Christopher Hitchens vs JFK (the movie) and others...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2017
- From the BBC2 series The Late Show - a round-table discussion on the then just released Oliver Stone movie JFK. Sparks fly as per usual but the most interesting facts come from fellow guest Anthony Summers. For a more sober outline of the available evidence on President Kennedy's assassination (rather than the flawed movie) go to this site:
22november1963.org.uk/
NB: to avoid copyright notices I have removed as far as possible any clips of the film itself that were shown in the programme.
This is one of the most solid debate talks I've ever seen. No annoying audience, everyone treats each other well, everyone getting a chance to speak out.
Most important question for todays' audience: who "destroyed" whom?
😂
Here in the UK we used to have many programmes like this. They have in most cases, gone. Strangely there are elements in podcasts that make me hope that wide ranging programming-with diverse guests- may fully return.
Recommend any good podcasts?
@@jimmy2k4o did you find any?
we are in the beginnings of the Second Golden Age Of Radio
Smoking in the studio, pulling no punches, politically incorrect statements, mildly sexist remarks which even the only lady in the room seemed to have no problems with.
Does anyone else miss the good old days?
Well said Ovie, aah the good all days indeed.
Ovie Imoni go watch the comedy show called the green room and you'll get all that
Oh yes, and I really miss Hitch. His voice, intellect and wit is badly needed right now.
You my friend, are in need of some member berries.
Nope. Also, none of this is politically incorrect. It's dickish at best.
Smart, experienced, educated, articulate people having an interesting conversation. More, please. On the Internet and in real life. More, please.
She's an excellent moderator, truly skilled!
I am amazed by how even-handed and balanced that host is. She managed this with style.
Thanks for the video. This is a bit of a touchstone.
I thought she interrupted loudly, frequently, and annoyingly, was more concerned about her own thoughts than about teasing out her panel's thoughts about the assassination, and was more worried about what the public should be told than about what actually happened. But I am an American, not a Brit. Perhaps this is the way British television is, or the way Brits are. I always want the facts.
I agree with you. I thought she did a superb job of handling a potentially very heated discussion and even managed to keep Hitchens' bloated ego sufficiently under control so that the other panelists could have their fair say. And Susie, the program offered a lot of facts and if you want to look more deeply into them you can always follow it up by watching the film and reading the material mentioned. You might find the conflicting opinions confusing though, as I think the conclusion of the discussion is that there is still much to be learned about the JFK assassination. That it was part of a pattern that involved the Warren commission, Vietnam, Cuba and his brother's murder (as well as keeping Teddy away from the presidency) is, however, perfectly clear.
Yes,this woman was amazing,she was in control the whole time,and knew all the "tricks" if you will of journalist persuasive rhetoric.
At this time i used to love watching Sarah Dunant host the Late Show. Didn't realise i was watching the swansong of serious discussion on TV.
SixSixSix Jenine rom Ghostbusters...
I never thought the day would come when I would disagree with the hitch and I don't make this statement with any regrets, however, it simply shows that even great men of conscience and conviction can be absoultly errant without question..
Although I admire Hitchens, he's very self righteous!
Fun Fact:
Garrison played Judge Warren in Stone's JFK.
And Pierre Salinger as Pinocchio.
Scott Spencer Judge Earl Warren.
This is a fantastic discussion. Thank you for sharing this.
Really enjoyed this discussion. Thank you for posting.
Hitch's breathless, panting fans notwithstanding, the most well-spoken, thoughtful participants in this discussion were Anthony Summers and DM Thomas.
putting the conspiracy theorys aside, the fact that jack ruby shot oswald makes no sense whatsoever within the official version. why would he do that?
This woman is surprisingly good at mediating a discussion in an impartial and intelligent way. What a shame her kind are so lacking today. Most arguments on TV today are weighted behind such obvious political bias from vacuous air heads who lack the ability to ask the important questions.
Or answer those questions.
It is said below, excellent host. Very balanced and manage to get much out of so many guests in the time given.
Thank you so much for these uploads man
never thought I'd see Anthony Summers debate Christopher Hitchens. Thanks for uploading
22:45 Hitch: "I don't think there's a dissociation between Eros and Thanatos..." How to make an educated woman laugh.
KidMillions could someone please explain this to me?
Josh Cohen Eros=sexual instincts. Thanatos=death instincts. That they are related. That JFK had strong instincts in both areas and that they were related.
Loonie Toonie thank you!
Could someone explain to me how this is funny? Or clever? Or true?
It's neither funny, clever nor true, it's a technique pseudo intellectuals use (referring to literature and memorized info) to seems like they are able to think.
truly fascinating hope you keep posting
I love the way these guys are all taking turns combatting and refereeing each other. It shows that they all share a spirit of fair minded dialogue, and they just manage to cover for each other's reactionary blindspots with a good comradery.
This is what political shows used to look like before cable news came along and ruined everything. Now political shows are just a bunch of paid campaign spokesmen shouting over each other.
Reactionary? Oh, that's your way of saying grown-up...
Get Jim Garrison's book and you won't have any doubt it was a massive conspiracy
Why don't they have shows like these anymore? Just serious conversations
Because 7 people would watch.
It doesn't sell.
Zfan. No One wants to know anything of importance anymore. Just binge on Netflix.
The UK still has a few shows like this. Although they are mostly midday and midweek for retired people only.
The Internet Killed Music Programme. We are not yanks. Programme.
Thank you for the upload! You're the man!
Hitchens "That's very typical of Kennedy cognitive dissonance. You can't talk to Kennedy people" Wow, what a line.
And yet there he is, talking to Kennedy people. Speaking of cognitive dissonance ...
Lol
Did you really not understand what he meant by that, or is your comment a joke?
Thats often what he does .(did)
He addresses crowds of Catholics telling them theyre indoctrinated .
It's funny that he then goes on to decry the plight of people whose arguments are shot down simply because they are conspiracy theorists.
Great discussion, the moderator is very good and competent and she also looks like she would be a Saturday Night Live character
If this man talks about "when [he] cried..." one more time, I might puke. Histrionics, emoting and the romanticization of Kennedy seen here bespeaks of the reason we are still far from the truth. People were too emotionally involved to be objectively rational.
Thanks for archiving and uploading this. It reminded me that we (the UK) used to get a lot of programmes like this - just interesting discussions between interesting people on interesting subjects - and that it's a format we don't see much anymore. Which is odd, because you'd think it was a very cost-effective and intellectually worthwhile way of filling the TV schedule!
As for the debate, I don't think it mattered whether you agreed with Oliver Stone's version. It's just one man's theory, and the film even ends with an on-screen message saying that the official papers were yet to be declassified; which is basically an admission that the film is just a theory based on incomplete evidence, with hope that we'll know more in the future.
I never really bought Stone's theory per se, but what the film did very effectively (IMHO) was to demonstrate the implausibility of the official explanation and, having shown that we don't really know what happened, rekindle the debate.
per se? "literally per se" or after-school Latin, without the use of any other Latin in your speech? Per se...
@@BlueBeeMCMLXI "per se" meaning "in itself" - because that's what "per se" means. Sorry for pitching the comment above your reading grade...
Great show - great moderator. Makes current talk shows look infantile and laughable. How far we have fallen.
Declassified documents released in 2003 (12 years after this telecast) including a White House tape of President Kennedy and his advisers, confirm that top U.S. officials sought the November 1, 1963 coup against then-South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem without apparently considering the physical consequences for Diem personally (he was murdered the following day). So Kennedy definitely was involved personally with the Diem coup d'etat but underestimated that the coup would result in the murder of Diem and his brother. In a criminal court of law, Kennedy would be prosecuted as an *accessory* to the crime.
Coups typically end with the deposed leader being executed, unless he manages to evade capture and flee the country. Kennedy and his advisors weren't fools - they knew what Diem's fate would be when they green-lighted the coup against him. It was absurd for anyone in that administration to feign shock over his death.
No, he would not. He would not be before that court, as there was no court at that time to hear such a matter.
Jim Marrs should have been invited, it would have been a different conversation.
Yeah, and I'd have much been interested to know what/how John Stockwell might have contributed.
Then it would have just been a bully versus the truth.
Mars was a great guy, I dont perhaps agree with all he was calming, but he did very good research and I sensed good vibes from him.
Marrs was a conspiracy crackpot that would later move into subjects like UFOs and remote viewing and misled Oliver Stone into wholesale hyperbole and nutcase conspiracy about the Kennedy Assasination. Spoken by someone that grew up with him as he transformed into a raving lunatic.
Thanks Opal. I always suspected as much.
22:22 is perhaps the best Hitch comment in this debate. The twist is hilarious, I won't spoil it for those who read this.
I love how you put (the movie) there, to make sure nobody thinks that Hitchens actually debated JFK
Regarding the character of Kennedy, Hitchens, on one of these rare occasions, is dead wrong. The Kennedy administration was involved in the Diem coup but, as mentioned in this video, is in no way linked to the assassinations. Indeed, evidence from contemporaries suggests he was shocked and perhaps even upset by the murders (General Taylor and Schlesinger).
Hitchens seems keen to present him as a hawkish president but what evidence does he present? Kennedy's hawkishness as a senator. The truth of the matter is that the President Kennedy was actually desperate to AVOID conflict (this Thompson fella in the video is right). Withdrawing from Vietnam was a constant goal of his. He was a pragmatist; his massive increase of US army advisers in South Vietnam should not be taken as a signal that he had plans for a full blown war, indeed he had plans for the opposite! And did Hitchens also really try and implicitly place the blame on Kennedy for the Cuban Missiles Crisis? I believe Kennedy's policy (perhaps even obsession, at least pre-63) towards Cuba was too aggressive, but Hitchens is fooling himself if he's placing the blame for that event on anybody but Krushchev. If Kennedy was as needlessly aggressive as Hitchens is claiming he was a quarantine combined with desperate peace negotiations would not have been the President's approach during the CMC, he would have just listened to his generals and some of his advisers and followed through with the plan to bomb the Soviet-Cuban missile base followed by an invasion.
I just... There's so much evidence showing Kennedy to be a President pained by the threat of war and nuclear destruction. Hitchens' portrayal of him is simply incorrect. It occurs to me that he has likely simply read the revisionist history of Kennedy, the history of the 70's and 80's challenging the heroic Camelot portrayal, and has swallowed it without much thought to critical thinking. Further unverifiable conjecture: I think Hitchens has simply taken this wholly anti-Kennedy stance in opposition to the fact that Kennedy is far too overrated and idealised. In rallying against the incorrect pro-Kennedy consensus Hitchens has gone too far the other way. He always was a contrarian I suppose, but its frustrating to see him, in his bid to be the contrarian, get it so hopelessly wrong.
Edit - Just to add credence to the case: President Nixon, assuming that Kennedy had something to do with the murders, ordered an investigation into it. The investigation, of course, came to the conclusion that the facts lead you to. Kennedy had nothing to do with the murders.
DasKatze500 did he have anything to do with Marilyn Monroes death?
Excellent comment
Funny how Hitchens dismissed any Kennedy theories out of hand, but swallowed the BS about WMDs in Iraq hook, line and sinker.
"The bomb in my garden"- Mehdi Obeidi. The chief nuclear physicist of saddam hussein. They didn't get bomb, but they bloody well tried really hard. Heard of the AQ Khan network? That's how the pakistanis got their nukes. The iraqis were tapping into it. Well just read the book if you're interested and are not afraid of the truth. If you like living in your bubble, sure thing. I don't expect much from americans anyway.
Thanks for the uploading! Nice to see mr Hitchens again)
Amazing find thanks so much!
Amazing how this has only just been uploaded. Makes me wonder how much Hitchens there is out there still to be discovered
I feel it's necessary to repost this response I made to another comment, so the multiple shooter myth can be put to rest:
The fact of the one bullet has been recently proven by reconstruction of the whole scene with 3D modeling and by modern forensics.
Here's a little fact about bullets: Their trajectories are often changed by bone. The inside of a man's skull can curve a bullet's path and when the bullet struck governor Connelly's arm, it traveled down along the bone and exited through his wrist. Bullets hitting a hard wall at a shallow angle will skid along the wall rather than go in or bounce off. Same can happen with bone.
Plus, the front seats of that Lincoln are positioned lower and inboard of the back seat, which also explains how the one bullet also hit governor Connelly.
demoskunk; Wow! Really! I love how the bullet emerges in perfect condition afterwards. Use your brains people. Do you really believe Oswald misses a shot by several hundred feet but then puts two shots on a bullseye into the president, a football field distance away, six stories up, on a moving target, with obstructions, using a bolt action ww2 leftover with misaligned scope, Really?! Really? Can anyone possibly be so gullible as to believe that? Then one is told, "don't believe" or trust what you just witnessed (on video) with your own eyes. Take the time to learn. Regurgitation happens education takes effort. How anyone can't be furious about their government spoon feeding them such a load of nonsense is a mystery to me. Here is part of the Warren report th-cam.com/video/7yfB9QnwtZk/w-d-xo.html Weather they were involved is not at all relevant to the behavior after the fact. To me the crimes to maintain the lie, the families destroyed, the individuals killed, the public resources used and abused, our elected officials knowingly protecting the lie and those involved are more egregious then the cu itself. In my estimation this is where, when and why there appears to be an acceptance of lawyers corrupting justice, religious leaders leading others to sin, our politicians promoting war.... The fracture we sustained as a nation can be traced back to that single fork in the road event. Unless and until the US government has the courage to tell its people the truth about 11 22 63 it will forever remain fractured and broken. My opinion; I love my country; for all its faults it's still the greatest in the world. Where it faults is with individuals. Where evil wins is with those who do nothing.
Great upload....thanks
"a theorist of conspiracies" love it
Daniel Guthrie and stupid people believes everything government tells you
@@nd8954 agreed. Do stupid people also believe nothing the government tells them?
Slept in the car again Hitch?
TrainInVain he's dead and would not respond to such a juvenile comment.
You would though
He'd probably laugh, or at least crack a little wry smile
+comanchio1976 i know i cracked a wry smile
If I learned anything from Columbo, it's that if your brilliance can shine, then you yourself can look a bit disheveled.
Hey you can light up cig,in the studio.When was this aired please.
Salinger referenced “28 years after the fact” so I’m guessing this was taped in 1991.
Lovely introduction, I appreciate the objective history on the debate topic.
Hitch has a knack of always sneaking in a great last word. In this case regarding freedom of ALL information...'and the Kennedy files too'.
The one's that floor me to this day is Oswalds defection to Russia, and return with wife and NO questioning, observations, or reservations about him after. Then the fact of all the government offices around Guy Bannisters office, and the radical things going on there. Was there any concern at the time by those agencies? And if not, why? After McCarthy, and Castro on the rise, wouldn't or shouldn't pro-Castro promotions be severely monitored and/or deterred in the downtown area? Those are the two biggest things that just don't make sense to me to this day. There should be more documentation on that, and if not - why?
Try some of the links in this post:
www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/11/22/19823/013
to get some answers to those questions
Thanks. Interesting things there. Makes me think of the movie The Parallax View - which to me should be more popular and available than it is. And Bob Fosse's 'Lenny' FTM. Funny how America can encourage free thought and speech - as long as it doesn't question 'the system' of standards and security. Then it quickly becomes 'closed minds and lies' to counteract and deflect.
Thank you for posting this. I miss upper-middlebrow TV!
Does anyone know what year this interview recorded in?
Thanks so much for this. How'd you get it?
You're welcome. I recorded it at the time of transmission on BBC2 in the UK and kept the tape - along with many others - until technology gave me the means to convert it and share. Patience is a virtue!
Bibiana Rodrigues Ethan Gilbert Stop spamming.
The Christopher hitches vs tony Blair debate on religion is a great watch, as I think hitchens wipes the floor with the elites evil lapdog Blair.
Hitchen's gave Blair a free ride in my opinion, largely because Hitchen's agreed with Blair's foreign policy i.e. participation in the destruction of Iraq and the killing of perhaps a million or more Iraqis directly and indirectly.
***** I thought the same as you. Gave Blair an easy time of it, all considered.
I lived in Ft.Worth, Tx on Nov.22, 1963 and I firmly believe we have been duped on the details of the assassination. I no longer fight arguing my case with believers in the Government version of events involving ballistics and timing. I simply make one point and one point only. Anyone who believes that Jack (Ruby) Rubinstein, the owner and proprietor of a sleazy strip joint in Dallas called The Carousel was so upset about Jackie Kennedy having to testify at a long protracted trial, that he took it upon himself to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald solely to protect her. If you believe that then I can't help you! Once you understand that Ruby was mobbed up then the rest is obviously a plot of which we will never the true story.
I agree that Ruby likely killed Oswald on behalf of the mob families that supported Kennedy, but that doesn't mean that the Kennedy assassination itself was a conspiracy. It's clear that Oswald was a pro-Cuba communist who harbored a personal grudge against JFK for his administration's plots to depose/kill Fidel Castro. That would have been sufficient motive for him to act alone. The reason the mob wanted Oswald dead was likely either 1) revenge for the murder of a President they had ties with, or 2) the fear that Oswald and his attorneys would bring up the Kennedy's mob ties during his trial. Even if the mob wasn't involved in the Kennedy assassination itself, they still had good reasons for wanting Oswald dead.
anybody know the name of that tune in the end, with the girl singing
One argument I have relied on for moving a debate forward is that for those who reject the idea of conspiracy's either not existing or rare and mostly untrue should stop for a moment and consider the amount of drugs that are moved through the country all as a result of conspiracy's needed to enable such.
"I am a theorist of conspiracy", "Remember where I was on that fateful day when Kennedy almost killed me." Love him or hate him, is there a professional irritant in the public sphere today who can turn a phrase to contrarian purpose like Hitchens?
Kerry Maize One I like to use is 'hopefull romantic".
Stone himself said the movie was a mix of fact and fiction. Which doesn't make it a bad movie, but does suggest that one shouldn't be leaning on it as a reliable document.
Oh, agreed - there are definitely inaccuracies. I'd imagine they were concessions to narrative storytelling more than anything else. Stone was always pretty upfront about it in interviews around the time.
Sadly, Hollywood doesn't seem to be capable of telling a factually accurate account, because the 'story' is always considered the most important factor influencing the bottom line and will be twisted according to narrative convenience. I was recently inspired by "Hidden Figures" and was very disappointed to discover certain key 'facts' had been changed for the film (still a great film though that knocks the spots off "Moonlight" and "La La Land"), as does "Hacksaw Ridge", which manages to stay more faithful to the facts (unlike Gibson's "Patriot" and "Braveheart" travesties).
My own pet theory is this: real life doesn't always fit neatly into a three-act structure. Therefore, Hollywood filmmakers make compromises in order to more efficiently grab our attention and instruct us with a message of some sort. I feel this is what most stories are trying to do, be they fictional or otherwise. Independent movies based on real-life events tend to make the same compromises, albeit in much more subtle and elegant ways. Most films will try to spotlight themes both larger and far beyond the plot points occuring within the narrative. A great movie will see narrative, story and theme coming together, often within the space of a single scene. For me, that's the magic of cinema.
Obsessive fealty to the facts can actually result in a movie failing to deliver on its story and themes. For example, Unbroken is a true-life story about the indomitability of the human spirit. Yet the way it is constructed makes for a dull, flat, leaden and paint-by-numbers retelling of what should have been an incredible story. I would argue that part of its problem is to be found in the restraint and reverence shown to the source material. Even if someone hands you a fascinating sequence of events you still have to decide how you present them, in what order and you also get to pick what aspects to emphasize and what to diminish. In effect, unless life is kind enough to provide you with a tailor made narrative that perfectly fits a commerical runtume *and* conveys a coherent message, *you will have to take some liberties with the source material*.
Braveheart is a film I loved as a kid, but as an adult I can see all the needless historical innacuracies and weird messages woven into the film. Watching Stewart Lee breakdown the film in his stand-up act is always a good laugh.
I haven't seen Hidden Figures yet but I'm told it's pretty great. I'd be happy with it not being 100% accurate, so long as it uses a vital story to successfully convey important themes (without tarnishing any real life reputations). But I do bear in mind that it's not always possible to acheive all these things at once.
pepelapiu2004 He was quoted as saying that there was nothing definite about David Ferrie so "we literally had to put words in his mouth". If that's true.. that would make the "MYSTERY WRAPPED IN A RIDDLE INSIDE AND ENIGMA!!!" Scene fiction.
Fact and fiction like the Warren Commission Report.
The "back and to the left, back and to the left," was something that Jim Garrison actually said...and would say during lectures he made in the '70's. I saw him lecture at Norther Illinois University and he showed the Zapruder film...which was a shock then.
How well I remember what happened in the green room before the live broadcast, though what happened on the set was something of a blur, even though D. M. Thomas & I were only ones not partaking of wine beforehand.
What happened!?
Hitch was even better after a few glasses
How I envy you meeting him
Brilliant comments by Hitch, especially about where he was when Kennedy tried to kill him.
Ha ha ha.
I’m a big admirer and follower of Christopher Hitchens but he’s got his facts twisted on that one!
Hitchens lost a few points with me in this video. He always has a tendency to walk all over other speakers, but he was pretty obnoxious on this occasion.
17:52 "Long sequence with the deepthroat character"
...Oh, maybe I HAVE seen this movie.
18:15 "Virtually no sex in the movie."
...Oh, wait... No I haven't.
THANK YOU AS WELL!
great vid - smoking in the studio! Classic! What was the year?
The movie came out December 20th, '91 -so it must be around or just after then.
It was a movie by Stone, who shifted gears of truth and illusion with great skill. No one should've expected the great revelation from it.
A fucking awesome movie at that.
Nice moderator ,kept hitchens from hogging the show.... LOL Joe Pine reference .classic
rcknhrse Programme. It's a British programme not a yankee.
Hitch not really debating here but rather arrogantly arguing his own case. Usually I do agree with his case, but here he could actually listen more.
I love it when Hitch lights up a cigarette about 24 minutes in. It's the drop the mic. moment!
This kind of show just doesn't exist today. That's sad. Also, this may be the first Hitchens appearance where I find him annoying and 100% factually wrong about one of his main points.
I've always been a huge fan of his but one of his flaws was that he only changed his mind/admitted being wrong on his terms. He had always been a bit too debating in his style - he'd stick to his comment/point even in the face of error. Small things or being corrected on something he misspoke about wasn't a problem but if he raised a point that was outright wrong he'd defend it to the end.
He'd defend it with a smile on his face. It's a reason why I love listening to and reading his words but also a major flaw of his. His ego was massive (ha).
Hitchens smokes:-) Lovely studio habits in the old days; light'em up!
I was born too late :/
What year is this from?
Interesting - I love Hitchins and it's always a pleasure to hear him insult someone or other (it's usually the person I hate most!). What really struck me was at 30:13 where the interviewer (who valiantly struggles to regain control!) talks about the ability of the people to become actively involved in international politics....
I look at the world today and think that this idea is more true than they could possibly have imagined back then. Err ... so I guess I'm saying we should all get involved :p
Who put Ralph Fiennes in a grey wig?
This comment is AWESOME !!
haha, that made me laugh out loud. thanks
OMG yes!!
I wish that Christopher Hitchens had been the only panellist.
I second Luke O'Brein, thanks for posting this, this is great.
I'll give Stone points for even attempting to figure out what happened in Dallas and who was responsible.
Hitch, we miss ye...
Woah smoking in the studio, now that's ard.
Very good program
I meant have not read either the Warren Report or the Bugliosi (Reclaiming History) book, which is over 1500 pages long. I have read it, itx on my shelf in the office.
Watching this guy convincingly rip into JFK of all people - I love him. We need more people like him
Current knowledge shows Hitchens establishment bias
Wow an interview where there are no interruptions, we clearly get all the views across to the viewer
23:46 Hitch finishes antagonizing the panel and then lights a ciggy - stylish!
We're going to speak about the movie JFK in a totally objective way: loaded question
1) Why do people NEED to believe in a conspiracy?
Implied assumpions
1. There was no conspiracy
2. People are naïve
3. People need to hold onto erroneous beliefs about Kennedy
Thats how to have an objective discussion.
It has more to do with the contradictions and errors in the Warren Report.
i am here only for Christopher Hitchens.
thank you, keep it up!
I go with Pierre Salinger on this roundtable as the man who was with JFK and knew JFK.
I thus have respect for his views.
Stone hit the nail on the head.....100%
The greatest tragedy about the assassination was the succession by LBJ.
Cool, thanks for this!
The answer at 22:23 is absolutely awesome.
This just goes to show even the most learned amongst us can be wrong. RIP Mr Hitchins.
Hitchens never was the most learned among anyone, not even at home.
Yes, but for lack of evidence and admissible evidence, anyone can be wrong... man with ridiculous screen name.
Hitchens: Well like everyone else of my generation I can remember exactly where I was standing on the fateful day when John Fitzgerald Kennedy nearly killed me
HAhaha superb. It's like "wait, what?!" then history dawns on you. you think, "ooooh yeaaah" scratching chin...
Lou Reed and Ian Hislop on Desert Island Politics... Hitchens on Beeb 2 and C4. Damn I was born to late!
Just a tip for DM Thomas, brilliant novels including the mentioned one, an alternative JFK history.
Christopher Hitchens: great at arguing, not so great at thinking or listening. By that I mean, a polemicist highly skilled at seeing the errors in everybody else's thought processes, but rarely his own.
An utterly laughable statement. You're a lowly hack.
Rex Mundi are you slow guy Hitchens mind is so far ahead of my own and especially yours just because he's incorrect about this small thing you don't just disregard all of his beautifully written books or the way he presents ferociously smart very well thought out opinions and his fierce debate skills
Rex Mundi
I love Hitch, but this is rather essential to being 'good' at argument.
It's intellectually honest to listening and considering what your opponent has to say. But if you come to conquer, then you have to show up convinced that your opponent is wrong. Only then will you have the economy of brain power to out-fence the other side's points.
Rex Mundi do u want hitch to say that he's wrong. never happened
Let me guess, you only say that when you don't agree with him.
Oliver Stone and Garrison are true heroes.
I didn't know, that Hitchens was this ridiculous.
I could never see why people went crazy for Hitchins. I always found him so self absorbed. He leaves me cold and irritated.
I'm with Luke. Great upload
Would've loved to see John Judge on this panel.
I've rarely heard any assassination "experts" discuss Oswald's inability to make the shots that killed JFK. Plus, could those extremely difficult shots have been successfully made with a $20 catalog rifle using a scope that wasn't sighted in? Oswald was a no-better-than-average marksman as a Marine ("sharpshooter" ranking) and has never been proven to have practiced at any time in the three months prior to the assassination.
The Warren Commission never interviewed a top ballistics expert about the bullets or the damage they did to Kennedy's body as it related to the angle from the Texas Schoolbook Book Depository window. Top military snipers attempted to duplicate the shots and admitted they were hard-pressed to successfully make them, especially with a duplicate gun and scope. Oswald was not accepted into sniper school, nor did he qualify.
Certainly **someone** made the shots, but it wasn't Oswald.
First off, it doesn't matter if the rifle was $20 (in reality it was $12.95 plus the scope). If it is a rifle it can kill like a rifle. It's not like price affects the effect a bullet would have on you if you were hit by one fired from a $12 rifle or a $1000 one.
Also there is no evidence that the scope was defective (at the time of the assassination). The scope could very well have been knocked out of alignment if Oswald shoved the rifle into its hiding place.
And it wouldn't have mattered if he practiced or not prior to the assassination. If you rank as a sharpshooter, you're a darn good shooter.
@@franclin0 Rather than waste your trolling time I'll recommend the book “Kill Zone” by Craig Roberts, former US Marine sniper and police sharpshooter. He analyzed the assassination from a shooter's perspective and has some interesting things to say about it.
I'd also recommend showing what you wrote about “sharpshooters” and a $12 rifle shooting just like a $1,000 version to a long-gun competition shooter. Remind him or her that you are new at this and ask him to be kind.
@@krisaaron5771 Hahahahahaha!!! That's so ridiculous. I love how you ignore all the investigations' ballistics and medical evidence and rely on one person who was not part of any of it and base your opinion on what he has to say. Trust me, bud, Oswald's 12 dollar rifle was MORE than capable of killing someone. If you can't believe it, why don't YOU look up what can happen if someone is hit by a bullet traveling 2100 feet per second as was the case when the bullets left Oswald's rifle.
@@franclin0 Every factor you bring in is nonsense. The gun, type, condition, ammunition, competence, weather, wind .. ALL of that most certainly affect a hit against a moving target.
@@BlueBeeMCMLXI i have no idea what you're saying. One thing you mention, the weather affects a moving target? It was a beautiful sunny day. What are you talking about??
The song at the end was great.
I totally lost all respect for pierre salinger in this round table and i found chris hitch much more tolerant of the others than i thought he was capable of. The moderator is to be credited for keeping the show flowing in her desired direction