The Endlessly Misleading Term, 'Conspiracy Theory'

[W. Niederhut]

      Is there are more misleading, misused term in the modern English language than the CIA's pejorative term, "conspiracy theory?"

      I think it was the Swiss historian, Daniele Ganser, (who has written about the CIA/NATO Operation Gladio during the Cold War) who said a few years ago that, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,'" including the official U.S. government narrative about the 19 alleged Muslim "Al Qaeda"  hijackers whose names were found on a suspiciously convenient list in a rental car at Logan Airport on 9/11.

      Modern journalists (and scientists, like this neuroscientist* from the University of Fribourg) are doing a disservice to the public, IMO, by continually using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe any and all theories about historical events that diverge from mainstream media narratives.

      It's a shame that journalists and commentators don't simply use the term "theory" to describe theories about historical events-- without the pejorative adjective, "conspiracy."

      As an example, Charles Beard's landmark "economic" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was never denigrated as a "conspiracy" theory.

 

*  Scientists Identify a Key Cognitive Error that Could Explain Why People Believe in Creationism and Conspiracy Theories

     https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/scientists-identify-key-cognitive-error-could-explain-why-people-believe

[James DiEugenio]

I agree.  As a recent book by Lance DeHaven Smith pointed out, the term began to proliferate in 1967 when criticism of the Warren Report was approaching fever pitch.

It was clearly a way to denigrate the critics at that time.

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/dehaven-smith-lance-conspiracy-theory-in-america

 

When, in fact, there was nothing more of a theory than the WR.

Edited August 22, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

I don’t really care for it, but I am trying to own it. 

When I first watched a couple of John Newman videos I found at least one where he introduced him self as such, saying “Hi. I’m John Newman; and I’m a Conspiracy Theorist”.

Since then, I have tried to own it.

 

[W. Niederhut]

5 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I don’t really care for it, but I am trying to own it. 

When I first watched a couple of John Newman videos I found at least one where he introduced him self as such, saying “Hi. I’m John Newman; and I’m a Conspiracy Theorist”.

Since then, I have tried to own it.

 

Michael,

       The problem, as I see it, is that the use of the pejorative term, "conspiracy theory," tends to throw all theories that differ from mainstream paradigms into the same waste basket.  

        Yet, in reality, "conspiracy theories" exist on a broad spectrum of accuracy and validity.   For example, Jim Garrison accurately  theorized that Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.   Conversely, Donald Trump "theorized" that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

       So, what are we supposed to make of a neuroscientist claiming in a peer reviewed journal that "Creationists are more likely to believe in 'conspiracy theories?'"

      What "conspiracy theories" is he referring to-- Jim Garrison's Clay Shaw conspiracy theory?  Donald Trump's Chinese hoax conspiracy theory about climate change?

[Paul Brancato]

Conspiracy theory is sometimes conspiracy fact. But using the term enables the idea that all comspiracies are only theories. Thus JFK’s murder and the moon landing hoax are lumped together. 

[Michael Clark]

35 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,

       The problem, as I see it, is that the use of the pejorative term, "conspiracy theory," tends to throw all theories that differ from mainstream paradigms into the same waste basket.  

        Yet, in reality, "conspiracy theories" exist on a broad spectrum of accuracy and validity.   For example, Jim Garrison accurately  theorized that Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.   Conversely, Donald Trump "theorized" that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

       So, what are we supposed to make of a neuroscientist claiming in a peer reviewed journal that "Creationists are more likely to believe in 'conspiracy theories?'"

      What "conspiracy theories" is he referring to-- Jim Garrison's Clay Shaw conspiracy theory?  Donald Trump's Chinese hoax conspiracy theory about climate change?

I don't think Resident Trump believes his own BS. I am not giving him credit for being enlightened in any way and certainly not for. having an understanding of enlightened self-interest. He is simply aware that he can be the benefactor of of certain lines of disinformation, and a he has a gift for creating such garbage on the spot. Calling his Chinese-climat-hoax a "theory" is giving him too much credit. He is simply a calculating advantage seeker who is in tune with the garbage that has been sewn into the Howard Stern youth and the the Rush Limbaugh elderly. Truth matters nothing to him.

Likewise, I am sure that Trump knows full well that the government line on the JFKA is bunk, and he will use that to his advantage one way or another. We can take advantage of that, if we were not so blinded by our contempt for him. His base has no interest in maintaining the myth of the JFKA. Resident Trump would let the cat out of the bag if he perceived a wide ranging receivership. I think that wa all know that most Americans know that we have been lied to. That is a majority of people that would give thanks if he were able to end the lies. Unfortunately, the contempt for him is so great that even if he were to offer exactly what we wanted, we are so blinded by our hate that we would reject it simply because it came from him.

I am fascinated by the power of language. I believe that radical paradigm-shifts can be made if we were open to it. I think that John Newman's owning of the term CT needs more people to join him in accepting, owning and, indeed, loving the term.

Black people have learned to do this with the word "n". It is only a partial transformation, however, because only they can use it. It seems like a hollow victory, to me, but they accept it. I think it can be brought to fulfillment, with great speed, if we willing to do something about it. For example, let's say that we petitioned, successfully, the Department of Agriculture, or whichever department controls the satandards of weights and measures, to change the name of a " gallon" to a "n". How long will it take for the sting and dark magic of that word to just disappear? I think it could happen quite quickly. It would be kind of amusing. It would also be quite enlightening to experience such a radical language transformation.

So, I think, in a similar sense, we can, and perhaps should, like John Newman, take the sting out of that word by owning it and using it.

I don't insist on this. I will follow the flow if the consensus is not to use it; but I think we probably should.

[B. A. Copeland]

Perhaps also...Dr Newman shouldn't have classified himself as such? I mean I've no idea but just a possibility. I am very curious as to what his thoughts would be on such a term, I'd also love to know the same from say, Alan Dale, I believe I know what Simpich would think lol, or Malcolm Blunt. I mean just look at how David Von Pein (as an example) uses it...Personally it seems too simple a term that is never really clarified these days and of course, used pejoratively so much....I think its also too narrow (I could be wrong) but I wouldn't say Dr Newman's a "conspiracy theorist" in the sense that he is more of an investigator, which could indeed involve or include conspiracies of any kind but not necessarily. The mere fact that the CIA hunkered down on the term and used it the way they did is probably worth a case study. The powers that be have essentially taken an otherwise innocent, intelligent term and used it in such a way as to denigrate and attack intelligent discussion, thought and even individuals.

Edited August 24, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[François Carlier]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:57 AM, Paul Brancato said:

 Thus JFK’s murder and the moon landing hoax are lumped together. 

Of course !
It's exactly the same mechanism.
The assassination of JFK by Lee Oswald and the moon landings are historical facts, backed by overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Period.
But there are conspiracy believers who refuse to accept the facts and prefer to deny history.
You are no different from the people who deny that NASA put a man on the moon. You use the very same tactics. You just do that for another event, that's all.
So we can safely say that you fall in the category called "conspiracy theorists".

Edited August 24, 2018 by François Carlier
I answer one sentence

[James DiEugenio]

Francois:

How many times did we go to the moon?  Once, twice, three times?

How many people saw those blast offs into the sky?  

 

Now, how many times has the Single Bullet Fantasy been precisely duplicated with a perfect experiment?  That is the bullet going through JFK, Connally's chest, and then hitting his wrist and going into his leg?

I will wait for your reply to that last question.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Of course !
It's exactly the same mechanism.
The assassination of JFK by Lee Oswald and the moon landings are historical facts, backed by overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Period.
But there are conspiracy believers who refuse to accept the facts and prefer to deny history.
You are no different from the people who deny that NASA put a man on the moon. You use the very same tactics. You just do that for another event, that's all.
So we can safely say that you fall in the category called "conspiracy theorists".

Yeah Frank its sad ain't it.  When what is it still 60-70 % of the American people believe JFK's assassination was a Conspiracy in spite of the Main Stream Media's denial and when that word is thrown in there everybody get's the heebie jeebies.  The CIA did a helluva job of framing in their instructions in 68.  When proven true by science a theory becomes fact.  By Peer review the Magic bullet theory is rejected, among other contentions.  Thus there was a conspiracy.  Fact, not theory.  

[Ray Mitcham]

8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Of course !
It's exactly the same mechanism.
The assassination of JFK by Lee Oswald and the moon landings are historical facts, backed by overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Period.
But there are conspiracy believers who refuse to accept the facts and prefer to deny history.
You are no different from the people who deny that NASA put a man on the moon. You use the very same tactics. You just do that for another event, that's all.
So we can safely say that you fall in the category called "conspiracy theorists".

François, Please supply your "overwhelming undeniable evidence" that Oswald assassinated JFK.

[François Carlier]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Francois:

How many times did we go to the moon?  Once, twice, three times?

How many people saw those blast offs into the sky?  

 

Now, how many times has the Single Bullet Fantasy been precisely duplicated with a perfect experiment?  That is the bullet going through JFK, Connally's chest, and then hitting his wrist and going into his leg?

I will wait for your reply to that last question.

 

 

Now, that is unfair.
You know perfectly well that the single bullet cannot be "duplicated", for the simple reason that one cannot go to such lengths as to kill people just to make an experiment.
In order to "duplicate and definitely prove" the single bullet theory, you would have to have real men, that is actual human beings, seated in the very same car, on Elm Street. Then, you would shoot and kill them. But to be sure, you would have to do the same experiment several times, in order to have statistically significant results. So, you would have to repeat the experiment, say, thirty times, killing (or wounding) sixty people in the process. That's impossible. And you know it.
So we have to resort to measurements, complex calculations, computer reenactments, and all that sort of things.
To name just three of them :
2003 : the computer animation made by Dale Myers ("The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy")
2004 : the reenactment in "JFK. Beyond the magic bullet", Discovery Channel
2013 : "Cold Case JFK". Nova
They used forensic science and their expertise and showed a re-enactment that goes a long way in proving that the single bullet theory is indeed valid.
Indeed, they did the best they could : they duplicated the path of travel of the bullet, without killing a human being.
(I know that you are aware of those documentaries and that you'll tell me that they were all liars and idiots. But you're wrong. They are very capable people and those documentaries are very enlightening to the open-minded, honest people).
What is important to underline here is that those people are not from the CIA, or FBI or some type of "hidden government". They are just honest citizens. And they have brought independent confirmation. That's very important !
The single-bullet theory is not just a theory invented by the Warren commission to fool the American people (if it was, it would be easy to disprove it), but it is the most reasonable explanation of the shooting sequence and it has been repeatedly confirmed over the years, by independent people wo didn't know each other. That's very powerful !

[François Carlier]

See this very interesting video (interview) :

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=documentary+the+single+bullet+theory&view=detail&mid=319DBF144FED8377E724319DBF144FED8377E724&FORM=VIRE

Edited August 25, 2018 by François Carlier

[Joe Bauer]

Referring to the video posted above by Monsieur Carlier;

Aha!

Forensic scientist Luke Haag & son provide us with the physical evidence proving truth answer to the ultimate JFK assassination question.

You know ... "the big enchilada" as Dean Andrews said to Jim Garrison.

Who killed J.F.K.?

According to Luke Haag in this unbiased interview, with disgraced Charlie Rose as one of three interviewers, Lee Oswald did it and all by himself. Adding that the average person who refuses to accept this scientifically proven fact does so because "it is in our nature to want to think there is more to it."
 

Mr. Luke Haag apparently reached this conclusion not just through his highly credentialed forensic education knowledge, background, expertise and related and rigorous scientific tests and studies of the Oswald tied weapon, bullets and target, but also through some unmentioned expertise in anthropological, social science, human psychology knowledge and expertise.

He states that using the scientific method, "physical evidence always supports the truth."

Mr. Haag seems to detest "speculation" by untrained and scientifically uneducated people regards finding such truths.

But then he goes on to speculate "himself" in explaining why he believes Lee Oswald did the shooting including Oswald's personal psychological make up and motivations,even quoting Vincent Bugliosi in so doing.

And when Luke Haag asked why he and his son took on this scientific effort which required much time and expense, to disprove such speculations as shots from the grassy knoll or other shooters besides Oswald...

His first answer? ...Well, it's the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination...

Profound!

Sorry, I see such incongruity in this presentation, I am forced to question it's logic and motivation.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

Joe,

      I'm not a rocket scientist, but I used to tutor undergraduates in physics when I was in college.

     Anyone with a basic grasp of Newtonian physics can easily deduce that JFK was killed by a fatal bullet fired from the front (and right) of the limo.

     The Lone Nut in the TSBD Warren Commission "theory" isn't the least bit "scientific," as you know.

     Among its many fatal flaws, the Warren Commission Lone Nut "theory" violates Newton's Laws of Motion-- which is why CIA asset C.D. Jackson bought the Zapruder film and locked it up for years.