William F. Buckley Jr Dies at 82

[Chuck Nessa]

This reminds me of a radio call-in show on WGN a few years ago. Rosa Parks had just died and the news reported lines of folks waiting to view the body. The radio question posed to listeners was "who would you stand in line to view in a casket?". I called in and said "Henry Kissinger". When asked why I said "Just to make sure".

[Dan Gould]

as for those pics - thanks, Dan, as they show a bullet hitting Kennedy in the side of his head - of course there's a blowout in the back of the head - notice, Dan, that the picture only shows the front, so unless you can see around corners you won't see the back hole - but I suppose the 26 medical people at Parkland Hospital, who reported the hole in the back of the head were all lying (maybe conspiring to lie?) - also nice to see the shot pushing his head backwards - in spite of pseudo scientific testimony about a "jet effect" all tests of an object being shot push it in the OPPOSITE direction - and I suppose you missed this in the actual Zapruder film -

You simply cannot possibly serious. Only the front? what the hell are you looking at? The first frame after his head explodes shows the entire defect to the right (FRONT) of his ear, and a completely normal head shape to the left (REAR). The second frame after, his head has turned to the left, showing even more of the back of his COMPLETELY INTACT head. The final two frames show even more of his INTACT REAR SCALP. Again, what the hell are you talking about?

And if you've read through the man's site, you know that there is no question whatsoever among experts that the behavior of the President's head and torso was completely in keeping with shots fired from the rear.

And don't get me started on the magic bullet. You are aware that the shot that hit Connoly could behave the way it did only if it went through the President's throat, right? Otherwise it won't be tumbling, it will be spinning like a normal unimpeded bullet and wouldn't create a wound the length of the bullet. And are you aware that one study duplicated every non-fatal injury with a single shot, and nearly the same exact condition of the bullet at the end?

As to your challenge, Allen - I've read Best Evidence as well as Case Open, some moron's reply to Posner's book, and I am slowly slogging through Bugliosi's tome (for once that's a book that deserves the sobriquet "tome"). Going deep into every nut job conspiracy theory is hardly necessary when every significant question has been answered to your satisfaction.

[Larry Kart]

This reminds me of a radio call-in show on WGN a few years ago. Rosa Parks had just died and the news reported lines of folks waiting to view the body. The radio question posed to listeners was "who would you stand in line to view in a casket?". I called in and said "Henry Kissinger". When asked why I said "Just to make sure".

And they didn't see that coming? Well-played.

[Chuck Nessa]

This reminds me of a radio call-in show on WGN a few years ago. Rosa Parks had just died and the news reported lines of folks waiting to view the body. The radio question posed to listeners was "who would you stand in line to view in a casket?". I called in and said "Henry Kissinger". When asked why I said "Just to make sure".

And they didn't see that coming? Well-played.

Kathy and Judy.

[Christiern]

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx line. When Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohen (think I have the name right)died, the studio held a memorial on one of its large sound stages and told everybody to be there. The place was packed and Groucho allegedly remarked, "Give 'em what they want and people will show up."

[Randy Twizzle]

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx line. When Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohen (think I have the name right)died, the studio held a memorial on one of its large sound stages and told everybody to be there. The place was packed and Groucho allegedly remarked, "Give 'em what they want and people will show up."

It was Red Skelton talking about Harry Cohn.

[Larry Kart]

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx line. When Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohen (think I have the name right)died, the studio held a memorial on one of its large sound stages and told everybody to be there. The place was packed and Groucho allegedly remarked, "Give 'em what they want and people will show up."

Sounds like it should have been Groucho, but it's commonly attributed to Red Skelton.

It's Harry Cohn BTW, subject of a famous line from Herman Mankiewicz (screenwriter of "Citizen Kane"):

What Columbia Pictures released depended on Harry Cohn's determination of what Columbia Pictures should release. "When I'm alone in a projection room," said Cohn, "I have a foolproof device for judging whether a picture is good or bad. If my fanny squirms, it's bad. If my fanny doesn't squirm, it's good. It's as simple as that." To which Herman Mankiewicz retorted, "Imagine, the whole world wired to Harry Cohn's ass!"

[AllenLowe]

actually I've heard it attrributed to George Jessell -

[AllenLowe]

and Dan - that's good - read two of the worst books on the assassination - kind of like reading The Protocols of Zion and than talking about the Jews -

that thing about the bullet having to behave in that way to pass through Connally- is this your analysis? or more CIA textbook stuff? because any forensics specialist will say bullets are unpredictable and there is no way that it "has" to behave." And besides, as I pointed out, we don't have the original bullet - as the cops who found it at the hospital have BOTH testified - the chain of evidence is hopelessly corrupted, so, as the lawyers like to say, the bullet used in evidence has no probative value.

And are you aware that Connally himself testified, repeatedly, that he and JFK were hit by separate bullets?

and did you see the Discovery Channell experiment, in which they attempted to duplicate the actions of the magic bullet? They took sharpshooters, used a STATIONERY target, re-did it multiple times - and came close but still could not duplicate the bullet's alleged path -

and are you aware that, to this date, no sharpshooter has been able to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat - they have managed to squeeze off enough rounds at stationery targets, WITHOUT AIMING - but these were staionary targets, and they did not duplicate the wounds. I repeat, no sharpshooter, shooting at non-moving targets, has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting "accomplishment." And the rifle he was using had a scope that was misaligned - high and to the right. Did you happen to know this?

And as for Kennedy's head movements - if you have actually watched the Zapruder fulm, it moves backwards - and cite me ONE example of a head moving toward the direction in which it is shot - don't give me theories, give me examples, of which there are hundreds of the example of opposite movement, as in Newton's law of action and reaction. There are pictures of actual shootings and of test shootings - in EVERY one the body or object moves AWAY from the source of the shot - the so-called neuro-muscular theory is not applicable here, anyway, as it implies a complete splaying of limbs and muscles, none of which is occurring.

As for the back of the head - have you seen the ENHANCED Zapruder fiim? You are working from multi-generational copies - the enhanced film is much clearer as to the deficit in the back of the head - and answer me again, are 26 witness in PArkland hospital, where JFK was taken, and who saw the hole at the back of the head, wrong? You seem to be avoiding this -

Edited February 29, 2008 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

hey boys, take it outside -

[Christiern]

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx line. When Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohen (think I have the name right)died, the studio held a memorial on one of its large sound stages and told everybody to be there. The place was packed and Groucho allegedly remarked, "Give 'em what they want and people will show up."

It was Red Skelton talking about Harry Cohn.

Correct, Randy and Larry, it was Skelton. It also was Cohn's funeral, not a memorial service. Guess I need to replace some memory chips.

[Dan Gould]

Allen, no bullet tumbles through space without having hit something in between the muzzle and what it hits.

If you think that those pictures are too fuzzy to be probative, than you are simply blind to the truth. You don't need any enhancement to make out the rest of the President's head, or to see where the defect is, or anything else. Its all right there. I suspect that everyone who has read this thread agrees. Except you, and others who are lucky enough to know the truth.

The proof of when Connolley was hit is in the video. Watch it. His movements, everything coincides with when Kennedy was hit in the throat. The jacket billows out. There is no question whatsoever.

Your claim about the ability to make these shots is ludicrous as well. It is analagous to the video that is on that site in which a lame-brained conspiracy nut demonstrates what it takes to take a shot with Oswald's weapon then take another, declares that the minimum time is 2.5 seconds, yet in his demonstration he did it in like 1.8. Its laughable.

Don't bother responding, I'm through Allen.

Believe what you believe, and rest comfortably in the knowledge that the rest of the country and world are stupid enough to agree.

But before I leave, I really would like you to explain the hidden motives of the History professor who debunks all of the Liberal Myths about Kennedy that you claimed. Is he a dupe? Probably a conservative, and you know how stupid they are. Or maybe he's a co-conspirator, 40 years after the fact?

[AllenLowe]

well, I would assume that McAdams is sincere - unlike the way you've labeled me and many others here, I don't call him stupid for disagreeing with me - I only discuss my points of disagreement and I actually spend time with opposing arguments -

McAdams has also, by the way, spent some time trying to prove that the Gulf of Tonkin was an actual attack by the North Vietnames - I guess that's another conspiracy debunked, huh? for all these years I thought it was a hyped event used by LBJ to justify the Vietnam war - but than I suppose you can tell us where the WMDs are in Iraq -

once again, I point out that we are not just discussing the amount of time it took Oswald to fire the shots - but the necessity of hitting a moving target - with a rifle that had a scope that was MISALIGNED high and to the right - sorta like berigan )

for 40 years, trained sharpshooters have failed at this - with non-moving targets -

weird - I guess Oswald just had a lucky day -

[Chalupa]

HARTMAN: Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was? None of you dumbasses knows? Private Cowboy?

COWBOY: Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir!

HARTMAN: That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed twelve people from a twenty-eight-storey observation tower at the University of Texas from distances up to four hundred yards. Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball?

SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!

HARTMAN: That's right, and do you know how far away he was?

SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir!

HARTMAN: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker?

JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir!

HARTMAN: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing!

[AllenLowe]

actually, Whitman shot repeatedly - way more than the three times, as Oswald was supposed to have done - and it took place not over 6 seconds, as the assassination did, but over a much longer period of time -

Henry Hurt interviewed Marines who had servied with Oswald - and who thought it was hilarious that he was alleged to have accomplished such a feat of marksmanship - as what they witnessed in the service indicated that he was a terrible and incompetent shooter -

Edited February 29, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Dan Gould]

For the life of me I can't understand the hatred of someone who would say this:

And there was the time that Allen Ginsberg asked Mr. Buckley’s permission, in the middle of an episode, to sing a song in praise of Lord Krishna.

“That was a howl — sorry, sorry about the word choice,” Mr. Brookhiser said. “Bill was very gentle with him. He said of course.”

Mr. Ginsberg proceeded to play a long and doleful number on a harmonium, chanting along slowly and passionately, Mr. Brookhiser said. “And when he was finished, Bill said, ‘Well, that’s the most unharried Krishna I’ve ever heard.’ ”

[AllenLowe]

the weird thing was, for years I thought Pinochet worked for the phone company -

Edited February 29, 2008 by AllenLowe

[danasgoodstuff]

never thought Buckley was all that bright, or Mailer or Vidal. And they were all insufferably full of them selves, if those are/were our 'public intellectuals' then no thanks... Buckley was so far right he once said he would've opposed the American Revolution, which makes him more selfaware and honest than some, but still... Oh, and perfect for the diefenbaker cabinet in 1958.

Edited March 1, 2008 by danasgoodstuff

[Quincy]

actually, Whitman shot repeatedly - way more than the three times, as Oswald was supposed to have done - and it took place not over 6 seconds, as the assassination did, but over a much longer period of time -

You misread the quote about Oswald for Whitman there. Kubrik's marine sgt. wouldn't lie.

[Ted O'Reilly]

Wm. F. Buckley?

Oh, yeah -- the guy who wrote the liner notes for "Dick Wellstood and his All Star Orchestra Featuring Kenny Davern" (Chiaroscuro CR 129).

Danasgoodstuff: do you think many folks on organissimo know who Dief the Chief is?

[Teasing the Korean]

starsailor.

[Guy Berger]

I understand that he moderated some of his earlier, more odious views as he "got out in the world", so to speak. Nevertheless, he was still/frequently all kinds of wrong, but he made you think (often hard and well) before coming to that conclusion.

That, I respect, and given that there will always be fundamental differences of opinion as to the role and nature of the different modes of societal organization, kinda dig.

I'm with Jim here. I'm not a huge fan (probably a generational thing) but he always struck me as a guy who was capable of self-criticism.

As far as the Vidal-Buckley debates -- I've seen the famous incident. But I think Buckley was probably right that Vidal was the wrong guy to represent "the other side".

Guy

[Guy Berger]

He found much disagreement with the neocons who have hijacked the Republican Party, I believe. I recall reading somewhere that he was shunned during a conservative cruise a year or two ago for expressing views that weren't sufficiently bloodthirsty.

This was an article in (I believe) The New Republic by British journalist Johann Hari. Worth reading, a real eye-opener, and itself a nod to a classic Harper's article written by PJ O'Rourke in the 80s. O'Rourke went on a "peace cruise" up the Volga with a bunch of leftists, with hilarious results.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved to the politics forum yet.

Guy

[AllenLowe]

just saw a clip of Buckley on tv, from 2004 -

"Cheney is a first class public servant."

guess some things never change - so much for his differences with the new Republicans -

Edited March 1, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Guy Berger]

and he also said in early editions of the National Review that blacks shouldn't be given the right to vote.

Which is heinous enough if you're from Mississippi. But at least there, it was part of the culture. If you're a segregationist from Connecticut, you're just an asshole.

And now he's a dead asshole.

You know... Buckley's views were flat out wrong. But he was also a man of his time and place, and over time he publicly disowned those views. Not something worthy of any special commendation, but nevertheless to be acknowledged in any discussion of politics.

Personally I am a lot more weirded out by the fact that his magazine likes to celebrate its heritage but pretends that those editorials never existed.

Guy