|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2007 : 15:36:11
|
For your delectation:
link
edited to fix link --Cune
|
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/09/2007 16:09:31
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:02:43 [Permalink]
|
I remember Kent State well. At the time I was wondering if all was not as it seemed.
Nixon was almost as big a scumbag as Bush, and like Bush, his supporters were either war profiteers, lunatics or brain-dead. So this comes as small suprise to me.
Also coming as no suprise is the corporate media's ignoring anything that might show Republicans in a bad light.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:14:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I remember Kent State well. At the time I was wondering if all was not as it seemed.
Nixon was almost as big a scumbag as Bush, and like Bush, his supporters were either war profiteers, lunatics or brain-dead. So this comes as small suprise to me.
Also coming as no suprise is the corporate media's ignoring anything that might show Republicans in a bad light.
This should be all over the news. History books need to be revised too.
It isnt the ionly story they are ignoring. They are totally ignoring the E Howard Hunt tapes on JFK. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:26:56 [Permalink]
|
Interesting stuff, j911ob, though the article you linked seems to over-emphasize the cover-up aspect to make the "conspiracy theorists" look better. That is, in the article is says "for 37 years the official cover story has been that a mysterious shot rang out and the young Guardsmen panicked, firing directly into the 'mob' of students." Yet, in this New York Times piece ($) that came out on May 2nd, it says, "The President's Commission on Campus Unrest, which published its final report on the shootings in September 1970, never addressed whether commanders ordered troops to fire, saying only that the events immediately before the shooting 'are in bitter dispute.'" So it doesn't seem like the "official cover story" was widely accepted. It might also be noted that, again, according to the Times, "Through grainy static and the high-pitched calls of protesters, it was possible to faintly hear someone shout 'Point!' Mr. Canfora said the full command is recorded on the tape, with multiple voices shouting 'Right here!' 'Get Set!' Point!' and 'Fire!' Those words, however, were difficult to discern when he played the recording." So it's not all clear.
That said, I have no reason to doubt the claims this guy makes and the notion that some people would try and cover up an illegal shooting makes perfect sense. We'll see what happens, I guess.
ETA: CNN also covered the story |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/09/2007 16:29:53 |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:32:51 [Permalink]
|
| We had a similar case in Northern Ireland called the bloody sunday massacre. 13 people in a peaceful protest were shot dead. No one was armed. The soldiers involved have never been indicted to this day. It seems there is always a cover up in such cases. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:55:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
We had a similar case in Northern Ireland called the bloody sunday massacre. 13 people in a peaceful protest were shot dead. No one was armed. The soldiers involved have never been indicted to this day. It seems there is always a cover up in such cases.
Not to sound stupid, but is this what that U2 song is about? I've never bothered to look that up. I guess I could check Wikipedia, but I thought I'd ask, since you brought it up...
(ETA: I did check, and it seems that the answer is yes only indirectly...) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/09/2007 16:59:47 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:30:32 [Permalink]
|
OK, first, hold the phone. I see Bobby Fitrakis is at it again (I used to live in Columbus, Ohio, and know the man's journalism and activism well), putting sensationalism and and self-righteousness above truth. But despite what Bobby and Harvey Wasserman would like to believe, the Kent State Shootings have not “now been shown to be cold-blooded, premeditated official murder... the definitive proof of this monumental historic reality” (my emphasis in bold.)
First, let's try reading some of the much less biased news articles about this new evidence, rather than Fitrakis and Wasserman's opinion column on the matter. Here's a couple:
“New Evidence Surfaces in Kent State Shooting” published in the St. Petersburg Times 7 days ago:
“Tape resurrects questions in 1970 Kent State shootings” published in the Akron Beacon Journal 8 days ago.
Clearly the evidence is not conclusive. For one thing, it has never been seriously claimed to my knowledge, and I can find no evidence, that the investigation done over 30 years ago was done improperly. For another thing, what is actually being said on the tape is disputed, save for the single word “Point”, and at least one witness and guardsmen is saying that wouldn't even be a properly-worded order for gunfire. And for crap's sake, this tape only surfaced 8 days ago! In order for this to be conclusive proof, the case would have to be opened again and re-investigated, and that has not happened yet. Perhaps this new evidence will re-shape how history explains this event, and perhaps it will merely add more to what is unknown and inconclusive. Only time will tell.
I would also take issue with how Fitrakis and Wasserman portray the protest and atmosphere before the shootings. They write: quote:
On May 4, in the presence of a peaceful, unthreatening rally, the Guard was strung along a ridge 100 yards from the bulk of the protestors. Earlier, rocks and insults had been hurled at the Guard. But not one of the numerous investigations and court proceedings involving what happened next has ever contended any of the students were armed, or that the Guard was under threat of physical harm at the time of the shooting.
This description is incredibly misleading to people who were not alive or old enough to know what happened at the time. Fortunately in these days of the Internet, one needs only to go to the Wikipedia entry on the shootings and read the day by day descriptions of what we know happened in the days preceding and the day of the event. Here's some highlights:
May 1, vandalism and looting in the midst of the anti-war protests
May 2, The ROTC building is set on fire and over 1,000 protesters gather and cheer as it burns
May 3, 10 National Guardsmen are injured by violent protesters throwing rocks and bottles of teargas. One student is stabbed by a Guardsman's bayonet.
May 4 (day of the shooting), University officials cancelled the protest due to fears of more violence, and widely publicized the cancellation. Guardsmen are called in to disperse the crowd. Tear gas is ineffective due to the wind. Protesters were throwing rocks and cans of tear gas again, and injured one guardsmen.
To say that the guardsmen were under no threat of harm is ridiculous. This does not justify the use of firearms in my opinion, and it was an incredibly poor move on the part of authorities to put these young and armed guardsmen - who were not properly trained for riot control – in charge of dispersing the protesters. But incompetence is not malice, and tragedy is n |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/09/2007 17:39:10 |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 18:16:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
OK, first, hold the phone. I see Bobby Fitrakis is at it again (I used to live in Columbus, Ohio, and know the man's journalism and activism well), putting sensationalism and and self-righteousness above truth. But despite what Bobby and Harvey Wasserman would like to believe, the Kent State Shootings have not “now been shown to be cold-blooded, premeditated official murder... the definitive proof of this monumental historic reality” (my emphasis in bold.)
First, let's try reading some of the much less biased news articles about this new evidence, rather than Fitrakis and Wasserman's opinion column on the matter. Here's a couple:
“New Evidence Surfaces in Kent State Shooting” published in the St. Petersburg Times 7 days ago:
“Tape resurrects questions in 1970 Kent State shootings” published in the Akron Beacon Journal 8 days ago.
Clearly the evidence is not conclusive. For one thing, it has never been seriously claimed to my knowledge, and I can find no evidence, that the investigation done over 30 years ago was done improperly. For another thing, what is actually being said on the tape is disputed, save for the single word “Point”, and at least one witness and guardsmen is saying that wouldn't even be a properly-worded order for gunfire. And for crap's sake, this tape only surfaced 8 days ago! In order for this to be conclusive proof, the case would have to be opened again and re-investigated, and that has not happened yet. Perhaps this new evidence will re-shape how history explains this event, and perhaps it will merely add more to what is unknown and inconclusive. Only time will tell.
I would also take issue with how Fitrakis and Wasserman portray the protest and atmosphere before the shootings. They write: quote:
On May 4, in the presence of a peaceful, unthreatening rally, the Guard was strung along a ridge 100 yards from the bulk of the protestors. Earlier, rocks and insults had been hurled at the Guard. But not one of the numerous investigations and court proceedings involving what happened next has ever contended any of the students were armed, or that the Guard was under threat of physical harm at the time of the shooting.
This description is incredibly misleading to people who were not alive or old enough to know what happened at the time. Fortunately in these days of the Internet, one needs only to go to the Wikipedia entry on the shootings and read the day by day descriptions of what we know happened in the days preceding and the day of the event. Here's some highlights:
May 1, vandalism and looting in the midst of the anti-war protests
May 2, The ROTC building is set on fire and over 1,000 protesters gather and cheer as it burns
May 3, 10 National Guardsmen are injured by violent protesters throwing rocks and bottles of teargas. One student is stabbed by a Guardsman's bayonet.
May 4 (day of the shooting), University officials cancelled the protest due to fears of more violence, and widely publicized the cancellation. Guardsmen are called in to disperse the crowd. Tear gas is ineffective due to the wind. Protesters were throwing rocks and cans of tear gas again, and injured one guardsmen.
To say that the guardsmen were under no threat of harm is ridiculous. This does not justify the use of firearms in my opinion, and it was an incredibly poor move on the part of authorities to put |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 18:22:32 [Permalink]
|
Marf's is, of course, the correct take on it. Not enough info and too soon to tell.
Brings up an interesting question, though: if the shooting was in any way premeditated, who is to be prosecuted?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 18:41:17 [Permalink]
|
j911ob raved:
Oh my. It must be nice to live in your world.
I suppose Rodney King was brutally hitting his head against the feet or the poor defenceless members of the LAPD. |
Oh, fercryingoutloud. Marf makes a reasoned statement that this new evidence is anything but conclusive, and you bring in Rodney King?
Question: Whey do paranoids always make these irrelevant connections?
Answer: Because it's in their job description.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/09/2007 20:02:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 03:43:06 [Permalink]
|
j911ob wrote: Oh my. It must be nice to live in your world.
I suppose Rodney King was brutally hitting his head against the feet or the poor defenceless members of the LAPD. |
It must be nice to live in your world, where one sentence of empty sarcasm and a second sentence making a totally false comparison are an appropriate response to a long and well-reasoned argument. Maybe if I lay out the basic points more simply for you, you'll actually understand what I'm saying.
1.) It is too soon and the new evidence is not definitive enough to declare that the Kent State shootings were ordered by some high-up government official. Do you deny this? If so, why?
2.) Do you deny that it is false for Fitrakis and Wasserman to say in their column that the protests at Kent State that weekend were "peaceful" when the day before a building was set on fire (and cheered for by protesters) and 10 guardsmen had already been injured by rocks, and the day of the protest already one guardsmen had been injured? If you deny this, please explain why.
3.) Do you deny that the aftermath of the shootings benefited the anti-war cause more than it intimidated protesters into ceasing their protests? If so, why?
These were the major points I made. I also made it clear that this event was a great tragedy where the side with guns is more to blame simply because of their greater power and thus, greater responsibility. But to call murder and claim this was an order from on high in the chain of command is a whole other ball of wax. Provide more evidence than a tape full of background noise and unclear dialogue that only just surfaced 9 days ago, and then I'll change my mind.
This is how critical thinking works. You don't go with your gut because your gut will too often make you believe what you want to believe, or be more persuaded by strong emotions, and can't be checked. Critical thinking, reason, skepticism, on the other hand, incorporates logic science, and other superior methods for discovering objective truth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 03:45:10 [Permalink]
|
| Oh my. It must be nice to live in your world. |
I would also like to add that I fail to see how it is "nice" to embrace uncertainty. Actually it's a real bitch. Being very anti-war and peace-loving, and having been from Ohio and attended Kent State U backin 1996, I'd love to know all the details of what really went down that tragic day. But making shit up or just guessing based on limited evidence is not the way to find truth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 06:31:36 [Permalink]
|
marfknox, that was a well written and I think a very even handed analysis.
j911ob, your response was adolescent and frankly, embarrassing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 07:31:59 [Permalink]
|
We know our leaders do and have done nasty things. But the thing about the premeditation of violence against the students at Kent State is at least in the realm of the plausible. Nixon and his elk were at war with the students. That is how they saw it. As a war.
Using live ammunition at Kent State and alleging a cover up over that incident is a far cry from setting up a controlled demolition and all that would be involved in pulling off a conspiracy of the magnitude of 9/11. They are not comparable. Shooting at people the government believed that they were at war with and killing 3000 innocent people, whom they knew they are not at war with is comparing apples to oranges.
One hypothesis is plausible, the other isn't.
The fact that our leaders are capable of doing really awful things is not evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy. What there is evidence for consists of a bumbling disregard for the intelligence that led up to 9/11 by a bunch of incompetents who are too inept to ever successfully pull of anything on the scale of a 9/11. And they have been called to task for that…
You might wonder why they are allowing themselves to look like a bunch of incompetents if they really do have the power to control anything as massive as what you suggest. Once again, everything this administration has touched has turned to shit. How on earth could that bunch of idiots have pulled off a 9/11?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:04:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
We know our leaders do and have done nasty things. But the thing about the premeditation of violence against the students at Kent State is at least in the realm of the plausible. Nixon and his elk were at war with the students. That is how they saw it. As a war.
Using live ammunition at Kent State and alleging a cover up over that incident is a far cry from setting up a controlled demolition and all that would be involved in pulling off a conspiracy of the magnitude of 9/11. They are not comparable. Shooting at people the government believed that they were at war with and killing 3000 innocent people, whom they knew they are not at war with is comparing apples to oranges.
One hypothesis is plausible, the other isn't.
The fact that our leaders are capable of doing really awful things is not evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy. What there is evidence for consists of a bumbling disregard for the intelligence that led up to 9/11 by a bunch of incompetents who are too inept to ever successfully pull of anything on the scale of a 9/11. And they have been called to task for that…
You might wonder why they are allowing themselves to look like a bunch of incompetents if they really do have the power to control anything as massive as what you suggest. Once again, everything this administration has touched has turned to shit. How on earth could that bunch of idiots have pulled off a 9/11?
|
Who made a comparison to 911? You did. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:27:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Who made a comparison to 911? You did. |
Who made an idiotic comparison to Rodney King? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Kent State Shooting Conspiracy
