I understand why people hate conspiracies

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

helped Tracy expose the "missing LHO birth certificate" silliness …

For those who are unaware of what Lance is referring to:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

Edited October 11, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[James DiEugenio]

Oh Arizona, maybe that explains it, its the heat.

 

And BTW, Payette keeps on talking about a "conspiracy mindset".  What does this mean?

If the facts simply do not add up to a case--and the MSM covers up all those facts all the time--last example being Tracking Oswald, yet in 2013 a very distinguished public opinion company did in depth and careful interviews and 75 per cent of the public said they do not buy the LHO did it meme, then what on earth is he spouting?

And before Running Suit says, well hey same in UFOs, no its not.  There has never been anything like what happened at the fiftieth in the history of UFOlogy.  That is when the entire might of the MSM and the local Dallas authorities put a clamp on almost all info to the contrary. Plus there has never been anything like the constant flow of cable company specials doing the same.

Finally the former is a criminal case, which should have been tried in court but both men involved died before they got their day.  So its not  even close Payette. (Few people in the public know that the Ruby verdict was reversed and he was going to get a new trial.)

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh Arizona, maybe that explains it, its the heat.

 

And BTW, Payette keeps on talking about a "conspiracy mindset".  What does this mean?

If the facts simply do not add up to a case--and the MSM covers up all those facts all the time--last example being Tracking Oswald, yet in 2013 a very distinguished public opinion company did in depth and careful interviews and 75 per cent of the public said they do not buy the LHO did it meme, then what on earth is he spouting?

And before Running Suit says, well hey same in UFOs, no its not.  There has never been anything like what happened at the fiftieth in the history of UFOlogy.  That is when the entire might of the MSM and the local Dallas authorities put a clamp on almost all info to the contrary. Plus there has never been anything like the constant flow of cable company specials doing the same.

Finally the former is a criminal case, which should have been tried in court but both men involved died before they got their day.  So its not  even close Payette. (Few people in the public know that the Ruby verdict was reversed and he was going to get a new trial.)

 

That isn't a running suit, Mr. Scowly Face.  Serious runners, which I have been, do not "jog" or wear "running suits."  That is simply Your Hero and Mine wearing a yellow top while hiking in southern Arizona.

I know you won't read it, but my first post in this thread outlines the documented conspiracy mindset.  No one is suggesting it's pathological or that only those with the conspiracy mindset see conspiracies.  Those with the conspiracy mindset are simply more prone to attribute a given event to a conspiracy and to tumble down the rabbit hole of conspiracy logic and conspiracy thinking.

Remember, this thread began with Cory's post to the effect that there is a "conspiracy hating" mindset.  I have simply been making the point that no, there really isn't - but there IS a well-researched and well-documented conspiracy mindset.

Mathias made the legitimate point, which I agreed with, that "conspiracy theorist" is a loaded term that carries a negative connotation - the lunatic fringe of the conspiracy mindset, if you will.  My posts are simply distinguishing between "those who have the conspiracy mindset" and "those who don't."  In all subject matter areas that are rife with conspiracy theories, including the JFK assassination and CERTAINLY this forum, there are those who both (1) have the conspiracy mindset and (2) are "conspiracy theorists" in the sense that Mathias is talking about.

Surely this discussion has gone way beyond what it's worth.

[Cliff Varnell]

But is it legitimate for a fundamentalist Christian to use the term "religious fundamentalist" as a pejorative?

No, I'd call that the height of hypocrisy.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But is it legitimate for a fundamentalist Christian to use the term "religious fundamentalist" as a pejorative?

No, I'd call that the height of hypocrisy.

You are welcome to call me a "fundamentalist Christian" but I am in fact about as far from a fundamentalist as it is possible to be.  Fundamentalism in Christianity is a well-defined term.  Those who genuinely are fundamentalists are typically proud of it.  It is often used by the ignorant - would that be you? - to refer to any mainstream Christian.  It certainly can have a negative connotation, just as Mathias pointed out with "conspiracy theorist."  To dismiss someone who isn't a fundamentalist as a "fundamentalist" will typically provoke an irritated response.  Christian fundamentalists, and all varieties of fundamentalists (including fundamentalist atheists, of which there are many), do fit a pattern.  It is essentially impossible to have a rational discussion with them because they have staked out an intractable position.  Since you are a one-trick pony who maintains that he has established a conspiracy with one piece of evidence and refuses to debate with anyone who dares to disagree - well, voila, you are a fundamentalist with a quasi-religious zeal for your pet theory.  You can take this characterization as pejorative if you wish, but I simply mean it as an accurate characterization and believe it is.  On the other hand, you have seen absolutely nothing in my posts to suggest that I am a "Christian fundamentalist."  If I were, I'd be happy to claim the label - but I would still characterize you as a fundamentalist who defends his pet theory with quasi-religious zeal.

[Mathias Baumann]

22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Mathias, your post message above is so coherently logical and true to me.

"Today, the term "conspiracy theorist" is often used to discredit critical minds. That's why I think it should be used with caution."

More than caution - active vigilance.

Yes, I am stimulated by engaging others on this forum ( many highly regarded and published book writers and researchers ) in the study, debate and even speculations regarding the assassination of not just JFK but RFK and MLK as well. Like many are stimulated by the same type of engagement regarding the Civil War, WWII and other major historical events that hugely changed the world we live in.

This is definitely part of my participation motivation here for sure.

However, I don't like wasting my time on just any possible conspiracy stories.

The JFK assassination event is separated from 95% of all the other possible conspiracy stories in our nation's history by it's impact.

The impact from JFK's brutal slaying was almost as important if not as important as the allies defeating the Axis powers in WWII.

What responsible citizens of the United States on 11,22,1963 wouldn't want to know as much as they could regards the who, what and why's of their president's slaughter?

95% of Americans since 1963 would not keep focused on this story question study as long as we here on the forum have been, but I think most would understand the long term interest as a rational thing more than an irrational thing for those that still consider the truth about the JFK event important enough to keep searching for it.

I don't care if the moon landing was faked. I am not interested enough in the 911 event to give it more of my time, study and engagement than I do. The subject of UFOs and ET presence does interest me...but I don't have the ability, connections and energy to study it more thoroughly than a passing interest.

I don't "search" for more conspiracies to delve into.  The JFK one is all I can handle.

I do think that if we ever find out the full truth regards who killed JFK and why, that this knowledge will explain almost all of the most secret doings our country has been involved in since JFK and even before.  We will finally know more about who we really are as a society and who has been controlling it than we could imagine.

President Eisenhower "asked us" ( all Americans ) to be more interested in and concerned about a reality he called the Military Industrial ( and Congressional? ) Complex. This new configuration of accumulated vast power was a "conspiracy."

Read or listen to his farewell address again. What a stark warning! He was asking us to acknowledge, accept and confront the reality of a power shift in this country so threatening to our democracy that he felt compelled to make it an important part of his final speech as President.

He was asking us to accept and face this new and powerful and usually secret...conspiracy.

 

 

 

Joe,

in my personal opinion the military-industrial complex certainly created the

fertile environment in which the killers of JKF thrived. We may never know who

exactly killed Kennedy, but I think we already know WHAT killed him. And that

was the "Bay of Pigs" invasion. If you look at the prime suspects, most of them

were connected to Cuba in one way or another. Oswald, Ruby, Ferry, Morales etc.

That's not a coincidence, I'm sure.

A big conspiracy however would certainly have been exposed long ago. So I believe the

actual conspiracy was rather confined, probably only a handful of people. And

mostly people who really hated Kennedy and were absolutely determined to see him

dead. People who'd been involved in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion and who'd seen

friends killed or tortured. Probably CIA agents and exile Cubans.

And that would explain why it is so hard to untangle this complex knot.

Because so many different groups supported the anti-Castro struggle.

Wealthy industrialists, the Mafia, the CIA, right-wing fanatics etc. And of

course each of them had their own personal reasons to hate Kennedy and dirty secrets

that needed to be covered up when he was killed.

This has given rise to all those competing theories and that's why people like Lance

have given up hope.

But in the end I don't think it's  NOT all that important who the puppet masters were.

in my opinion It is much more important to study the political environment that made the assassination possible

and draw the right lessons for the future, to avoid another tragedy of this kind.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

You are welcome to call me a "fundamentalist Christian" but I am in fact about as far from a fundamentalist as it is possible to be.  Fundamentalism in Christianity is a well-defined term.  Those who genuinely are fundamentalists are typically proud of it.  It is often used by the ignorant - would that be you? - to refer to any mainstream Christian.  It certainly can have a negative connotation, just as Mathias pointed out with "conspiracy theorist."  To dismiss someone who isn't a fundamentalist as a "fundamentalist" will typically provoke an irritated response. 

That got under your skin, eh?

You're a forced-birth guy, as I recall, which to me spells "fundamentalist."

A "mainstream" Christian may personally oppose abortion without wanting to impose their belief on others.

You want to impose your belief -- that a woman's uterus is property of the State -- on all women.

Christian zealotry at its worst.

Quote

 

Christian fundamentalists, and all varieties of fundamentalists (including fundamentalist atheists, of which there are many), do fit a pattern.  It is essentially impossible to have a rational discussion with them because they have staked out an intractable position.

As you have staked out an intractable position toward the obvious conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

Quote

 

  Since you are a one-trick pony who maintains that he has established a conspiracy with one piece of evidence and refuses to debate with anyone who dares to disagree - well, voila, you are a fundamentalist with a quasi-religious zeal for your pet theory.

What theory?

Yes, the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of his collar.

Yes, JFK's casual movement in the limo caused his shirt fabric to indent along his right shoulder-line.  This is a universal phenomenon which occurs literally hundreds of billions of times a day.

Your theory requires 3 inches of his shirt and jacket to elevate entirely above a fictional bullet in-shoot in the back of his neck without pushing up on his jacket collar, which rested in a normal position just above the base of his neck.

If you can't see the intellectual dishonesty of such a claim, it's because you're a fundamentalist zealot.

Quote

 

  You can take this characterization as pejorative if you wish, but I simply mean it as an accurate characterization and believe it is.  On the other hand, you have seen absolutely nothing in my posts to suggest that I am a "Christian fundamentalist." 

A prior discussion on abortion convinces me you're a Christian zealot hell bent on imposing your beliefs on others.

Quote

If I were, I'd be happy to claim the label - but I would still characterize you as a fundamentalist who defends his pet theory with quasi-religious zeal.

Here are two more "pet theories" of mine:

1 + 1 = 2

The sun sets in the West.

The fact is every time Lance Payette raises his right arm to wave the fabric of his shirt indents on his right shoulder-top.

That's not a theory, that's a readily observable fact.

Did the back of Kennedy's neck extend four inches below the bottom of his shirt collar?

Of course not.

Did Jack Kennedy wear his shirt in a different position as David Von Pein asserts.

Of course not. 

I cite facts that destroy your pet theory, and you resent it.

I think that's a hoot.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Clark]

The list of people in power who we have on record as saying the Warren Commission Report was a scam is considerable. Among them, Richard Nixon, whose job it was to prosecute the quilty, but demurred from doing so, was guilty by his own admission.

Lance and David Von Pein are aware of this, but are bound by some perverse duty, or some unholy matrimony with Corruption and Deceit to keep providing nuggets of deception to those who may be looking for the truth.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I cite facts that destroy your pet theory, and you resent it.

So, when will you be taking your irrefutable proof to someone like Morley who can make it available to the masses? Or are you just going to stay here forever and keep repeating yourself? This is the one thing that really bothers me is that people like yourself and Jim D. who believe in this "obvious" conspiracy don't do something.

[James DiEugenio]

There is no such thing as a conspiracy mindset in the JFK case.

I did not enter the JFK case looking for a plot.  I read both sides for awhile.  And I simply came to the conclusion that the WR  was not a very convincing document.  For the simple matters--among others-- that:

1.) It left too much important information out.  Like some very interesting stuff going on in New Orleans.

2.) It relied on some questionable witness accounts e.g. Marina and Brennan.

3.) It seemed too biased in its presentation. A prime example being the medical evidence.

It does not take some kind of mystical "mindset" to determine those matters.  Anyone with any objectivity or insight could determine that.  But what Payette wants to do is say that somehow  these matters do not exist and therefore people who harp on them are somehow of a mystical "mindset."  What crud.  They do exist.  And anyone who says they do not is in denial.  And as time has gone on, especially with the discoveries of the ARRB, the matters I listed above have gotten even more serious. If Payette wants to ignore them and personally attack people who do not, then I suggest he resembles the Bryan character so memorably played by the late Fredric March in the film Inherit the Wind.  And that comparison might be more apt than I thought considering the exchange above about religion.

But I consider that to be his problem, which unfortunately he is playing out on this forum.

 

And let me reply to Parnell's recurrent complaint above.  About people like me not doing something to take our info to the masses.  There are two multi installment projects being planned right now for broadcast.  I was invited to be aboard on both of them.  Because of certain unforeseeable circumstances, I will only be aligned with one of them.  And those two are not the only  times certain producers have approached me. Morley--who you seem to think is the be all and end all of outlets--was not invited to be on either. Which shows us the level of your insight into this.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So, when will you be taking your irrefutable proof to someone like Morley who can make it available to the masses?

Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria made this irrefutable proof available to the masses in 1966, and then self-aggrandizing hustlers like Josiah Thompson flooded the field with pet theoretical bullshed.

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Or are you just going to stay here forever and keep repeating yourself? This is the one thing that really bothers me is that people like yourself and Jim D. who believe in this "obvious" conspiracy don't do something.

You have a bizarre notion of how the mainstream media works.

You think someone like me would be given any attention?  I'd be attacked on my background -- hardcore punk rocker/gambling house employee/San Francisco freak.

The fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" suppresses all possibility of an ambitious journalist "going public."

I don't have that much confidence in Jeff Morley.  Near as I can tell, the man doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination.  If he did, he'd be touting the same irrefutable evidence Fonzi/Salandria did back in 1966.

 

 

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

The list of people in power who we have on record as saying the Warren Commission Report was a scam is considerable. Among them, Richard Nixon, whose job it was to prosecute the quilty, but demurred from doing so, was guilty by his own admission.

Lance and David Von Pein are aware of this, but are bound by some perverse duty, or some unholy matrimony with Corruption and Deceit to keep providing nuggets of deception to those who may be looking for the truth.

Don't forget prominent members of the Kennedy family.

[Cliff Varnell]

59 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don't have that much confidence in Jeff Morley.  Near as I can tell, the man doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination.  If he did, he'd be touting the same irrefutable evidence Fonzi/Salandria did back in 1966

Charles Barkley once said of basketball beat writers -- "The more they watch the game the less they understand it."

Goes like that with "Big Name" JFK experts -- the more they study the case the less they understand it.

[Guest]

1. 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

   1. There is no such thing as a conspiracy mindset in the JFK case.
   2. I did not enter the JFK case looking for a plot.  I read both sides for awhile.  And I simply came to the conclusion that the WR  was not a very convincing document.  For the simple matters--among others-- that:
   3. It does not take some kind of mystical "mindset" to determine those matters.  Anyone with any objectivity or insight could determine that.  But what Payette wants to do is say that somehow  these matters do not exist and therefore people who harp on them are somehow of a mystical "mindset."  
   4. But I consider that to be his problem, which unfortunately he is playing out on this forum.

You're mischaracterizing what has been stated.  This thread started with Cory's post attempting to describe the "non-conspiracy mindset" of those who reject conspiracy thinking.  I pointed out that in fact the only well-researched and well-documented mindset in this vein is a "conspiracy mindset."  I certainly didn't invent the body of research on this topic, and I quoted pieces from both Scientific American and Psychology Today.

Perhaps you personally don't have the conspiracy mindset.  Perhaps you approached the subject from a completely neutral perspective.  I have no idea.  Many other people who have approached the subject from a completely neutral perspective have reached completely different conclusions - even completely different conspiracy theories.  For that matter, people like myself and Fred Litwin evolved from gung-ho conspiracy believers to Lone Nutters, and we are by no means the only ones.

The JFK "research community" is rife with the conspiracy mindset and "conspiracy theorists" in the pejorative sense of "conspiracy loons."  There is no way on earth that this can be denied.  Find me an article on the conspiracy mindset where the JFK assassination isn't mentioned.  As I've stated, it's pretty much the mother lode for anyone who wishes to study the conspiracy mindset and conspiracy loons.

Are all proponents of every conspiracy ipso facto loons?  Obviously not.  I have no idea whether you're a conspiracy loon or not.  You do appear to have the foaming-at-the-mouth, humorless-as-hell, thin-skinned-as-hell, no-one-can-possibly-be-right-but-me, you're-stupid-if-you-disagree-with-me, I'll-attempt-to-shut-you-down-and-resort-to-personal-insults perspective of the true zealot - a "conspiracy fundamentalist," if you will.

I'm most certainly not a Lone Nut fundamentalist.  I don't really care who killed JFK at all except as an academic question.  I've been open to a variety of conspiracy theories, including some I now consider loonish.  I'm still open to a conspiracy if there is hard, no-question-about-it evidence that can only be explained by a conspiracy.  I occupy my current position strictly as the consequence of my personal search for the truth.  I'm not proselytizing for the Lone Nut explanation.  I simply challenge conspiracy theorists to face with logic and common sense events such as Oswald's activities the day before the assassination that, to me, make no sense whatsoever from the perspective of a well-planned conspiracy (or even a bumbling conspiracy).

Is the Deep Politics type of conspiracy theory loonish?  No, I don't think so.  I think it's 180 degrees removed from whom LHO actually was, anything he would have ever been involved in, or anything powerful Deep Politics forces would ever have involved a loose cannon like him in.  I think it has an appeal to many people for a variety of reasons:

1. It obviously has a superficial plausibility.  It involves the powerful individuals and organizations that would have liked to have seen JFK eliminated and would have had the means, motive and opportunity to eliminate him.
2. It's bolstered by all that we have learned about those powerful individuals and organizations since JFK's death.  Events since 1963 become the lens through which the events of 1963 are viewed.
3. It appeals to those who are dissatisfied with the current state of America and believe the country would be vastly different today if JFK had lived.  The current state of the country is explained by reference to the same dark forces that eliminated JFK.
4. By virtue of being a Marxist, a defector to the USSR and a pro-Cuban agitator upon his return, LHO would obviously have been of interest to some of those powerful individuals and organizations.  His name would obviously, and does, turn up in their files.

Add all this up, and a Deep Politics theory has a compelling superficial plausibility.  The man on the street - including me, at one time - is going to have no difficulty believing there was some sort of conspiracy that involved some combination of LBJ, J. Edgar, the CIA, the FBI, the military and the other usual suspects.  It's difficult to believe otherwise.  The Lone Nut explanation, in contrast, lacks this compelling superficial plausibility.

I won't beat the horse any further, but to me the Deep Politics theories bump up against the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald.  I'm not going to insert Lee Harvey Oswald into a Deep Politics conspiracy through speculation, mere inference, innuendo, third-generation hearsay, documents of questionable genuineness or anything of the sort.  This is what it seems to me that Deep Politics theorists do - they simply insert a cardboard LHO into the events where he might be inserted with some sort of plausibility.  From what I know - and it's more than a little - the fake Marxist, false defector, right-wing, CIA operative International Man of Mystery is so COMPLETELY at odds with the real Oswald that I will not be swayed by anything short of hard, no-question-about-it evidence that can only be explained by a conspiracy involving him.

[Cliff Varnell]

20 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I'm most certainly not a Lone Nut fundamentalist. 

Yes, you are. Demonstrably.

You're a lawyer who fails to grasp the concept of "prima facie evidence."

Prima Facie

[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence). <q/ emph added>

The case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK is prima facie but your zealotry won't allow you to process the obvious.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Cliff Varnell