I thought parenti gave a good, brief definition, and he was trashed here, with his words selectivley quoted to sound like they were taking the position they were actually criticizing...
this area seems to be one of almost religious belief for many, pro or con...believers often go over the edge, making it easy for non-believers to paint the whole idea with the broad brush of idiocy, which is there in some cases...
the nons are often over the edge with intolerance for anything that might make things seem a little different than their " schooled" analysis would accept...today being jfk assassination day, that case offers an example of how logic, critical thinking and zany nonsense can all wind up in the same place: acceptance, or tolerance of bullshit as reality, period...
despite any number of nut cases making up the wildest stories of conspiracy, i think the acceptance by many of the ridiculous notion that oswald did it all by himself is even dumber than the nut cases...
there is an actual film record of the event showing clearly that jfk's head was blown open by a shot coming from in front, not behind..duh? "expert analysis" proves that what our eyes can see is a trick, and that he really was hit from behind and all laws of motion, impact etc are out the window...yeah, right...
lefties who trash conspiracy but accept the lone assassin story are as misguided as the unfortunate types looking for x-files or matrix answers to serious questions...but even without the filmed record, there is solid evidence to indicate that oswald could not shoot well enough to hit a sitting, stationary target - some right wing general whose name escapes me at the moment - and in fact missed the guy, badly...how the hell could he then proceed to shoot three times, in eight seconds, with a crappy rifle that had a faulty sight, to boot, and hit a moving target with two of those shots?
no marksman was ever able to duplicate that feat, and there was even evidence that oswald was a very poor shot when in the service....so, leaving out who did it, and avioiding the false identities of alleged conspirators, oswald didn't do it alone...
but accepting that seems to make some people uncomfortable, because america only tolerates lone nut assassins, and others uncomfortable because..??? what the hell is so difficult to accept? that capitalist nations fight wars? that ruling class circles might have serious differences? that big money doesn;t all go to one ruling sector alone? that there are divisions among the most powerful forces?
apparently, that makes the plot too thick, or not thick enough...of course we will not bring on the revolution by jumping up and down screaming that jfk wasn't killed by oswald alone, but we'll never have a revolution by accepting the established bullshit story simply because it has the veneer of an official, academic and scientific picture , and doesn;t sound as kooky as some critics...
fs
--
--