The Left and the Death of Kennedy

[James DiEugenio]

This is a really interesting article by Ray Marcus about efforts to get liberal intellectuals involved in the JFK case. It included people like Izzy Stone, A. L. Wirin, Arthur Schlesinger, and its capped by his talks with five professors, including Zinn, Peretz and Noam Chomsky.

His visit with Chomsky shows what a prevaricator and hypocrite Chomsky has become on the JFK case and is worth reading the article for:

http://www.ctka.net/FromTheArchive.html

Edited July 14, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Josh Cron]

Link doesn't work, Jim.

[James DiEugenio]

Try this Josh:

http://www.ctka.net/2016/marcus-leftandjfk.pdf

[Sandy Larsen]

In the article, author Ray Markus writes the following about meetings with four liberal intellectuals:

"....I had assembled a portfolio of evidence, primarily photographic, that I could present briefly but adequately in 30-60 minutes. I believed this evidence carried sufficient conviction to impress most intelligent and open-minded people..." [emphasis mine]

And earlier in the article he specifically mentioned "Moorman photos," which the editor describes as "photos which reveal a gunman on the grassy knoll."

I'm surprised by this as I can think of no photos that very convincingly refutes WC conclusions. (With the exception of some autopsy photos which contradict themselves as well as eyewitness testimony.) Am I wrong about this?

The nearest thing I can think of is the backyard photo which shows that the rifle in "Oswald's" hand had a bottom sling mount, which doesn't match the official weapon's side sling mount.)

[James DiEugenio]

Ray's work on the Moorman indicated a gunman behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

I have seen this, and it is pretty suggestive.

How it links up with the other evidence about the GK, I do not know. Not my bailiwick.

Edited July 16, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

Have you ever seen this material?

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

Have you ever seen this material?

Jim,

No, I hadn't even heard of Ray Marcus till now. I'd love to see his work with the Moorman (and any other) photographs. Do you know where I can find it?

I *have* seen Jack White's presentation regarding the backyard photos. I think he has something there, but much of it requires careful study and some photographic knowledge to prove to one's self that Jack is right. I mentioned the one photo showing the bottom sling mount because that requires no sophistication nor interpretation to see that it doesn't match the TSBD Carcano.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy, just go ahead and Google, Ray Marcus and the Moorman photograph.

You will get many hits just pick the most objective and complete one.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Link doesn't work, Jim.

Josh:

That problem is very common. Jim pasted some text which was URLed already, and had some extraneous characters at the end. The proper way to do this is as follows:

(1) You begin with this:

http: blah, blah, raw text here

(2) and next, you click on the "chain" icon.

http://www.ctka.net/FromTheArchive.html

The is no standard way to paste formatted stuff (underscore, etc.).

-RFH

Edited July 18, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks to both of you Ramon and Kathy.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

His visit with Chomsky shows what a prevaricator and hypocrite Chomsky has become on the JFK case and is worth reading the article for:

http://www.ctka.net/FromTheArchive.html

To me, the attitude of Chomsky is simply unfathomable. My only explanation is that he has such a large ego, that the ONLY valid conspiracies are those that come from his factory: The Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.

Something else that bothers me about him, is how he claims that his Linguistics ideas (descriptivism vs. prescriptivism) have nothing to do with his politics. That is bovine manure.

-RFH

[Sandy Larsen]

I did google "ray marcus moorman" and got little. Adding the word "photograph" did the trick. So now I know we're talking about Badge Man and the others.

I've always been amazed by stories told of people who see, right away, villains (or people, at least) in the leaves of the trees on the knoll. I've never been able to make any out myself without help. Which makes me wonder why Marcus chose photos like Moorman's to impress the intellectuals he chose to show them to.

BTW, hasn't Badge Man and the others been debunked? And rather easily so?

For example, here.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

I don't think Badge Man is what Ray or John Kelin is talking about.

If you read the exchange carefully, its a different image. For example, Badge Man has the rifle in a ready to fire position.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

In the link provided by Kathy Beckett (BTW, thanks Kathy!) they are talking about the alleged man in the Moorman photo known as Man #5. In the thread, Jack White states that no such man is seen in an earlier copy of Moorman, and Tink Thompson confirms this. So Man #5 is debunked. That is the reason I refer not to Man #5 in my last post, but to Badge Man, who is also in the Moorman photo.

In my post I say that Badge Man and "the others" have been debunked. By "the others" I meant the two other alleged guys located behind the concrete partition with Badge Man.

So if Ray Marcus was showing those figures to his group of intellectuals, then it should surprise nobody if his audience wasn't impressed. (Please note that I'm not saying that they were not impressed by the photos. But if they weren't, it could be because they couldn't see any of these alleged figures, all of whom have been debunked.)

HOWEVER, I just realized that I am missing one alleged figure in Moorman... there are total of five and I've accounted for only four.

The remaining figure is circled and marked "#1" in the following photo collage:

I don't recall ever reading about "Man #1." Does anybody know about this alleged man and where I can read about him?

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

You shifted gears on me pretty fast there.

All I said was that I don't think Ray's image was Badge Man.

You then said that since Jack White did not buy the image, then its no wonder that Ray could not convince anyone.

I don't think you have followed this debate.

Because the reaction is quite the contrary. As can be seem by reading through this:

http://www.ctka.net/2009/pigs.html

And also Ray's article. If you read that carefully, you will see that almost everyone Ray showed his evidence to bought into it. Even Chomsky! Which to me is the key to the article. That is how convincing Ray's package was.

As per the late Jack White's verdict, well not very many people had the original. So who could check the work? But as John Kelin writes, what Ray had was a first generation print. Later on the original may have deteriorated, and there were many reports that this is what happened over time.