In Honor of JFK - Conspiracy Theories
My Sunday morning thought today delves into the taboo subject of Conspiracy Theories.
A friend had posted an article about a study which found that conspiracy theorists see patterns in random events. The author ledes with the assertion that
sometimes people sense danger even when there is no pattern to recognize — and so their brains create their own.
Now just hold on a second there, professor. That's quite a leap to go from coin tosses to the presumption of danger.
It seems to me that they are trying to reverse-engineer this thing.
Let's take the most famous Conspiracy Theory of all, the JFK assassination. I suppose that if I believed a multiple shooter, Oswald is a patsy theory, that I would also need to construct an Unknown Subject who represented a Deep State. Does the Deep State pose an immediate direct threat to me? Of course not. So the Conspiracy Theory is dismissed based on the presumption that it stems from an unwarranted fear of an ambiguous enemy. Well, that was convenient.
No official explanation is completely without flaws or suspicion. How many flaws does one accept before an imaginary line in the sand is crossed and a reasonable person ought to suspect an alternate version?
I've come to the conclusion that the key identifying characteristic of a CT is they all deal with situations in which there is an undue deference to authority. Andy Kaufman would have needed some assistance to fake his death, but believing he did isn't a Conspiracy Theory. It's just an odd notion.
If two brothers who had a predilection for art featuring prepubescent girls looked exactly like the composite sketches of subjects in a child abduction case, no one would dare call that a conspiracy theory. But if those guys are famous, then it becomes preposterous to consider their guilt.
This undue deference to authority causes the average person to suspend critical thinking. They don't even explore the flaws in the story because they are predisposed to believing whatever official narrative is being peddled.
I can find more witnesses to the Las Vegas shooting who think there were multiple shooters, than you can find who think there was just one.
Did Mexican drug cartels torch Sonoma county because it's the only place in California doing outdoor grows for the upcoming legalization next year? Can we even explore this possibility without being branded with irrational fears?
Not everything is a cover-up, but that doesn't mean none of it is.
Comments
All I know is that nothing is what I was told it was
starting with Santa Claus and moving on. Freedom, justice, fairness, equal opportunity, and public service died with the neoliberals and neocons.
Putting anything outside the bounds of what is and isn't plausible isn't realistic. At one time, this wasn't real either.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
That reminds me
I meant to include a paragraph about how there was a time when you'd have been branded a conspiracy theorist for suggesting the NSA is spying on all Americans, all the time. Then Snowden happened.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Heck, that was known long before Snowden
As much as I respect Ed for what he's done, he's only the last in a fairly long line of whistle-blowers clearly documenting the the surveillance community does not bother with the US constitution.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
??
Everyone knows Kennedy was killed by the CIA especially the U.S. Government (and the Mainstream Media as well which makes a fool out of itself every year pretending otherwise).
The absurd "lone nut" garbage has been discredited by thousands of independent researchers. Even the U.S. House Committee in the 1970s was forced to admit that the murders of both Kennedy and Dr. King were conspiracies.
I could go on and on. The evidence is overwhelming of an obvious DEEP STATE plot to kill Kennedy.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hes7JD-Bfrw width:480 height:320]
[video:https://youtu.be/Dzc9zG5Rj34 width:480 height:320]
DBAD this isn't dkos & we write essays, not diaries
Didn't even read past your rude ass comment subject line.
Strike one...
@FreeSociety
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/10/national_archives_rel...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Breaking: Trump's JFK Release!
One of the first new revelations from the recent Trump JFK Document Release last week is documentation furnished by the FBI acknowledging that -- according to the Surgeon General's own Autopsy Report -- President Kennedy was indeed shot from the Front (throat), and that multiple shooters were evident, and a bullet hole was also identified in the Front Windshield of the Limousine as well.
Of course, the (corrupt) U.S. Mainstream Media will just ignore this.
But the cat is out of the bag now....no objective, free-thinking person should respect the (CIA-Mockingbird) U.S. News Media anymore ever again. Whether it is about: Kennedy, Sept. 9/11, WMDs, Election Polls, Putin (our new "enemy"), Trump, or (the transparent protection of) Bush-Clinton-Mueller-Comey-DNC-Podesta criminality -- the U.S Media will not ever be telling us the real Truth. It's been that way for decades, but it has clearly become even more plainly obvious now over the past 18-months.
Apart from your title,
which by the grace of JtC we don't do here, I think you missed the point. For me the essay is provoking interesting thoughts about how I dismiss a CT as nonsense (the earth is flat) from those I find worthy of additional consideration (Trump's foreign policy is being taken out of his hands.)
Freaky shit,
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQObjFyJzM]
Artists creating disturbed art from living in a war torn country is one thing but the guys buying it also being involved at the center of political power sends a message... and it isn't a pretty one.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
See, I believe the exact opposite.
IMHO, humans are much smarter than we are consciously aware of.
Society conditions us not to use our full abilities of perception. What some call "Gut Feelings" or "Conspiracy Theories" are our perception of inconsistencies and non-verbal signals. When things don't add up, we don't see a pattern, we just know that the equation is not adding up properly.
The vast patterns and convoluted plots are the results of research. Proof will never be forthcoming, because sometimes the participants in the pattern themselves are not aware of the connections until it is pointed out. Much like anybody who has ever worked in Hollywood is only one or two degrees from Kevin Bacon, (My degree of Kevin Bacon is 2) in Politics, it is even more insular and incestuous.
The fact that nearly every conspiracy theory can easily link major politicians to major heads of industry with not just work but FAMILY ties with only one or two steps is interesting not for the ties themselves, but what that represents. In essence, yes the "Conspiracy Theory" is wrong... in the sense that one particular tree in a forest might not be the exact species referenced. That error does not prove that the forest itself does not exist.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yes, I believe your point,
especially that,
It doesn't mean that all possible research is valid or that it has meaning with respect to the crime you're thinking about, but alternative or additional information exists. And if it makes more sense than the official version of the crime, one can't help but see it as meaningful.
@detroitmechworks Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories should be subjected to the same standards of critical thought as any other hypothesis. We don't need generalizations of any kind to protect us from wrong thinking.
In other words, each conspiracy theory must be judged on its own merits, like any other theory, because there is nothing about conspiracy that is intrinsically improbable. Where conspiracy theories are intrinsically improbable, such as the theory that technologically advanced space aliens met with the U.S. government in New Mexico in the 1950s, they are improbable not because conspiracy in the U.S. is unlikely. In the case of the Roswell theory, the improbability arises because of the vast distances of space and the likelihood that sentient, technologically advanced races that can survive in an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere are likely to be living very far apart from one another-- particularly if one of them is in a galactic backwater, as we are.
Under the classic authoritarian technique of establishing guilt or credibility by association, the fact that the Roswell theory is both improbable and asserts a conspiracy has been used to conclude that therefore, the Roswell theory is improbable because it asserts a conspiracy. Sort of like if I'm tall and blonde, I must be tall because I'm blonde. This associative technique is further extended by linking far-fetched theories like the Roswell theory with all other conspiracy theories. In other words, if I'm tall because I'm blonde, all blondes must be tall. If the Roswell theory is improbable because it asserts a conspiracy, all other theories which assert a conspiracy must be improbable too (unless you're talking about the idea that Russians hijacked the 2016 election, but, as with all authoritarian systems, preferential treatment is extended to ideas and people that serve to buttress authority and advance its aims).
This leads rather quickly into needing to ignore data that doesn't fit one's hypothesis (what happens when you encounter a person who is a tall redhead?) But that can be taken care of by the Lee Atwater method of accusing one's opponent of committing the error one is already committing oneself. In other words, accuse the conspiracy theorist of ignoring data that doesn't fit. Whether the conspiracy theorist's opponent ignores data will cease to be a consideration, as everyone scrambles to determine whether the conspiracy theorist ignores data or not.
You seem to be asserting that there are so many close connections between the elites that one cannot establish an actual, substantive link between any particular elite and a particular set of actions or events. That may be true of some conspiracy theories, but not of all of them, which is why each one must be considered individually.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I perhaps phrased that poorly.
What I mean is that there are so many connections between the elites, that it has effectively created a conspiracy forest, and the debunking of one tree on the outskirts doesn't even come close to all the crap they pull.
Hence why bankers can get away with blatantly criminal behavior and pay politicians to get away with it. There are so MANY of those particular trees that they claim that the trees have always been there and we always walked around them.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks I am totally with you
I am totally with you on that one. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about that phenomenon this afternoon. Might write on it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Oooooo, please!
Oooooo, please!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
"undue"
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
What would be the chances
of the CIA revealing its own role in JFK's murder... assuming it had such a role? Probably not very high. I don't expect much truthful information to result from Trump's recent "expose". The institution's intention has always been to obfuscate, and remain as blameless as possible.
native
@native
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/John-F-Kennedy-Ass...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Hoping HW Bush keels over by then? Maybe? n/t
@Deja Bet you're right...
Bet you're right...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Larry Sabato is a political scientist. n/t
@FuturePassed Thanks.
Thanks.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Only a political scientist or historian would care. n/t
Who gets to decide if something is a random event?
It seems to me that those who get to decide what is random have a lot of access to the airwaves and power over what gets broadcast. In this time and place--and for many decades previous to our time--those people have been wealthy and the establishment does quite well by them. Further, the news media has cultural authority to say what is likely and what is true, even now, though their credibility has crumbled around the edges. So you're talking about people who have authority and who are quite satisfied with the establishment, mainly because it makes them wealthy and gives them that authority.
Given that, it's not surprising that you see a pattern of "undue deference to authority" in those who criticize "conspiracy theorists."
The important characteristic of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is that it is a conversation stopper (h/t Garrett Hardin, with whom I have many disagreements, but who is right about the deleterious effect of conversation stoppers on rational thought). Conversation stoppers, in general, are to be viewed with extreme suspicion by any rational person. Embracing conversation stoppers as a prophylactic against baseless beliefs is like stepping on a landmine to avoid having to take a bath.
As for JFK, those who think that Oswald did not act alone aren't basing that assertion on pattern recognition, but on the physics of the ways a bullet can move. One can argue against their conclusions if one likes, but it has nothing to do with "recognizing a pattern in events," random or otherwise.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, I was wondering the
same thing. Who defines what event is random?
And just because something appears to be random doesn't mean it is, and vice versa.
dfarrah
By the way, there is evidence that the CIA coined the term
"conspiracy theorist" in the late 60's in order to discredit narratives it didn't like.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-cons...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I love the photo
of George 41 in front of the Book Depository doors shortly after the shooting. Granted, 41 was a part-time Texan, and maybe even an elected or appointed official of some sort in '63, but it's just odd that he's there at a Dem campaign event.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
He was elected to Congress in
1966 and became director of CIA under Ford's administration (1976).
dfarrah
I have heard,
but never investigated, assertions that George Bush was associated with the CIA in 1963.
Any evidence for that has undoubtedly been buried real deep
One has to depend on the axiom "Once a spook, always a spook" and assume that Poppy was one long before being officially appointed. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if he was.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@FuturePassed
This is interesting:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/did-george-h-w-bush-witness-jfk-assassination...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
To me the problem of "CT" is obvious
Those who cry CT most readily seem to be avoiding one incontrovertible fact.
Throughout our nation's history our government has lied to us pretty much constantly about very important things. This is a matter of historical fact not speculation.
In any sane world, that would mean that an automatic level of mistrust would apply. But that is not what happens. Rather, the red-tribe/blue-tribe game plays out. When the government (or MSM) says something the listener approves of then the government is a reputable source. When the government (or MSM) says something the listener disapproves of, then it was a corrupt decision/statement. Often times, the exact same speaker is perceived in both ways by the exact same listener over very short spans of time. In a sane world, it would be the conspiracy theorists who were questioning the grip on reality of those who either deny conspiracies utterly or alternate their viewpoint depending on ideology.
Of course that is complicated by the fact that those who choose to explore beyond the government narrative are, by their very natures, free thinkers. Some of them lack the same skepticism as the ideologues it's just applied in a different direction. Others are simply cashing in. Add in the fact that powerful, well-funded, and extremely competent propaganda organizations are doing their absolute best to obscure reality and you have a situation which demands a fair bit of nuttiness mixed in with the real news.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC In a sane world, it
In a sane world, it would be the conspiracy theorists who were questioning the grip on reality of those who either deny conspiracies utterly or alternate their viewpoint depending on ideology.
Exactly!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
TPTB don't want us speculating.
A conspiracy being only a plan made in secret by two or more people, it's irrational for people to buy into the mainstream narrative implying the impossibility of conspiracies and the supposed public disdain for speculation (theories).
TPTB don't want us speculating, because that's the only way to figure out what's going on in secret, hence the mainstream narrative that promotes public disdain for conspiracy theories.
Mike Taylor
Yep, the movement of that bullet is quite
puzzling.
It’s almost as if it was remotely controlled. /s
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
One of the main objections
to "conspiracy theories" is the supposed size of said conspiracy. "Literally everyone would have to be in on it," they say. "Surely someone would spill the beans." Not necessarily. The size of the conspiracy doesn't matter as much as where the members of the conspiracy are placed in the infiltrated organization. Put your guys in various supervisory/managerial positions and unless you do something overly blatant, those under you will carry out your plan without knowing they're doing so outside of the occasional "well, that's weird." Even if someone's bothered enough to complain, they won't get far(especially if the one they have to complain to actually works for you) because Nobody Likes A Rat(tm), as the general reaction to whistleblowers shows us.
Of course the higher up your guys are, the more you can get away with, which is why the conspirators in the theories are always at or near the top. After all it's not subversion if the subversion is company policy.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
Et tu Brutea?
Apologies if I butchered the Latin. Never got to take it because we moved my Junior year in high school.
Brute - vocative case
https://www.thoughtco.com/latin-vocative-endings-et-tu-brute-119427
Blindly believing in what
Blindly believing in what appears to be yet more lies and deceptions from persons, groups or organizations known to be deceptive liars is demonstrably anything from naive to stupid.
People - especially those in authority - trying to stop citizens from speculating about incidents where the official story doesn't hold water and there are indications of benefit accruing to those involved merely trigger suspicion, as far as I'm concerned. Especially where evidence is withheld, buried or otherwise disposed of.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The New York Times has gone to extraordinary lengths to persuade
people that, for example, aspects of the JFK assassination that scream “suspicious anomaly,” such as Umbrella Man, all have perfectly harmless explanations.
Nothing to see here, move along.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2011/12/05/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/
@lotlizard
I wonder if Dark Complected man had his skin darkened as a disguise? If he's supposed to be Black, I don't recall ever having met or seen a Black guy with such a weak-looking face - and that includes guys with much lighter skin. Granted, the pictures aren't clear and it could just be the angles, but his chin seems to me to slope away and I get an impression of the angle and shape of the hose as looking rather odd. Maybe I only remember the cute guys, lol, dunno.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
JFK and the Unspeakable is a "must read"
CTs abound because of one indisputable fact - Oswald was murdered within days. How could this happen to who should have been the world's most heavily protected suspect?
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters is a book by theologian and Catholic Worker James W. Douglass that analyzes the presidency of John F. Kennedy as well as the events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "In JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass has distilled all the best available research into a very well-documented and convincing portrait of President Kennedy's transforming turn to peace, at the cost of his life. Personally, it has made a very big impact on me. After reading it in Dallas, I was moved for the first time to visit Dealey Plaza. I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions about why he died and why -- after fifty years -- it still matters.” -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Douglass spent 14 years researching the subject. His sources and documentations are impeccable. Bottom line. Yes, it was the CIA "Deep state" who made sure Oswald had the weapon and opportunity.
Betty Clermont
The assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin also
always struck me as only possible with help, embedded within the very organs of state charged with protecting him.
And then there’s Lady Di. I never had much confidence in the official account of Diana’s death. In light of the course of world affairs since 1997, could there not have been an overriding interest on the part of Deep State elements in stopping Muslim entrée into the heart of British royalty?
There *have* been successful lone assassins
Charles Guiteau in 1881, and Leon Czolgosz in 1901. But they worked close-range, so were easily apprehended. And even they had "enablers" - people who could have known (or perhaps even did know) what they were thinking and planning, but persuaded themselves "He'll never go through with it".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Another little anomoly
is that Dulles was prominent in the Warren Commission. This was not long after Kennedy personally fired Dulles (Bay of Pigs). He was appointed to the commission by LBJ.
The epistemological difficulty is that, as noted above,
the PTB lie to us, and once we understand that fact, we are susceptible, not to a form of thinking that is skeptical and asks questions, but to a form of thinking that is excitable and makes assertions.
I will differ with DMW: People (and other animals with eyes and brains) absolutely are pattern-recognition machines. This is one of the most fundamental functions of our perceptual systems. People who study and design pattern-recognition machines talk about the tradeoff between Sensitivity and Specificity. 100% sensitivity means the recognizer never fails to detect true instances of the pattern in question. 100% specificity means the recognizer never erroneously flags a non-instance of the pattern as an instance of the pattern.
Different people have different sensitivities and specificities to different kinds of patterns -- including the patterns that correspond to narratives in politics, or in nature, or in personal relationships. I disagree with many -- even most -- of the very-adamantly held beliefs/opinions/whatevers on this site that assert, very strongly, that X or Y or Z is obviously true, as any sane, well-informed individual would admit. Indeed, to the contrary of that last clause, I think many -- even most -- of those b/o/ws reflect classification algorithms that are far too sensitive, and not nearly specific enough.
There is no magic. Yes, per DMW, people are very capable of knowing what they do not know that they know. However, they are equally capable of "knowing" that they "know" what they not only do not know, but what is not in fact true. Being a leftist with good intentions provides no particular immunity from the latter condition.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.