From bigxc@firefly.prairienet.orgFri Jan 20 07:31:02 1995
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 94 22:36:45 CST
From: Brian Redman <bigxc@firefly.prairienet.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <conspire@argus.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 24


              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3  Num. 24
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
DAVE EMORY -- JULY 5, 1992
Observations on America's 216th Birthday
 
[...continued...]
 
DAVE EMORY [continues]:
The... In Garrison's court, I should say, the, Colonel Finck, one 
of the autopsy surgeons, testified that he was ordered by unnamed 
superior officers not to dissect Kennedy's neck wound. *That* is 
unimpeached legal testimony in an American court of law and has 
the power of *law*. The jury found that there *had* been a 
conspiracy behind Kennedy's assassination, but could not find, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clay Shaw was involved. The 
Garrison investigation was *massively* subverted by a number of 
elements, some of which I will speak about during the course of 
the broadcast this evening.
 
But the body of evidence that there, in fact, was a conspiracy is 
*absolutely* air-tight. It is massive. There *are* many 
questionable areas, areas that need to be looked into: what I 
like to call "food for thought, and grounds for further 
research." We will touch on some of those this evening.
 
But the Warren Commission's thesis -- their contention that Lee 
Harvey Oswald was the "lone nut" assassin -- is absolutely 
untenable in all of its major respects. And it is *physically* 
*impossible*, in virtually all of its major respects. It rests on 
the so-called "single bullet theory" or, as some critics have 
aptly termed it, "the magic bullet theory." The Warren Commission 
had to limit itself to 3 shots, in something like 6 seconds. If 
more than 3 shots were fired, then the Warren Commission had to 
admit that there was more than one rifleman. One shot blew 
Kennedy's head off. One missed the motorcade altogether and 
wounded a by-stander named James Tague. And that left all seven 
non-fatal wounds in President Kennedy and Governor John Connally 
to be made by *one* bullet -- the so-called "magic bullet."
 
Well the residua recovered from those seven non-fatal wounds, 
supposedly made by the same bullet, exceeds the amount of 
material *missing* from that bullet. There's a basic principle of 
mathematics that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts; the 
sum of the parts cannot *under* *any* *circumstances* be greater 
than the whole.
 
So much for the Warren Commission's thesis.
 
All of the other aspects of the Warren Commission's thesis are 
ridiculous as well. That bullet executed several sharp turns in 
mid-air without being acted upon by an external force, in direct 
contravention of the law of inertia. Bullets do all sorts of 
interesting things in what are known as "fascia", or tissue 
layers, but they do not turn in mid-air without being acted upon 
by an external force -- *that* is impossible.
 
All of the other aspects of the Warren Commission's thesis were 
equally ridiculous. The rifle that Oswald supposedly used to 
assassinate President Kennedy was sighted-in for a left-handed 
shooter; Oswald was right-handed; he wouldn't have been able to 
hit the broad side of a barn. Paraffin tests on Oswald were 
negative, indicating he *hadn't* fired a gun. The Dallas Police 
who first searched Oswald's alleged "sniper perch" found a rifle 
*without* a scope that they termed "a 7.65 millimeter German 
mauser." And one can go on and on.
 
And again: the official, the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission 
testimony and exhibits completely *destroy* the Warren 
Commission, in and of itself, as well as the magnificent body and 
the massive body of research developed by many private 
investigators in the years since.
 
I find it very hypocritical that Chomsky says, "Well, he hasn't 
really examined the masses of details," and says, basically, he's 
not gonna go into the assassination issue because, well he says, 
"First, I don't think it is of any more importance than the 
latest murder in Roxbury. Second, it's like having a discussion 
with religious maniacs -- facts and arguments just don't matter. 
Not worth it." Well I think Chomsky's own words apply *very*, 
very well to his own blindness on this particular issue.
 
And again: this is not to say that the man hasn't done some good 
work in other respects -- he *has* -- but this sort of "knee-jerk 
intellectual orthodoxy", without a *shred* of evidence to stand 
on, and *admitting* that he has not examined the body of evidence 
[and] doesn't intend to do so because it's like arguing with 
religious fanatics: well I think the same argument could well be 
applied to Noam Chomsky.
 
That is very discouraging to see one of America's foremost 
progressive intellectuals talking like this. But again: this is 
the type of intellectual orthodoxy that has long victimized human 
intellectual and political life. I suspect that if Noam Chomsky 
-- particularly with his contempt for physics experiments -- had 
existed in the 15th century, he would have advocated the burning 
of Copernicus and Galileo for heresy. Certainly he is 
functioning, in an intellectual respect, that way now -- to all 
of our detriment, including Noam Chomsky's.
 
I've also been very critical of Chomsky in the past on other 
subjects. I find his criticisms of the reactionary forces in this 
country a little on the hypocritical side in light of the fact 
that all of his work on generative linguistics made his *name* as 
a psycho-linguist (I studied Noam Chomsky in college; I was a 
psychology major); all of his work on generative linguistics was 
financed by the Pentagon. Chomsky does not deny this, he simply 
rationalizes it saying, "It's all alienated labor" -- an 
explanation I find *less* than convincing. This same explanation 
could be given for just about anything. You could talk to the El 
Salvadoran junta and the families they represent about the 
enormous injustices, economic and legal, that are visited upon 
the El Salvadoran population. They could say, "Well. It's all 
alienated labor." You could talk to Neil Bush about his excesses 
in regard to the Silverado Savings and Loan -- "It's all 
alienated labor." You could talk to Oliver North about the 
numerous references to *contra* drug dealing in his diaries -- 
"It's all alienated labor." The same thing would work for 
anything.
 
So I don't find that explanation particularly satisfying under 
the circumstances. And again: this is not to *single* Chomsky 
out, but rather to touch on his intellectual orthodoxy as 
exemplary of the type of *knee-jerk* reaction that takes place. 
*Not* just in this society but in *all* societies, in my 
estimation. I view intellectual culture as *inherently* 
reactionary; once something has come to be accepted as truth, 
evidence that demonstrates that it is *not* true will tend to be 
overlooked by the vast majority of people. And I view that type 
of intellectual orthodoxy, particularly on the part of the 
"progressive" political spectrum, as *extremely* destructive and 
in my estimation that has brought us to, in large measure, to our 
very, very sorry state.
 
And again: the entire "progressive" political community lined up 
*en* *masse* to "dump on" Oliver Stone, to "dump on" Jim 
Garrison. And I think that is an *extremely* regrettable 
situation. Not only does it help to blind us to our own political 
heritage and to the political forces which were ascendant on 
November 22nd, 1963, it has also been an enormous personal 
tragedy. A great many sincere individuals who have attempted to 
pursue the truth about President Kennedy's assassination have 
been marginalized; their lives have been ruined; and many of them 
have been absolutely "written out" of intellectual culture.
 
And *yet*, yet, the investigation *has* gone forward.
 
By way of illustrating one of the things that I find essential 
about investigating Kennedy's assassination, one of the things 
that I find most *distressing* about a stance like Chomsky's is 
that this is *not* an abstract, intellectual exercise. Apart from 
coming to recognize the political forces that destroyed John 
Kennedy, it should be understood that a great deal of harm came 
out of that particular event: the forces that precipitated that 
were at work well before 11/22/63; they have proceeded unimpeded 
since that time, and a *lot* of people have died. Not only the 
scores of thousands of American soldiers who died in Vietnam (not 
to mention the millions of Vietnamese), an awful lot of other 
people inside and outside of this country have died as a result 
of the excesses of the forces that took control on November 22nd, 
1963.
 
In "The Guns of November" [broadcast/tape] that I did in November 
of 1983, on the twentieth anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, 
I looked on, I suggested a metaphor that John Kennedy's 
assassination could be looked upon as the waist of an hourglass. 
The forces that were at work for many, many years before 
Kennedy's assassination came together in the waist of that 
hourglass. And the forces that acted in that way, at that time, 
in that place, have proceeded forward *from* that waist in an 
hourglass, and they are the forces that dominate this world 
today.
 
  [CN -- I forget where I remember reading about some young 
  American activist's meeting in Bolivia, I think it was, with 
  the legendary Che Guevara. This young American began to 
  exclaim about how wonderful it would be to remain with "Che", 
  fighting the forces of oppression. What did "Che" say to 
  this? He counseled that a far more effective fight could be 
  waged by this young American *inside* the beast itself rather 
  than in the Bolivian wilderness.
     I bring this up because I think it still holds true: if 
  you really want to stop future East Timors, your best bet is 
  to clean up the mess here at home. And cleaning up the mess 
  here at home involves getting to the bottom of this country's 
  numerous political assassinations. From that will proceed a 
  more humane foreign policy.]
 
But an awful lot of people, awful lot of very good people (as 
well as a lot of bad people) have "bitten the dust", have 
suffered grievously and mortally as a result of the actions of 
those forces that proceeded unimpeded. And I think it is 
extremely destructive to cling to that type of orthodoxy -- 
although, again: that is a basic principle of intellectual 
culture, in my opinion. It is distressing to find the 
"progressive" political segment of this country subscribing to 
these same, totally untenable theories -- basically the 
geocentric theory of the universe.
 
It should be noted, too, that there is a very strong CIA 
influence in the "progressive" media as there is in the 
mainstream media. The effects of that CIA infiltration should not 
be overlooked in assessing the activities of the "progressive" 
political community. This is not to imply that Noam Chomsky is 
CIA. I don't want to be misunderstood on that particular 
category.
 
                   [...to be continued...]
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

 Brian Francis Redman    bigxc@prairienet.org    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"        
--------------------------------------------------------------

