Conspiracy Theories and how big business-aka -your government won the propaganda war
- This topic has 72 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"But to say with such overwhelming confidence that Oswald acted alone is clearly ridiculous and unsustainable, particularly for socialists who should be prepared to 'question everything'."As the clip from DJP says there is a big difference from healthy scepticism and cynicism…and i think as Marxists we should remember Marx when he said "ignorance never helped anybody" … I make the same request to you as i did to Vin, Gnome…What are the "ridiculous and unsustainable" facts in the accepted version of the shooting…and have these over time with improved science been answered? Do you think that a cover-up as intricate as would be required and involving many participants can last this long without being exposed particularly as someone pointed out, Clinton presidential powers couldn't hide a sperm stain on a dress and Nixon couldn't hide his secret SE Asia war or a political break-in and the amazing powers of the US/UK couldn't fake discovering a few WMDs in Iraq.
A lot of the hole holes in the narrative become very clear when one considers the key fact. The stupid buggers published the route in advance. After that, we're open to any opportunistic sod to do the deed. As a matter of intellectual self defence I can waste too much time on matters that don't amount to much: and I don't want to read about every last blood splatter or hw a bone fragment turned up in an unusual place. Such 'inconsistencies' belong to Poirot. We've got a prime suspect who was in the right place, whose biography and recent behaviour suggests he was predisposed to do the act and who, despite having some possibly unusual contacts, seems very much to have been alone and slightly odd. That'll do me. I do not believe there is a reasonable doubt that Oswald did it.
gnome wrote:Perhaps LBird has a valid point when he speaks of "individualists" having a preference for trust (admittedly in your case a selective one) in "elite-experts".I think LBird's point is that there will be no 'experts' or expert opinion to choose between. We will all be experts in everything.
Even after the Government gun specialists repaired Oswald's gun, which was falling to bits, expert markmen failed to replicate what Oswald was alleged to have done
I suspect Oswald would have failed to replicate what Oswald had done, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Put another way: there is no excuse for a footballer missing a penalty, yet sometimes they do; some shots on goal should never come off, and yet, sometimes, at the big moment, they do. So far as I know, it has never been demonstrated that Oswald's shots were impossible. Also, lets not forget, that eye witness testimony is not reliable, and events are confused.Oh, and…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#FBI_testsLooks to me like they did replicate it.
Could you refer me to the source of these claims, Vin.It was certainly a second-hand used gun but it was not falling to pieces…it was usable and accurate enough for the task and those who were asked to replicate Oswalds shots did indeed accomplish it.Much is made of the scope defect but we don't know if it was damaged before or after the assassination, the scope is positioned in a way that the iron sights can be used so if LHO knew they were out of alignment, he still could have taken the shots without using the scope. We just don't know if he did or not. But even if he used the scope, an aimed at the centre of the back shot would have hit Kennedy higher up…as two shots did…but we don't know where on Kennedy LHO aimed. So he could simply has compensated for any flaw in the scope. FBI Frazier also said the scope defect to the right would actually favor the sniper in the 6th floor window with the motorcade moving into the curve to the right. LHO according to his wife spent hours working the bolt of his rifle. He understood whatever sticky workings or stiff trigger action it had.He had already used it in an assassination attempt of Gen Walker and the window frame deflected the bullet. In his own words LHO was a "Hunter of Fascists"…As i said his left-wing view of himself is often overlooked The Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only 6 seconds to get off three shots. This is a convenient misrepresentation. Most people today who believe that Oswald did the shooting by himself believe that he made the first shot at about Zapruder frame 160, giving him about 8.4 seconds to get off all three shots. In the tests all the shots *hit* the targets! there were *four* series of shots by Frazier. The times were 5.9 seconds, 6.2 seconds, 5.6 seconds, and 6.5 seconds. Frazier's best was in 5.6 seconds And all of Frazier's shots *hit* the targets. They were "high and to the right of the *aiming point.* (as was LHO shots). The fact that the FBI reported the scope to be misaligned, to me, shows they were investigating the case in good faith. So no cover-up there when of course they should have hidden that detail. It is also thought his first shot missed…Nobody is claiming Oswald was infallible or perfect shot.
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Perhaps LBird has a valid point when he speaks of "individualists" having a preference for trust (admittedly in your case a selective one) in "elite-experts".I think LBird's point is that there will be no 'experts' or expert opinion to choose between. We will all be experts in everything.
I'm not sure if you're joking here, Vin, or really don't understand democracy.Put simply, the producers elect 'experts', who explain to the electorate, and the electorate decide by a vote between explanations. Thus power lies with the producers, not 'experts'. If the expert can't explain in terms understandable by the producers, there is thus no 'explanation', and the expert won't be elected next time the producers wish to delegate research tasks.The 'truth' is elected. Given further developments in theories, research, presentations by elected experts, and voting, a new 'truth' might dethrone the old 'truth'.This will be the proletarian scientific method. It's an issue, at heart, about power.Not that you understand anything about power, authority and legitimacy, in short, politics, apparently.God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.
LBird wrote:God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.You have said that about everyone you have come across, You change your story all the time. By voting on an expert you are putting your faith in that expert. Your posts are littered with this crap. If you simply mean voting on the 'truth' is voting on the evidence presented by 'experts' why didn't you say that at the start, for fuck sake.You have not knocked my opinion or analysis down, you have knocked your own Strawman down. You have done it with everyone on the forum. What is your motive? Bullshitters need a good memory First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:This will be the proletarian scientific method. It's an issue, at heart, about power.Not that you understand anything about power, authority and legitimacy, in short, politics, apparently.God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.There will not be a poletariat in socialism. DOH
Vin wrote:If you simply mean voting on the 'truth' is voting on the evidence presented by 'experts' why didn't you say that at the start, for fuck sake.Vin, you, robbo, and a number of others appear to have the visual equivalent of 'cloth ears'.How many times I've talked about 'elite-expert-maths' being 'priest-Latin', and the need for explanation which can be understood by all, I've lost count.You lot have already decided to stop reading anything I write, so I don't see why I should keep trying to explain to you anymore, especially robbo.
Vin wrote:You have not knocked my opinion or analysis down, you have knocked you own Strawman. You have done it with everyone on the forum.You haven't 'got an opinion' to 'knock down', Vin. You clearly don't know the first thing about science, knowledge or truth. Or democracy. Or power.Why you don't just read some of the books, articles or links that I've recommended, and then ask genuine questions, I don't know.
Vin wrote:What is your motive?My motive is to help comrades circumvent the years of reading required to get to understand these issues, if approached from ignorance, as was the case with me. I wasn't able to ask anyone for help, because all the bloody Leninist/Trotskyists haven't got a clue, either. And I'm talking about their supposed 'theorists', too.I've been shocked by the lack of willingness to learn, listen, read, and engage in an informed debate. There has just been a repetition of mainstream bourgeois myths about 'science' and 'maths', that are taught at school and are reinforced by the popular press, about 'disinterested' academics employing a 'non-political method' to produce 'True Knowledge' about the 'Real World' in a language not open to popular understanding.Even bourgeois philosophers have undermined that cosy, 19th century nonsense, so why it's so difficult to get so-called revolutionaries and socialists to think critically, I'm baffled about.Plus, it's the bloody philosophical viewpoint of 'elite science' that supports the bloody Leninist worldview, so why the SPGB should have so much difficulty accommodating criticism of 'elites' with a 'special consciousness', which is not available to the class as a whole, again, beats me.
Vin wrote:By voting on an expert you are putting your faith in that expert.You really don't get it, do you?You are putting 'your faith' in your class, and their ability to smell a rat, which 'science experts' often produce, in physics as much as sociology.Give me democratic criticism, debate and voting (that is, MASS OPINION) over 'faith in experts', any day.The 'experts' contradict each other, all the time, it's our collective job to decide what's best for us, what 'truth' makes sense to us.Only we can decide what is best. It's a social judgement, and an elite can't make it for us.Unless you want the Central Committee to dictate to us all, Vin? No, I thought not – even you are not completely politically stupid.BTW, I vote for alan's explanation, given the reading I've done in the past, and alan's 'expert' opinion. LHO did it alone. That doesn't mean it's a 'Final Truth', but the only 'truth' we're likely to have, unless someone comes up with a better theory and evidence to support it.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:This will be the proletarian scientific method. It's an issue, at heart, about power.Not that you understand anything about power, authority and legitimacy, in short, politics, apparently.God help us if you're representative of the SPGB's level of political understanding of power.There will not be a poletariat in socialism. DOH
No, but there's a proletariat, now, Vin, and it has to theorise its approach to science, now, before the revolution.Perhaps you think that on the glorious day, a divine consciousness will descend upon the producers, who, according to your method, won't have discussed and prepared for their taking of power?DOHPS. I've discussed this so often before, that the proletariat now is the seed of humanity in the future, and that Marx too spoke of 'workers' after the revolution in this context, that I really do know that you not only don't read, but fundamentally don't understand dynamics and change.We'll have to start calling you 'Divine Consciousness Vin', since that's your understanding of the development of class consciousnessSecond warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:If you simply mean voting on the 'truth' is voting on the evidence presented by 'experts' why didn't you say that at the start, for fuck sake.Vin, you, robbo, and a number of others appear to have the visual equivalent of 'cloth ears'.How many times I've talked about 'elite-expert-maths' being 'priest-Latin', and the need for explanation which can be understood by all, I've lost count.
You believe that in socialism there will be no 'experts' with knowledge that most of us do not possess. Is this true? Yes or no? Or do you not have some secret knowledge that the rest of us will never fathom out because you deliberately obfuscate.Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1500-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gifOf course, just one eye-witness account given within a couple of hours of the shooting is not suffice proof…What is required is supporting evidence for the statement. He was in a position to see what he claimed to have seen and parts of what he said are corroborated by other witnesses (eg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1AqnPYPurw4/Tvw05Jp8R-I/AAAAAAAABrw/WzeDHTVG2lc/s1200-h/Amos-Euins-Affidavit.gif and http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VT-pM3J-WNE/Tvw05sUBICI/AAAAAAAABr4/kNPBIHAEHkA/s1200-h/Arnold-Rowland-Affidavit.gif) plus physical evidence found at the scene…a rifle and three empty shells, later identified as being owned and having been used by LHO and to which can then be added the circumstantial evidence such as later shooting Tippitt and repeatedly lying during police interrogations. Now compare with the alternative scenarios ….full of ifs and maybes and a lot of hearsay, all without any hard supporting evidence to corrobate them…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.