Jump to content
The Education Forum

A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since I think the quote-and-requote format becomes tedious and encourages pissing contests, I’m going to respond in a general way that I hope will address most of what Denny and Al have stated.  Sorry that this is long and rambling and not up to my usual standards.  As someone famously said, "Sorry I wrote such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a shorter one."

  • I’m not even vaguely suggesting the assassination might have had any sort of official Russian or Cuban endorsement.  From Khrushchev and Castro on down, the notion of a loose cannon like LHO attempting to assassinate JFK on behalf of Russia or Cuba would have been viewed with horror (ditto for the assassination of JFK by anyone).  I’m merely suggesting I don’t consider it implausible that someone at one of the embassies might have responded to LHO’s braggadocio with something like “Sure, pull it off and we’ll take care of you,” perhaps just to amuse his coworkers.  More to the point, I don’t consider it implausible that someone among LHO’s pro-Castro contacts in Mexico City might actually have taken him seriously and discussed plans for getting him back to Mexico City if he pulled off the assassination.  There might have been additional discussions nearer the time of the assassination.  This and nothing more.
     
  • I assume that if LHO had actually shown up at the Cuban or Russian embassy bragging about his dirty deed, they would have immediately turned him over to the U.S. authorities.  When LHO went to Russia, he was operating under the completely delusional fantasy that he was entering a workers’ paradise where a man of his extraordinary abilities would be recognized, educated at Moscow University, and placed into a responsible governmental or educational position.  He was likewise under the completely delusional fantasy (as reported by Marina) that he would be welcomed in Cuba, similarly recognized as a hero, and similarly placed in a responsible position at Castro's side.  The visit to Mexico City was a large bucket of cold water on this fantasy.  The assassination would (in LHO’s mind) show the Cubans what a mistake they had made and (he hoped) pave the way for his entry.
     
  • I’m not suggesting that LHO or Marina was associated with the KGB in any meaningful way.  A sleeper agent was merely one of hundreds of young people the Russians placed in the U.S. to be their eyes and ears if diplomatic relations ever collapsed.  Anyone who reads Titovets’ book cannot doubt that the meeting of LHO and Marina was orchestrated by the KGB, and Hosty emphasizes that Marina fit the profile of a sleeper agent to a T (although she would have been useless in that capacity after the assassination).  I don’t doubt that Marina and perhaps LHO would have agreed to be sleeper agents if this were the price of an exit visa (“Yeah, sleeper agents, whatever”).  The only significance of this after the assassination was that it might point toward the KGB as being behind the assassination and provoke the very sort of international incident that LBJ feared.  This would have been true even if they weren’t sleeper agents – the possibility (likelihood in Marina’s case) needed to be covered up.
     
  • Ditto for whatever had taken place in Mexico City regarding Kostikov.  The mere fact of who he was required a cover up.  This was too incendiary to be allowed even if LHO actually never met with him at all or at least never broached the subject of assassination.  The mere suggestion that LHO was in his presence and may have talked of an assassination (as the CIA and FBI at least thought he had) was a bomb that needed to be defused.
     
  • Insofar as LHO’s defection and return are concerned, believe me – I’ve been where you are.  I used to post all over the place, emphasizing the unlikely sequence of events and asking “Can you SERIOUSLY believe all this has a mundane explanation?”  When Lone Nutters would answer “Yes, we can,” I was as stupefied as you.  When I merely list the events that occurred, I still find it kind of mind-blowing.  I don’t claim that every event can be neatly explained, but I'm now in the camp of those who answer “Yes, we can.”

LHO had steeped himself in Marxist books and spouted rudimentary Marxist doctrine since his early teenage years, something that simply cannot be denied except by the most delusional nothing-is-as-it-seems conspiracy zealots.  I believe that LHO’s initial contacts with Russian (or Russian-affiliated) intelligence occurred in Japan, which explains things like his dating of a “hostess” who was way above his pay grade and the fact that close-up (but not classified) photos of planes were seen in his dufflebag.  This would have obviously fed both his Marxist fantasies and his spy fantasies.  He defected to Russia with his fantasies intact, only to discover he had nothing to offer the Russians that they didn’t already know and that he was destined to be a factory grunt rather than a celebrity.

Of course the KGB was highly suspicious that LHO might be a false defector.  They were doubly suspicious because LHO was so bizarreky different from the typical false defector that they wondered if he might represent some weird new CIA program.  Titovets’ book makes clear some of the efforts they undertook to trap LHO (some of which made my wife’s jaw drop since she spent 45 years living in Minsk), but they discovered he was simply the mixed-up goof he appeared to be.  I believe that ultimately they were simply glad to be rid of him – and if Marina could tag along as a sleeper agent, so much the better.  I hate to break the news to you, but false defectors don’t make fun of Lenin propaganda posters, engage in sit-down strikes, refuse to attend mandatory meetings, ridicule the activities in which their coworkers are required to engage, and steal military-sensitive parts to try and make “grenades” in their apartment.

I believe that “mixed-up goof” largely explains why he was allowed back into the U.S.  Snyder’s little joke at their initial meeting – “If you’re a Marxist, you’re going to be a very lonely man in Moscow,” which went right over the head of LHO – tells you that the experienced Snyder realized he was dealing with an emotional, mixed-up kid who was in for a rude awakening.  Snyder had seen it before.  When LHO inevitably came crawling back, I believe he was allowed back in largely on the basis of genuine empathy and to a certain extent thinking that paralleled that of the KGB:  While the KGB was happy to be rid of the useless nuisance, the U.S. figured he was a loose cannon who was less likely to be a problem here than there.  As LBJ famously said when he selected the detested Humphrey as his running mate, “I’d rather have Hubert on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in.”

Sorry, but the notion that LHO was a false defector, false Marxist or CIA operative is indeed PREPOSTEROUS.  It isn’t preposterous at all at the superficial level at which conspiracy theorists operate (always, of course, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), where LHO is a cardboard cut-out who can be whomever you want him to be, but it is PREPOSTEROUS when you delve into who LHO really was.  Read Titovets, Mailer, Johnson McMillan, Davidson, et al., and tell me this guy was a false defector.  I’ve mentioned before that Peter Vronsky told me that he went to Minsk to make his documentary (he really did some in-depth research) with utter confidence that he would easily expose all of LHO’s intelligence connections and came back believing “the Warren Commission basically got it right.”  Conspiracy zealots can pretend only dolts accept the official version, but this is simply not the case.  One of the reasons I participate here at all is that I’m confident at least some readers can distinguish between common sense, logic and clear thinking and wild-eyed, credulous fanaticism.

  • Am I speculating as to LHO’s motive for denying the killings of Tippit and JFK?  Certainly, to a degree.  I prefer to think of it as drawing reasonable inferences, but I won’t quibble.  The evidence is that LHO drew his pistol in the Texas Theater, killed Tippit without provocation, and assassinated JFK, yet he flatly denied the latter two (and lots of other things that he knew were easily provable) while admitting the first.  There has to be some reason.  We could speculate that this was because he didn’t kill Tippit or JFK, but this simply isn’t reasonable in light of the evidence and doesn’t explain why he drew his pistol in the theater.  Putting together LHO’s documented belief that he was destined to be a great figure in history with his request to have Abt as his attorney, I believe the only reasonable inference is that he had decided to solidify his historical importance with one last big show.

LHO was intelligent, but he was a bizarre character.  When I read that he had stolen militarily sensitive parts and asked Titovets to assist him in using them to make “grenades” in his apartment, my eyes just about popped out of my head.  My wife’s sister worked in the militarily sensitive part of that factory, and you have NO IDEA of the level of security.  (The parts were obviously left out to see what interest LHO might take in them.)  What LHO did was certifiably insane.  My wife’s sister would NEVER have made it out of the factory and would have been shot.  The only explanation for the KGB’s non-reaction (his apartment was bugged) has to be their recognition that “My God, this wacko is no spy – he’s living in some alternate universe.”  LHO’s motives for the assassination and then for denying it are always going to be a matter of informed speculation – but both were entirely consistent with who he had always been.

  • If I may be as blunt as those who characterize Lone Nutters (and me in particular) as hopeless, unworthy dolts:  I am very, very familiar with conspiracy communities and the dynamics of how they operate.  There is a point at which conspiracy thinking becomes so irrational, so credulous, so divorced from reality, that it is a species of mental illness.  I don’t characterize all conspiracy theorists in this manner, but this illness is rampant on these forums, up to and including some of the most prominent and active posters.  It is screamingly obvious to me, and I don’t think I’m uniquely discerning.  I assume that others who have not descended into this madness can see it as well.  As DVP keeps pointing out, when the entire conspiracy scenario hinges on every damn document being faked or altered, every agency from the CIA to the Postal Service being corrupt, everyone from the President to the janitor being in on the conspiracy, LHO of all people being an innocent “patsy," every gap in the record being filled in with raw conspiracy speculation – well, sorry, but you’ve descended into madness.  There’s no polite way to say it.  The sin of participants such as myself is that we live in the real world, where humans and agencies are sloppy, fallible and error-prone, where most things are at least pretty much as they seem to be, where successful conspiracies are neither elaborate nor convoluted, and where common sense and logic are valued.

Can we stop the "patsy" silliness now?  He said he was a patsy of the DPD, who had arrested him only because he was a known defector.  He said this to a crowd of reporters.  Yet when he was interrogated by the DPD, FBI, Secret Service and Postal Service, he said NOTHING about being anyone's patsy or even vaguely suggesting he'd been duped into some role in an assassination conspiracy.  Never has no much mileage been derived from nothing.  The conspiracy community has become like some crazy parrot who thinks he's going to get crackers if he keeps squawking "patsy."

There ya go, I have now vented my spleen and feel much better.  Thank you for the opportunity.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think as always the truth is in the middle and a great number of people find it greatly difficult to balance and temper their initial thoughts and feelings . 

-99% of the DPD were just doing their job and in truth didn’t care . 

- The warren commission were under strict instructions , however , in the end only Ford and Dulles were ‘ happy’ with it. 

- the FBI did a thorough investigation and were also under very strict instructions . Yet they clearly destroyed lots of conflicting info and ignored lots of witnesses. They also controlled what the Warren commission saw. 

As a general response to the initial post... it amazes me how many only see in black and white . Left or right brain. How many cannot see in colour and use their neo cortex to its full. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think as always the truth is in the middle and a great number of people find it greatly difficult to balance and temper their initial thoughts and feelings . 

-99% of the DPD were just doing their job and in truth didn’t care . 

- The warren commission were under strict instructions , however , in the end only Ford and Dulles were ‘ happy’ with it. 

- the FBI did a thorough investigation and were also under very strict instructions . Yet they clearly destroyed lots of conflicting info and ignored lots of witnesses. They also controlled what the Warren commission saw. 

As a general response to the initial post... it amazes me how many only see in black and white . Left or right brain. How many cannot see in colour and use their neo cortex to its full. 

Welcome Jake.  I think 99% is a bit high.  At a minimum a half dozen DPD officers, likely closer to a dozen of them played some unknown role to most of them, between the murders of JFK, Oswald and Tipitt.   Consider their ultimate head, the mayor was CIA asset Earle Cabell, whose brother JFK fired from the CIA after the Bay of Pigs.  The Warren Omission was under strict instructions, hence the magic single pristine bullet among many other serious errors.  The FBI conducted a selectively thorough investigation, controlled by Hoover, to limit information given to the WO.  It is black or white.  It was a conspiracy, denial of the fact is the lie.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes of course there was a conspiracy of the highest level but my black/white analogy was in reference more to those who cannot see the human element, who cannot see the situational element and who ignore the grey areas in between where quite innocent actions can now be viewed as malevolent in their origin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Oh yes of course there was a conspiracy of the highest level but my black/white analogy was in reference more to those who cannot see the human element, who cannot see the situational element and who ignore the grey areas in between where quite innocent actions can now be viewed as malevolent in their origin. 

While I disagree that there was a conspiracy at the highest level in regard to the assassination, it's good that you are able to maintain this perspective.

The problem is fundamentalism.  There are Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, New Atheist fundamentalists.  There are Lone Assassin fundamentalists and conspiracy fundamentalists (who say things like "It is black or white.  It was a conspiracy, denial of the fact is the lie.").

As the depth of one's convictions increases, it becomes a major challenge to avoid crossing the line into fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism stifles critical thinking and rational discussion.  The sole objective is to preserve one's fundamentalist convictions.  Fundamentalism is as rampant and dominant on this forum as on any forum on which I've ever participated, and I've participated on many religious forums.  (I've been called a "L-I-A-R" on this forum twice already this morning, and it's only 5:34 a.m. where I am!)

It's not only important to constantly reexamine what we believe, but also why we believe it.  Am I really applying common sense and logic and relying on the best evidence and most reasonable inferences - or am I now so wedded to a particular paradigm that I am driven primarily by emotion, interested only in shouting down anyone who disagrees with me, and willing to grasp at straws in terms of evidence and inferences in order to preserve my paradigm?  We see the latter all the time, even within mainstream scientific disciplines (as discussed long ago by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

I find the existence of "JFK assassination fundamentalism" a curious phenomenon.  Interesting as it may be, why would the assassination be of anything more than academic interest to anyone?  But it is - assassination fundamentalism is essentially indistinguishable from religious fundamentalism.  This phenomenon is found across the spectrum of subjects in which conspiracy thinking predominates.

Forums such as this, which weren't available 25 years ago, greatly facilitate and reinforce fundamentalism and conspiracy thinking.  It becomes a simple matter to surround oneself with like-minded folks 24 hours a day.  When someone like myself or a handful of others wanders in, he or she is immediately demonized.  Over the short term, such demonization is fun and invigorating for the community, but what we have to say eventually becomes an unwelcome distraction/challenge and the community wishes we would just go away.  The fact that the fundamentalists so obviously and ardently wish we would go away probably goes a long way toward explaining why we stay.

Good luck here.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forums such as this, which weren't available 25 years ago, greatly facilitate and reinforce fundamentalism and conspiracy thinking.  It becomes a simple matter to surround oneself with like-minded folks 24 hours a day.  When someone like myself or a handful of others wanders in, he or she is immediately demonized.  Over the short term, such demonization is fun and invigorating for the community, but what we have to say eventually becomes an unwelcome distraction/challenge and the community wishes we would just go away.  The fact that the fundamentalists so obviously and ardently wish we would go away probably goes a long way toward explaining why we stay.

Good luck here.

Lance, you're not demonized on this forum at all.

Nobody here wishes you "would just go away."

Everyone here can handle what you post without feeling threatened in any way.

Many here even enjoy your input and your intelligence.  You are a very good writer imo.

However, ( again just my opinion ) your assessment of what you characterize as "fundamentalists" here on this forum and others ( their numbers and how insecurely closed minded they are in their locked-in conspiracy mind set to a "mentally ill" degree and how they view you ) is sometimes exaggerated to a debatable point of revealing your own insecurities and conspiracy mind set. A broad fundamentalist conspiracy against "truly mentally healthy" people like yourself who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK.

This particular forum is not a mostly "black and white " or overly "fundamentalist" one. It is just as much an open minded, debate welcoming one  ( hence it's title) that does include strong minded posters on both sides of the "conspiracy-no conspiracy" fence who really go at it from time to time.

And it's not a complete view and voice blocking heavy wooden wall fence. It's much more a chain link one where we can openly see, hear and communicate with each other on both sides clearly and thoughtfully and without insecurely creating exaggerated bad person images of each other in our own minds.

To me and I am sure to most members, this open "debate" forum is an extremely interesting, stimulating and informative one in the JFK assassination historical realm,  especially with it's substantial highly accredited deep research plane participation.

Greatly appreciated by those of us who are deeply invested in this specific event and time of our American history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Lance, you're not demonized on this forum at all.

Joe, as with your defense of Earlene Roberts and the segment of society she represents, as well as your suggestion that this forum is one that promotes "tolerance and respect," you bend over backwards to an extraordinary degree to be fair and kindly.  While I appreciate your optimistic outlook on things, your take on this forum is jaw-dropping to me.  I don't know what Happy Pills you're taking, but they are obviously working.

The "JFK research community" is essentially nothing but a conspiracy community.  This is true not just here on this forum but throughout the community.  It has been true since 1963.  The existence of a conspiracy of some sort is an axiom of the community's paradigm.  The absurdity of the Lone Nut explanation is likewise an axiom - it's the very reason the community exists.  Those who challenge these axioms are in precisely the same role as atheists and heretics in a religious community.  The members of a religious community may run the gamut from liberals to fundamentalists, but atheism and heresy aren't going to be countenanced at all by the community because they are contrary to its axioms and challenging to its paradigm.

Ditto here.   I believe there have even been suggestions here and elsewhere that Lone Nutters should simply be banned because they are, ipso facto, delusional fools or worse.  The most frequent response to anyone who even hints at a Lone Nut perspective is something dismissive in the vein of "Just another dumbass Lone Nutter."  At least in my experience and observation, there is little in the way of genuine discussion when a Lone Nutter weighs in.

Some are more polite, of course, just as many Christians including me are polite to and even interested in the perspective of atheists and heretics.  But we aren't going to have them preaching in our churches, teaching our Sunday School classes, or taking our youth on weekend retreats.  Some here have suggested they welcome the Lone Nut perspective because it keeps them on their toes and challenges them to think, and I don't doubt this - but they are a distinct minority in this particular church.

For the reasons I stated above, the fundamentalist segment of a religious community loathes atheists and heretics and has no interest in doing anything but condemning them and shouting them down.  Ditto here.  The fundamentalist segment, which I do indeed believe is the dominant or at least the most active and vocal one, makes no attempt to disguise this loathing.  Ad hominem attacks are the norm - really dumb, scurrilous, ad hominem attacks, to boot.  I could list the ones leveled at me here (in the space of a mere 400 posts) that are unprecedented in my pretty extensive experience on many other forums.

I pretty clearly stated that my comments about "madness" did not apply to all conspiracy theorists or even all fundamentalists:  "There is a point at which conspiracy thinking becomes so irrational, so credulous, so divorced from reality, that it is a species of mental illness.  I don’t characterize all conspiracy theorists in this manner, but this illness is rampant on these forums, up to and including some of the most prominent and active posters."  I will stand by that statement 110%, with the possible exception of being willing to modify "rampant" to "prevalent" or perhaps "prominent."  Within the Christian context, try debating on a forum with a flat-earther (as I have) - that's the sort of thing I'm talking about, and it is prominent here.

Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly.  Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance.  Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone.  I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess.  From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are.  If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile.

Oh, well, today is the first day in ten days that my flu has lifted, so I am returning to the Real World for a while. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Forums such as this, which weren't available 25 years ago, greatly facilitate and reinforce fundamentalism and conspiracy thinking.  It becomes a simple matter to surround oneself with like-minded folks 24 hours a day.  When someone like myself or a handful of others wanders in, he or she is immediately demonized.  Over the short term, such demonization is fun and invigorating for the community, but what we have to say eventually becomes an unwelcome distraction/challenge and the community wishes we would just go away.  The fact that the fundamentalists so obviously and ardently wish we would go away probably goes a long way toward explaining why we stay.

Good luck here.

Lance, you're not demonized on this forum at all.

Nobody here wishes you "would just go away."

Everyone here can handle what you post without feeling threatened in any way.

Many here even enjoy your input and your intelligence.  You are a very good writer imo.

However, ( again just my opinion ) your assessment of what you characterize as "fundamentalists" here on this forum and others ( their numbers and how insecurely closed minded they are in their locked-in conspiracy mind set to a "mentally ill" degree and how they view you ) is sometimes exaggerated to a debatable point of revealing your own insecurities and conspiracy mind set. A broad fundamentalist conspiracy against "truly mentally healthy" people like yourself who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK.

This particular forum is not a mostly "black and white " or overly "fundamentalist" one. It is just as much an open minded, debate welcoming one  ( hence it's title) that does include strong minded posters on both sides of the "conspiracy-no conspiracy" fence who really go at it from time to time.

And it's not a complete view and voice blocking heavy wooden wall fence. It's much more a chain link one where we can openly see, hear and communicate with each other on both sides clearly and thoughtfully and without insecurely creating exaggerated bad person images of each other in our own minds.

To me and I am sure to most members, this open "debate" forum is an extremely interesting, stimulating and informative one in the JFK assassination historical realm,  especially with it's substantial highly accredited deep research plane participation.

Greatly appreciated by those of us who are deeply invested in this specific event and time of our American history.

So...SURFS UP fellow JFK dudes and dudettes!  

Lets go out and catch the next big wave!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Joe, as with your defense of Earlene Roberts and the segment of society she represents, as well as your suggestion that this forum is one that promotes "tolerance and respect," you bend over backwards to an extraordinary degree to be fair and kindly.  While I appreciate your optimistic outlook on things, your take on this forum is jaw-dropping to me.  I don't know what Happy Pills you're taking, but they are obviously working.

The "JFK research community" is essentially nothing but a conspiracy community.  This is true not just here on this forum but throughout the community.  It has been true since 1963.  The existence of a conspiracy of some sort is an axiom of the community's paradigm.  The absurdity of the Lone Nut explanation is likewise an axiom - it's the very reason the community exists.  Those who challenge these axioms are in precisely the same role as atheists and heretics in a religious community.  The members of a religious community may run the gamut from liberals to fundamentalists, but atheism and heresy aren't going to be countenanced at all by the community because they are contrary to its axioms and challenging to its paradigm.

Ditto here.   I believe there have even been suggestions here and elsewhere that Lone Nutters should simply be banned because they are, ipso facto, delusional fools or worse.  The most frequent response to anyone who even hints at a Lone Nut perspective is something dismissive in the vein of "Just another dumbass Lone Nutter."  At least in my experience and observation, there is little in the way of genuine discussion when a Lone Nutter weighs in.

Some are more polite, of course, just as many Christians including me are polite to and even interested in the perspective of atheists and heretics.  But we aren't going to have them preaching in our churches, teaching our Sunday School classes, or taking our youth on weekend retreats.  Some here have suggested they welcome the Lone Nut perspective because it keeps them on their toes and challenges them to think, and I don't doubt this - but they are a distinct minority in this particular church.

For the reasons I stated above, the fundamentalist segment of a religious community loathes atheists and heretics and has no interest in doing anything but condemning them and shouting them down.  Ditto here.  The fundamentalist segment, which I do indeed believe is the dominant or at least the most active and vocal one, makes no attempt to disguise this loathing.  Ad hominem attacks are the norm - really dumb, scurrilous, ad hominem attacks, to boot.  I could list the ones leveled at me here (in the space of a mere 400 posts) that are unprecedented in my pretty extensive experience on many other forums.

I pretty clearly stated that my comments about "madness" did not apply to all conspiracy theorists or even all fundamentalists:  "There is a point at which conspiracy thinking becomes so irrational, so credulous, so divorced from reality, that it is a species of mental illness.  I don’t characterize all conspiracy theorists in this manner, but this illness is rampant on these forums, up to and including some of the most prominent and active posters."  I will stand by that statement 110%, with the possible exception of being willing to modify "rampant" to "prevalent" or perhaps "prominent."  Within the Christian context, try debating on a forum with a flat-earther (as I have) - that's the sort of thing I'm talking about, and it is prominent here.

Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly.  Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance.  Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone.  I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess.  From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are.  If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile.

Oh, well, today is the first day in ten days that my flu has lifted, so I am returning to the Real World for a while. 

Lance I don’t believe 911 was an inside job I also don’t believe in ufos visiting us. I believe FDR was NOT behind Pearl Harbor. Yet you lump everyone into a conspiracy group insult them and then act like your being attacked. 

Ughhh, nevermind. Take a theraflu and get better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

Lance I don’t believe 911 was an inside job I also don’t believe in ufos visiting us. I believe FDR was NOT behind Pearl Harbor. Yet you lump everyone into a conspiracy group insult them and then act like your being attacked. 

Ughhh, nevermind. Take a theraflu and get better. 

Cory, when you respond that quickly to a post that long, I have to question how carefully you read it.  As I've explained, I hold many non-mainstream beliefs in subject matter areas where conspiracy thinking is prominent.  I hold them for the same reason that I hold my Lone Assassin position here - they are, to me, the most consistent with common sense, logic, the best evidence (including my own experience in the case of UFOs) and the most reasonable inferences.  If Harvey & Lee (for example) fit that bill, I'd cheerfully embrace it.  In the JFK community, the governing paradigm is that there was some sort of conspiracy - surely you don't deny this?  I simply point it out.  Those who hold to the Lone Assassin position are the equivalent of atheists and heretics.  I'm not insulting conspiracy theorists - THEY MAY WELL BE RIGHT - just pointing out the reality here.  In the particular "conspiracy denomination" this forum represents, what I call "fundamentalism" is the dominant culture and what I call "conspiracy madness" is certainly prevalent.  This is just the reality.  HARDCORE CONSPIRACY FUNDAMENTALISTS MAY WELL BE RIGHT, just as hardcore Christian fundamentalists may well be right even if I don't share their views, but the reality is that they loathe Lone Nutters.  I was simply responding to Joe's overly optimistic views regarding the way Lone Nutters are viewed and treated here.  No big deal - I'm not whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a no loathing zone here Lance, just a collegial exchanging of ideas. Maybe I can do something to promote peace and less feelings of persecution. I'm not sure if my query to you in the other thread is just getting buried by other posts. But it's now probably  more appropriate to this topic.

 

On 12/14/2018 at 1:32 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Lance, In your verbose quest to go out and win  friends and influence people, you never did answer my question concerning my "World Peace " photo below.  Is there any basis for hope of a similar "2 peas in a pod" reconciliation meeting of minds between you and Jim D. after all? Question in bold print at the bottom below.

19f41266aea52a188f4d94ed29593fbc.jpg

 

As far as the onlooker I actually gave you a hint under the link. That was:

"I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look.".
 
Yes, a long way from Kansas, I mean Arizona. That guy also ran for President under the Republican ticket. An ex prosecutor, ex governor way over there in New Jersey. His name is Chris Christie, and he apparently just interviewed for Trump's chief of staff and Christie probably rejected him. Anyway it's sort of an uplifting picture. I  suspected that maybe Trump had it in him, if he was so moved to defer to someone else...
I would be more inclined to see it as a beacon for World Peace if it weren't for that mysterious guy in the beach chair. 
I'm not sure how relevant Christie is, except as a humorous add in for those who are familiar.. So you see them as beacon for World Peace and Trump is being thwarted by a MSM and political"Deep State"? And so is Putin, whose really a good guy, whose very tolerant to those that disagree with him,because after all he's so popular, why does he need to fear anybody? And all this Russian  interference is just the same old Cold War propaganda of the MSM "Deep State". Because if you do, I think you and Mr. Scowly Face as you call him, have a lot more in common than you think.
You understand I'm only trying to bring people together..

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This is a no loathing zone here Lance, just a collegial exchanging of ideas. I'm not sure if my query to you in the other thread is just getting buried by other posts. But it's now probably  more appropriate to this topic.

 

 

Sorry, Kirk, I didn't see that.  Good Lord, I didn't recognize Chris Christie when I first looked at the photo.  Some people should just stick to business attire and stay off the beach.

I'm truly so apolitical (and politically ignorant) that my views on such matters are pretty much irrelevant.  If you queried me on all the hot-button issues, my positions would be so all-over-the-map that you'd think I must have Multiple Personality Disorder.  I prefer to think of it as analyzing each issue on its own merits.  I'm certainly not a card-carrying anything.  I just got my new voter registration card and was surprised to learn I'm a Democrat.  I thought I'd registered Independent, but whatever.

It sounds simplistic and probably is, but I voted for Trump almost entirely because I believe abortion is the single biggest moral evil in the country today and I felt Trump was the only hope for stemming the tide.  Not a popular view here, I realize, but there you go.  I probably should be embarrassed to admit it, but my view, at almost 69 years old and cozily tucked away in my remote little town of 10,000, is "What do I really care who is President?  Has it ever actually affected my life?"  If I'd awakened on the morning after the election and found that Hillary had been elected, as I fully expected to do, I would've simply said "Eh, whatever, what's for breakfast?"  I had voted for Obama (twice) simply because I hoped that electing the first Black President would heal a lot of wounds and bring the country together - whoa, not very sophisticated or perceptive of me.

My wife, who knows approximately 1000% more about the situation in Russia than I do, thinks Putin is a Grade A snake.  He clearly wants to reassemble as much of the USSR as he can, and I can't see that plan getting very far down the road without bringing the world to the brink of war - which I fear he'd be more than willing to do.  (My wife just appeared at my shoulder and said "Putin is crazy."  Well, that was succinct.  Oh, she just added:  "Nothing good I cannot say" - her English is still a bit iffy, but you get the idea.)  For all of The Donald's supposed business sense and negotiating savvy, my guess is that Putin is a genuinely ruthless SOB who would eat him for lunch.

I do think Trump is to some extent a "victim" of the MSM and entrenched political forces, even within his own party.  Not having been a Hillary supporter, I don't think I can really appreciate the depth of the shock and anger that more than half the country, including at least 90% of the MSM,  must have experienced the morning after the election.  That wound will never heal, and I believe they are indeed trying to make his time in office as miserable and unproductive as possible.  On the other hand, Trump plays right into their hands to a degree that is simply jaw-dropping.  How could anyone be such a clumsy bull-in-the-china-shop?  If both sides would ratchet themselves down by about 80%, I think Trump might actually accomplish some good things and the Left might end up thinking he at least wasn't a disaster.  But it isn't going to happen, and my money is on the modern equivalent of the Civil War (whatever that might look like) taking place within 20 years.  I always say that I'm glad I'm 68 years old and not 6.8 years old, because I don't think it's going to be pretty.

The Russian collusion thing?  I can honestly plead Total Ignorance.  I don't even have TV service (by choice, more than 5 years ago), and I go on long hiatuses from even looking at the news on the Internet.  My self-image is that of an urban hermit, although I don't live up to that ideal.  I am the polar opposite of a political junkie, so my views on whatever the Russian collusion thing is all about would be worthless.  I get most of my news on Christian Talk Radio, about the only station I can get clearly, which does have some good programming (so long as the fact that most of the hosts and guests at least pretend to believe the universe is 7,000 years old doesn't trouble you) but has an extremely right-wing take on every news story.  Ergo, Mueller is an agent of Satan.  Whatever, what's for breakfast?

Personality-wise, I believe that the Scowly One and I are light years apart.  From what I've seen, my guess is that our views on almost everything would be highly incompatible.  People who take themselves as seriously as His Eminence are like irresistible punching bags for me, so I doubt the whole "odd bedfellows" thing would end well.  He is the proverbial Legend In His Own Mind and Big Fish In an Extremely Weird Little Pond, and I wish him continued success in those endeavors.

I'm not sure I've even addressed what you were asking me, but there you go.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Oh yes of course there was a conspiracy of the highest level but my black/white analogy was in reference more to those who cannot see the human element, who cannot see the situational element and who ignore the grey areas in between where quite innocent actions can now be viewed as malevolent in their origin. 

Forgive my skepticism and pessimism Jake.  For some reason your response made me think of Allan Dulles.  He liked to watch the surprise and fear in a mouse's reaction and eyes when it realized the trap had been sprung and it's neck was about to be broke.  Then there's the time he turned over his current girlfriend/contact/source to be disappeared.  His actions were not innocent nor malevolent in their origin.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...