassination? "There are holes in the official story" is not proof something else happened.


But this is the clincher, isn't it? Why is it extraordinary to believe that there was a conspiracy? Is it really about the evidence at hand (evidence I find selective enough to prove an assumption) or that it is simply unbelievable that the government would stoop to do such an extraordinary thing?

[RadioRaheem84]

not just be like Official Story X has holes, so uh, Unproven Supposition Z must be true!

official story does have holes and unproven supposition z has been deemed unproven by propagators of official story.

[La Comédie Noire]

We could be here for days discussing the case. It's really meaningless in the greater scheme of things anyways, because either way it's the government doing what it does best, nothing more. I cannot see how it would be so damning to find out if they did do it? It's not like you can deny they've never done something as ghastly as bring involved in assassinations. Point is I think conspiracy denial in the JFK case among the left is more posturing to keep the kooks out or to keep the left respectable.

Most of the time the liberal establishment argue against conspiracy because they fear it will undermine institutional legitimacy. All throughout their denials of conspiracy they keep on acting aghast that someone would stoop so low as to accuse the government or prominent figures within the government of doing such horrendous things.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy not because I want to remain respectable or because I have a rosy picture of the government, but because there is no compelling evidence for a conspiracy. All of the conspiracy theory arguments are based on disinformation and selective information gathering. In fact it seems the conspiracy camp wants there to be a conspiracy so bad they will distort the facts in order to fit their theories.

I don't think they are all conscious frauds, people were screaming conspiracy even in the days after the assassination, before the Warren Commission Report was even out. It's common sense that there was a conspiracy, but we can't let the weight of public opinion cloud our judgment.

But if you have evidence,please post it, although I have a feeling I've heard it all before.

[Psy]

That's not how Occam's Razor works. You need an alternative theory which explains the facts equally well to support it, not just be like Official Story X has holes, so uh, Unproven Supposition Z must be true!
That is not what I said, I said the official story is highly improbable requiring too many freak events. Oswald is horrible shot according the US Marines and KGB and had to pull of a series of shot no sniper even today can reproduce due to the Carcano rifle being one of the worst rifles in the world when in good repair yet Oswalds was had defective optics and in poor state of repair.

The Carcanocano rifle is a very suspect rifle for a sniper, as then you could get a M1 Garand with a scope and flash suppressor relatively cheap from US Army surplus (and was semi-automatic instead of bolt action) like many guerrilla armies were using at the time. Then you have Oswald taking of picture of him with his Carcanocano, anyone that knows firearms would be embarrassed to admit they own a Carcanocano rifle at is basically saying that you are stupid and wasted money on a rifle the can't hit shit and jams if you look at it funny.

[RadioRaheem84]

Easily dismissed as speculation. Regardless of the Italian rifle being considered a p.o.s, it still doesn't change the fact that one was discovered in the TSBD (mistaken for a German Mauser) and pics of it were found in Oswald's possession. So the claim of it being an unusual weapon for an assassin is spurious in this case. It was used and any further queries about it's use would have to be chalked over to the notion that Oswald was a weird loner with delusions of grandeur.

No matter how many questions regarding the case stir up, everything has to be put into context of the official record surrounding the events. Also, evidence to the contrary of the conspiracy claims is usually if not always presented in a legal fashion that presumes the official story as stated fact. Anything to the contrary is considered speculation.

Sorry Psy, but it won't cut it. Remember that the burden of proof is on you for making such an extraordinary claim.

[Psy]

Easily dismissed as speculation. Regardless of the Italian rifle being considered a p.o.s, it still doesn't change the fact that one was discovered in the TSBD (mistaken for a German Mauser) and pics of it were found in Oswald's possession. So the claim of it being an usual weapon for an assassin is spurious in this case. It was used and any further queries about it's use would have to be chalked over to the notion that Oswald was a weird loner with delusions of grandeur.

No matter how many questions regarding the case stir up, everything has to be put into context of the official record surrounding the events. Also, evidence to the contrary of the conspiracy claims is usually if not always presented in a legal fashion that presumes the official story as stated fact. Anything to the contrary is considered speculation.

Sorry Psy, but it won't cut it. Remember that the burden of proof is on you for making such an extraordinary claim.

Yet if the shot was possible why hasn't anyone to date been able to recreate the series of shots? Oswald was a poor marksmen so it stands to reason if the best snipers can't pull it off it is impossible for Oswald to make the shots.

Also the official story has no evidence, they have Oswald being witnessed from too far to humanly be able to identify Oswald, the was also no military support was canceled just before the motorcade and Secret Service was told to stay back and the Dallas Police were ordered to deploy with far less men then was originally planned. Also the fact the police kept people off the grassy knoll prior to the assignation is questionable,why did the police there want to do crowd control but no where else?

So the official story does nothing to answer the questions and has no evidence to support its case.

[Die Neue Zeit]

official story does have holes and unproven supposition z has been deemed unproven by propagators of official story.

AKA the difference between gentlemen's history and people's history.

[Jose Gracchus]

So once again, repeat our claims, provide no evidence, attempt to shift the goalposts, and resort to that last refuge of wishful thinkers: "its not disproven!" And you think its the words conspiracy theory that give rational people an allergy to this stuff? No, its the way conspiracy theorists go about their propagandizing - via the entire textbook of logical fallacies and misdirection.

Do any of you know how to make an actual argument that is logically valid and factually supported?

Over and over again I said fine, let's put aside my tone and opinion, and I'll give you a chance to make your case, and you cannot do it. Instead, repeatedly, you all move to try to shift the burden of proof and weasel out of making any verifiable claims. If I was skeptical before, your tactics make me that much more skeptical.

Why don't you disprove that you beat women? Well if you can't, you must be guilty, naturally.

But if you want to have a discussion about the real world, the offer to make a case is still standing.


AKA the difference between gentlemen's history and people's history.

You're just upset that you're full of shit and no one who knows anything about any topics you troll into will ever back up your take on it. You look at the history of the workers' movement and history in general the way Goebbels looked at current events: opportunities to make shit up.

If this is what "people's history" is, no wonder the left is fucked. Apparently workers cannot contend with matters of fact and logic, and must be preached to like incredulous children.

And I'm still waiting for you to actually back up why "Marx the crisis economist is so so overrated," rather than change the topic, not that I expect you to reply to any challenges. Lately you've apparently adopted the Brezhnevite school of debating tactics.

[Psy]

So once again, repeat our claims, provide no evidence, attempt to shift the goalposts, and resort to that last refuge of wishful thinkers: "its not disproven!" And you think its the words conspiracy theory that give rational people an allergy to this stuff? No, its the way conspiracy theorists go about their propagandizing - via the entire textbook of logical fallacies and misdirection.

WovyEqfR8Hg
That is with properly maintained rifles, Oswald had a rifle in disrepair with a defective scope.

"debunkers" have showed doing it with modern versions of the rifles yet these rifles are far more accurate then and easy to use, no one has been able to match the firing sequence of Oswald with the same Carcano rifle model Oswald used.


The next is the physics defying actions of the round, the bullet after going through bone was not deformed yet wasn't a armored piercing round this defies the laws of physics as the rounds Oswald were using no where near dense enough to keep shape after going through bone.

Therefore it is safe to say that Oswald shots were impossible thus Oswald couldn't have done it.






Over and over again I said fine, let's put aside my tone and opinion, and I'll give you a chance to make your case, and you cannot do it. Instead, repeatedly, you all move to try to shift the burden of proof and weasel out of making any verifiable claims. If I was skeptical before, your tactics make me that much more skeptical.

Where is your burden of proof. You say Oswald did it because the bourgeoisie state says so.




Why don't you disprove that you beat women? Well if you can't, you must be guilty, naturally.

In this case we have the laws of physics stating it a impossibility for Oswald being the shooter. This is like being out of the country at the time if being accused of beating a women.

[RadioRaheem84]

Inform Candidate, first I want to know if you actually believe the entirety of the Warren Commission as the best account of what actually happened on November 22, 1963.

And damn son, those were some harsh ass words toward Die Neue Zeit.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think the Warren Commission report is necessarily perfectly accurate or comprehensive, and I think there was considerable pressure at the very least to get a rid of the scandal, especially considering the political impact the assassination had in the South (I had a professor who says he remembers in grade school children and adults cheering the assassination announcement on the news in Birmingham, AL), to say nothing of the rank incompetence (one could even say easily criminal negligence) of the Houston PD and Secret Service in the shooting. And that's not even touching how badly the investigation was handled afterward.

However, I do not see any real positive evidence in favor of another shooter at another site.

DNZ knows I can be strident with him, but I don't think he's a class traitor. I do think he routinely stretches and abuses history for political purposes though, and as a student of history that's something I feel quite strongly about (hence my antipathy for Stalinists). In this case, it has been pointed out repeatedly that The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti very strongly distorts the history of the decline of the Roman Republic, and is even pretty distorting of a Marxist outlook on it (how can there be a "people's history" when we're dealing with a slave empire resting on a "pedestal" - Marx's words - of exploited-til-death slaves?). He just seems to repeat his original line on the book endlessly, using pretty offensive insinuations, such as suggesting anyone who does know anything about Rome but disagrees with him or Parenti believes "gentleman's history" (read: is a bourgeois shill). I don't take such suggestions kindly, especially where one will not even credibly stand up behind and defend his position. I suspect this is because DNZ quote-mined The Assassination of Julius Caesar to back up his "Caesarian Socialism" but never actually read it, or any other left history of antiquity for that matter.

As an aside, The Assassination of Julius Caesar is pretty transparently a very historically misleading polemical reading back into Roman history of Parenti's apologetics for Stalin's regime. Hence his very un-Marxist account of Caesar as a dictator who ruled "in the substantive interests" of the lower classes. The fact is Caesar was a representative of the Roman ruling class who was attempting to break through the tottering old republican-senatorial system. A feat which he failed, but his adoptive nephew succeeded in, inaugurating the Roman Empire. I leave it to anyone with an even cursory knowledge of the Roman Empire to decide whether this was a dictatorship in "the substantive interests" of the lower classes.

TIC.

[La Comédie Noire]

Just some thoughts on the physical evidence.


Psy.... Your video doesn't really disprove that Oswald could have gotten the shots off. Not to mention three different agencies ran their own bench tests on the weapon and found it to be "pretty accurate". I should also add it's now believed Oswald had somewhere around 8 seconds to get the shots off. Not that he needed it. For instance Robert Fraizer, the weapons expert for the FBI, got off three accurate shots in 4.5 seconds!


That is with properly maintained rifles, Oswald had a rifle in disrepair with a defective scope. True the scope was defective, but that could account for the first shot being a misfire. He could have used the steel sites for the other 2 shots. Oswald was shit on for being a crappy sharp shooter, but he was actually closer to average from what I understand.

I also don't know about the claim that the rifle was in "disrepair". I'd like to see a source.


The next is the physics defying actions of the round, the bullet after going through bone was not deformed yet wasn't a armored piercing round this defies the laws of physics as the rounds Oswald were using nowhere near dense enough to keep shape after going through bone. The "pristine" bullet isn't so pristine after all.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif


And others have tested this and gotten similar looking bullets.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg

I would get into witness testimony and so called government stand down orders, but a lot of that stuff has been turned into legend through misunderstandings, myth making, and outright lies. The only other case I can think of that has been distorted this bad is the Zodiac Killer murders.

[RadioRaheem84]

A.) It's Dallas, not Houston. Also, I think the main concern at the onset of the murder was that it was Communist inspired. The fear was that there would've been a backlash against the Soviets.

B.) I never got the impression that Parenti was praising Caesar but still referred to him as a tyrant merely tweeking the trend of past emperors on how to deal with the public. A populist but not a heroic one. Also, his main point I gathered was that the mainstream academics praise the people who assassinated Caesar for the same reasons they praise the murder of any strongman populist; because they're going against or competing with entrenched ruling elite interests. I took it more to mean he was probably comparing Caesar to a Saddam Hussein type nationalist bourgeois type, strongman populist or at least competitive politics within the establishment.

[Psy]

Psy.... Your video doesn't really disprove that Oswald could have gotten the shots off. Not to mention three different agencies ran their own bench tests on the weapon and found it to be "pretty accurate". I should also add it's now believed Oswald had somewhere around 8 seconds to get the shots off. Not that he needed it. For instance Robert Fraizer, the weapons expert for the FBI, got off three accurate shots in 4.5 seconds!

Not with accuracy and we are talking about far better marksmen then Oswald with more tries to get it right. 17 out 37 attempt the rifle jammed this is predictable for the Carcano that is well known for the manufacturing process having a margin of error for part size larger then the tolerance of the design. Meaning you had to customize a Carcano before it works right to fix defects from the manufacturing process something Oswald didn't do this is why even Italian troops during WWII ditched their Carcano's for any other rife they can get their hand on.

Also the scope was zeroed at 430 meters, why would Oswald zero the scope so far? With the scope zeroed so far he would have to make huge corrections for shooting so close then you get into defects of the scope and misalignment.




True the scope was defective, but that could account for the first shot being a misfire. He could have used the steel sites for the other 2 shots.

Iron sights of Carcano are shit, they are fixed at 300 meters so Oswald could only use the iron sights if the target (JFK) was 300 meters away rather then 80 meters in which the iron sights would be making up for bullet drop at 300 meters rather then 80 meters, meaning Oswald would have been aiming high, meaning if he was aiming for a head shot it would have totally gone over JFK's head.



Oswald was shit on for being a crappy sharp shooter, but he was actually closer to average from what I understand.

For the shot he was a crappy shooter, if Oswald instead decided to shoot as the motorcade faced him it would be different as it would be a simple shot.



I also don't know about the claim that the rifle was in "disrepair". I'd like to see a source.

According to the FBI report on the rifle the firing pin was very worn and rust on the parts.

Robert Frazier testimony:


Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY - Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER - I did not examine it for that.





The "pristine" bullet isn't so pristine after all.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif


And others have tested this and gotten similar looking bullets.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg

We are talking about a round that went through two bodies, including bones so it is looks very good considering.

mCxvz65SCaA

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent start on the debate. I didn't know where to begin but Psy and Le Comedie Noire got it started. Good job guys.

Also, let's not take all of this really personal. I think that despite our differences on the case, we all know that using it as a means of distraction against greater working class struggle is really the culprit of conspiracy theories.

[Psy]

Excellent start on the debate. I didn't know where to begin but Psy and Le Comedie Noire got it started. Good job guys.

Also, let's not take all of this really personal. I think that despite our differences on the case, we all know that using it as a means of distraction against greater working class struggle is really the culprit of conspiracy theories.

Right but the ruling class does from time to time attack each other so a conspiracy behind JFK assassination wouldn't change the Marxist view of power. And what really cements the systematic view as nothing changed, the death of JFK didn't alter the course of the US ruling class at all. If it was a conspiracy it failed as JFK was irrelevant to the direction the US ruling class was taking the US bourgeois state, if they wanted to change its course they would have done what Leonid Brezhnev did and beat down the other fractions of the ruling class with the army.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You look at the history of the workers' movement and history in general the way Goebbels looked at current events: opportunities to make shit up.

If this is what "people's history" is, no wonder the left is fucked. Apparently workers cannot contend with matters of fact and logic, and must be preached to like incredulous children.

[...]

DNZ knows I can be strident with him, but I don't think he's a class traitor. I do think he routinely stretches and abuses history for political purposes though, and as a student of history that's something I feel quite strongly about (hence my antipathy for Stalinists).

History is never "unbiased." I don't abuse history (like Holocaust deniers), but it is always stretched for political purposes anyways.

Also, one can have allegedly "trollish" or "preachy" post approaches, but not both.


And I'm still waiting for you to actually back up why "Marx the crisis economist is so so overrated," rather than change the topic, not that I expect you to reply to any challenges. Lately you've apparently adopted the Brezhnevite school of debating tactics.

I already responded there re. the other aspects of Marx's work that should be paid attention to, especially by those on the left.


In this case, it has been pointed out repeatedly that The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti very strongly distorts the history of the decline of the Roman Republic, and is even pretty distorting of a Marxist outlook on it (how can there be a "people's history" when we're dealing with a slave empire resting on a "pedestal" - Marx's words - of exploited-til-death slaves?). He just seems to repeat his original line on the book endlessly, using pretty offensive insinuations, such as suggesting anyone who does know anything about Rome but disagrees with him or Parenti believes "gentleman's history" (read: is a bourgeois shill). I don't take such suggestions kindly, especially where one will not even credibly stand up behind and defend his position. I suspect this is because DNZ quote-mined The Assassination of Julius Caesar to back up his "Caesarian Socialism" but never actually read it, or any other left history of antiquity for that matter.

Parenti improved upon the work that Gramsci pioneered in the process of rehabilitating Julius Caesar. It wasn't for nothing that Gramsci (cue "Stalinist even in prison" simply because he mistakenly maneuvered against Bordiga) viewed Caesar and Napoleon positively, and Louis and Bismarck negatively (though viewing Napoleon positively was a mistake) - all within the context of changing the fundamentals of the state.

[BigTiny]

Thank you for the info Rakhmetov. I'm dismayed to see "Marxists-Lenninists" brush this off as unimportant. It's profoudnly important. It is an explicit example of the power of the US National Security State Apparatus within the Capitalist State and the lengths it will go to to protect the ruling class interests. This was Parenti's point.

[BigTiny]

From Parenti's book:

JFK was more or less a socialist.


I'd say he was a mild reformist at best, not a socialist. He was definitley a Cold War Hawk.