Conspiracy theories a threat.

[Guest]

It is, of course, the scientific community itself that defines "conspiracy thinking" for purposes of research and analysis.  There has been a vast amount of work done in this field, particularly over the past 15 years, much of which can be accessed with a simple Google search.  This is mainstream psychological and sociological research, undertaken by reputable scientists and reported in reputable journals and mainstream periodicals.  Virtually every article states how "conspiracy thinking" was defined for purposes of the research.  The 9/11 Truth Movement is mentioned in almost every article as a paradigmatic example of conspiracy thinking.  (Judging from some of the anti-Semitic screeds that have been posted recently on this forum, the 9/11 Truth Movement is one that I certainly hope the FBI has on its radar screen.)

The serious research does not focus on particular conspiracies.  It focuses on why some people are prone to conspiracy thinking while others are not.  All the research that I have read acknowledges that real conspiracies do indeed exist and that there is nothing pathological about being interested in the possibility of a conspiracy or believing in one that is supported by solid evidence.  For obvious reasons, the research focuses on why some people are prone to take seriously fringe theories that others regard as goofy.  It asks, "What are the psychological, sociological and other factors that cause someone to become a fanatical believer in some conspiracy theory that others who are thoroughly familiar with the evidence regard as absurd?"  And a psychological profile is indeed emerging.

You will note that Mr. Niederhut claims that studies which generalize about conspiracy theorists "are essentially meaningless," yet in the very next paragraph generalizes about conspiracy "deniers" as being "typically, impaired by blind faith in authority, cognitive rigidity, and a limited capacity for rational empiricism-- independent of mass delusions."  It seems rather odd to me that someone who is apparently a licensed professional would be so obviously ruled by anger and emotion.  Please, cite us to these studies of "conspiracy deniers."  I have been unable to find any.

Obviously, everyone who is swimming in the pool of conspiracy thinking is going to insist that his pet conspiracy is different - it's entirely rational and evidence-based.  Those Harvey and Lee folks or AIDS conspiracy folks or Roswell UFO crash folks or We Never Went to the Moon folks may fit the psychological profile the research has identified, but not us 9/11 Truthers (or vice versa, as the case may be).  We would expect nothing different.  Ergo, Mr. Niederhut distinguishes between those nutty Flat Earthers and the "highly educated, accurate research scholars" who endorse things like the 9/11 Truth Movement.  (I have interacted with Flat Earthers.  Don't sell them short.  I don't believe most of them are entirely serious, but they are far from uneducated and often extremely clever.  As a reasonably neutral observer, I would not place 9/11 Truthers too many rungs above Flat Earthers.)

Which brings to mind Lance's Pet Axiom, which we all need to be reminded of from time to time:  "Just because someone is highly educated, occupies a responsible position, is high-functioning in most areas of his life and seems generally sane and reasonable, do not assume that there is not some corner of his life where he is pretty much completely insane."  This axiom has proved its validity and worth on many occasions over many decades.  You will save yourself a lot of grief if you keep it in mind.  Keep it in mind even when you read my posts.  Keep it in mind when you look in the mirror.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Guest

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

  Keep it in mind when you look in the mirror.

Lance, How do you think that the reporter, Jim Hunter, ended up getting shot to death, at his press desk, in an Los Angeles Police department, the day before George Senator was to testify before the Warren Commission? You know, the reporter that George allowed into Jack Ruby’s apartment the night that Ruby shot Oswald? 

How do you think that reporter ended up dead, shot dead by a cop in a police station 4 months after the Dallas hit?

Look in the mirror when you watch yourself answering that question.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Lance, How do you think that the reporter, Jim Hunter, ended up getting shot to death, at his press desk, in an Los Angeles Police department, the day before George Senator was to testify before the Warren Commission? You know, the reporter that George allowed into Jack Ruby’s apartment the night that Ruby shot Oswald? 

How do you think that reporter ended up dead, shot dead by a cop in a police station 4 months after the Dallas hit?

Look in the mirror when you watch yourself answering that question.

It's Bill Hunter, and you've got some of your other facts wrong, but Hunter did indeed die under fairly odd circumstances:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death11.htm  It was two days after George Senator began testifying, not the day before.  I have no reason to assume that Hunter didn't die precisely the way the official inquiry determined he did.  Good Lord, the two police officers were convicted, lost their jobs, and the one who accidentally shot Hunter expressed deep regret.  Why would I assume something sinister?  Why would I make some sinister connection to the visit to Ruby's apartment?  Why would I make some sinister connection to the testimony of George Senator (who didn't mention Hunter at all)?  Are odd accidents involving horseplay with guns not allowed to happen in Conspiracy World?  What's your point?

Just to close the loop, I undertook a Google search for anything regarding the psychology of "conspiracy deniers."  This is precisely the type of search that will quickly produce dozens if not hundreds of serious discussions of the psychology of conspiracy thinking.  I found nothing, except lots of references to "conspiracy deniers" on conspiracy-oriented forums (with the 9/11 Truth community being BY FAR the predominate user of the term "conspiracy denier").  (Somewhat amusingly, a search for "conspiracy deniers" in conjunction with "cognitive rigidity," the term used by Mr. Niederhut, produced only results with "cognitive rigidity" being used in conjunction with AIDS deniers, climate change deniers, and conspiracy theorists!)  If there is a dark psychological profile of people who deny well-established conspiracies, such as the assassination of Lincoln, I have been unable to locate it.  Is there actually some community of "cognitively rigid" people with a "limited capacity for rational empiricism" who insist Lincoln actually committed suicide - or is the irrepressible Mr. Niederhut really using the term "conspiracy denier" in reference to those who don't buy into the 9/11 Truther wackiness?  If so, consider me one of them there cognitively rigid deniers, pal - and proud of it.

[Ron Ecker]

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The official Bush-Cheney administration/PNAC narrative about 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory."  Does the "study" by Josh Hart include "conspiracy theorists" who accept the bizarre U.S. government narrative about 9/11?

This raises, of course, the issue of government complicity in 9/11. And the question I have to ask is why we should care anymore about the JFK assassination, the other political assassinations in this country, 9/11, the 2020 election, any presidential election, or anything else that has to do with the government. America is in the hands of monsters and there's nothing we can do about it. Or is there? Someone tell me what.  

 

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

This raises, of course, the issue of government complicity in 9/11. And the question I have to ask is why we should care anymore about the JFK assassination, the other political assassinations in this country, 9/11, the 2020 election, any presidential election, or anything else that has to do with the government. America is in the hands of monsters and there's nothing we can do about it. Or is there? Someone tell me what.  

 

I've been apathetic about the situation for several years now.  Join a protest?  There are none in my neck of the woods.  Start one?  Here in small town central Texas I don't think many would join me on virtually any of the major issues and I could see it leading to me being harassed in this area.  Write my congressman or senator?  Ha.  They're all right of right on the Oil, NRA, Pharmaceutical lobbyists payrolls.  My only hope is enough people in other states finally get PO'd enough to overwhelm the stolen elections and packed courts.  But with 95% of the media owned by the 1-2-5% I guess I'm dreaming and/or wizzing in the wind.

This almost worked for Beto last year.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=willie+nelson+vote+em+out&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=64148da6ad654894bca3f66506fe8860&sp=1&qs=AS&pq=willie+nelson+vote&sc=8-18&cvid=64148da6ad654894bca3f66506fe8860  

Edited August 8, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

This almost worked for Beto last year.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=willie+nelson+vote+em+out&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=64148da6ad654894bca3f66506fe8860&sp=1&qs=AS&pq=willie+nelson+vote&sc=8-18&cvid=64148da6ad654894bca3f66506fe8860  

"Vote 'em out" only works in a relatively few individual cases. The reason we have so many worthless career politicians in DC is that their constituencies won't vote 'em out. People want other people's representatives voted out, but not their own.

That said, there are a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill who seem scared to death of being voted out. They're scared of Donald Trump and his "base" so they won't do anything to cross him. They keep quiet and let him say or do what he wants no matter how despicable. It's the most scared, cowardly group of American politicians that I can recall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is the poster boy of political cowardice.

In any case, the powers that control America lie deeper than who gets voted in and who gets voted out. Though the election of Dubya in 2000, with the resultant PNAC/neocon takeover of his administration, certainly seemed to facilitate "the new Pearl Harbor."

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Ron Ecker

[Michael Clark]

19 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

It's Bill Hunter, and you've got some of your other facts wrong, but Hunter did indeed die under fairly odd circumstances:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death11.htm  It was two days after George Senator began testifying, not the day before.  I have no reason to assume that Hunter didn't die precisely the way the official inquiry determined he did. 

Lance, you are correct, I had the first name of Mr. Hunter confused with Jim Koethe; the other reporter guy who was also at the meeting with Hunter and George Senator at Jack Ruby’s apertment on the night of LHO’s murder. Funny thing is is that Jim ended up dead, murdered a few months later, form a blow to the neck. What do you make of that, Lance? Make sure that you are standing in front of a mirror and rehearse your explanation of ”coincidence” before you commit it to a forum post, and, please, tell me how THAT feels.

Now, who was the third guy that that was at that meeting, and what happened to him? I’ll have to look that up, I get tired of being wrong, you know. 

Dead and murdered journalist are a pretty big problem. It’s up there with dead and murdered presidents. Journalists do represent the 4th branch of government.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Cory Santos]

Reporter Jim Koethe was killed from force to the throat.  Please, what medical or police report stated he was killed by a ... karate chop, lol, having been a practitioner of Shotokahn Karate for decades in addition to my boxing history this is somewhat humorous.  This looks like an example of something being repeated over and over so please share the basis for the karate chop story.  From what I found, he was drinking with a guy who had a criminal history.  This guy, named Reno, was eventually charged but not prosecuted in court for various reasons.  Is it a strange coincidence, perhaps.  I see no proof it was anything more.  

[Ron Bulman]

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Reporter Jim Koethe was killed from force to the throat.  Please, what medical or police report stated he was killed by a ... karate chop, lol, having been a practitioner of Shotokahn Karate for decades in addition to my boxing history this is somewhat humorous.  This looks like an example of something being repeated over and over so please share the basis for the karate chop story.  From what I found, he was drinking with a guy who had a criminal history.  This guy, named Reno, was eventually charged but not prosecuted in court for various reasons.  Is it a strange coincidence, perhaps.  I see no proof it was anything more.  

Never hear about the drinking with Reno bit.  I read it happened as he stepped out of the shower in his own apartment if I remember right.  And all his notes on the case disappeared.  I can look for sources of confirmation.  Do you have any?

[Cory Santos]

27 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Never hear about the drinking with Reno bit.  I read it happened as he stepped out of the shower in his own apartment if I remember right.  And all his notes on the case disappeared.  I can look for sources of confirmation.  Do you have any?

I am happy to review what you find.  I just did a simple google search.  I tried to pull up the obituary or autopsy but did see it but being I was rather busy today I did not have much time to look.

[W. Niederhut]

23 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

It is, of course, the scientific community itself that defines "conspiracy thinking" for purposes of research and analysis.  There has been a vast amount of work done in this field, particularly over the past 15 years, much of which can be accessed with a simple Google search.  This is mainstream psychological and sociological research, undertaken by reputable scientists and reported in reputable journals and mainstream periodicals.  Virtually every article states how "conspiracy thinking" was defined for purposes of the research.  The 9/11 Truth Movement is mentioned in almost every article as a paradigmatic example of conspiracy thinking.  (Judging from some of the anti-Semitic screeds that have been posted recently on this forum, the 9/11 Truth Movement is one that I certainly hope the FBI has on its radar screen.)

The serious research does not focus on particular conspiracies.  It focuses on why some people are prone to conspiracy thinking while others are not.  All the research that I have read acknowledges that real conspiracies do indeed exist and that there is nothing pathological about being interested in the possibility of a conspiracy or believing in one that is supported by solid evidence.  For obvious reasons, the research focuses on why some people are prone to take seriously fringe theories that others regard as goofy.  It asks, "What are the psychological, sociological and other factors that cause someone to become a fanatical believer in some conspiracy theory that others who are thoroughly familiar with the evidence regard as absurd?"  And a psychological profile is indeed emerging.

You will note that Mr. Niederhut claims that studies which generalize about conspiracy theorists "are essentially meaningless," yet in the very next paragraph generalizes about conspiracy "deniers" as being "typically, impaired by blind faith in authority, cognitive rigidity, and a limited capacity for rational empiricism-- independent of mass delusions."  It seems rather odd to me that someone who is apparently a licensed professional would be so obviously ruled by anger and emotion.  Please, cite us to these studies of "conspiracy deniers."  I have been unable to find any.

Obviously, everyone who is swimming in the pool of conspiracy thinking is going to insist that his pet conspiracy is different - it's entirely rational and evidence-based.  Those Harvey and Lee folks or AIDS conspiracy folks or Roswell UFO crash folks or We Never Went to the Moon folks may fit the psychological profile the research has identified, but not us 9/11 Truthers (or vice versa, as the case may be).  We would expect nothing different.  Ergo, Mr. Niederhut distinguishes between those nutty Flat Earthers and the "highly educated, accurate research scholars" who endorse things like the 9/11 Truth Movement.  (I have interacted with Flat Earthers.  Don't sell them short.  I don't believe most of them are entirely serious, but they are far from uneducated and often extremely clever.  As a reasonably neutral observer, I would not place 9/11 Truthers too many rungs above Flat Earthers.)

Which brings to mind Lance's Pet Axiom, which we all need to be reminded of from time to time:  "Just because someone is highly educated, occupies a responsible position, is high-functioning in most areas of his life and seems generally sane and reasonable, do not assume that there is not some corner of his life where he is pretty much completely insane."  This axiom has proved its validity and worth on many occasions over many decades.  You will save yourself a lot of grief if you keep it in mind.  Keep it in mind even when you read my posts.  Keep it in mind when you look in the mirror.

This post by Lance Pay-out is complete pseudo-scientific bunk, written by a non-scientist who presumes to lecture to us about the "scientific community."

What "scientific community" is Mr. Pay-out referring to?  Certainly not the people at Harvard Medical School, where I graduated in 1983.   (BTW, I'm "Dr. Niederhut,"  Mr. Pay-out.  Mr. Niederhut was my dad, the old math teacher.) Is he talking about the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, which awarded my certification 30 years ago, in 1989?

So, I'll reiterate.  "Conspiracy theorist" is a CIA propaganda term that does not denote a monolithic demographic group or psychiatric phenotype.  What does it mean, really?  What do Flat Earthers have in common with highly educated, informed research scholars who have accurately debunked false government narratives about the JFK assassination and 9/11?  Not much.

Frankly, I'm highly skeptical about anyone in Mr. Pay-out's so-called "scientific community"-- peer reviewed or otherwise-- who writes about "conspiracy theorists" as if this constitutes a meaningful demographic.

It has never been difficult for the CIA to pay academicians to write crap.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/6/2019 at 8:49 PM, John Kozlowski said:

Thankfully they were able to get him that fast. He had a 100 round drum on the gun he was using.  The garlic fest shooter had a 75 rd drum load and multiple 40 rd drums as back up. Like you said there’s no reason something like that should be available to a private citizen. 

As I mentioned in a prior post I wasn't aware of a 100 round drum magazine modification for the AR15.  I'd bet 90-95% of private citizens in the U S were not either.  And are still not.  I don't recall it being mentioned, much less featured in the mass media reports.  No pictures of them in today's wide wide world of video.  This is suppressed news we should all know.  Just about anybody can buy one.  It's legal.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dayton-shooters-gun-called-an-orchestra-of-metal-and-hellfire/ar-AAFpS8N?li=BBnbcA1

Fast as you can pull the trigger.  Finger getting tired?  Add a bump stock.  It's a 100 round machine gun.  AFTER the Las Vegas Mass Murder killing Fifty Nine people, as a concession to the outrage, Publicity, and his image, despite NRA protest, da Chump outlawed them.  So if you have a stout finger you can still get off a hundred shot's in around a minute and a half.  Insane.

Insane for any radical or mentally challenged person to possess.  Needless for the rest of us.  Who are you going to fight with it?  The "invasion", gangs?  You and a "well regulated " militia to protect us from our own gov't per the second amendment?  You're done screwed before you started.  Sorry to rant again here but it's time somebody in the USA got pissed.  Besides me.

Since John K accidentally provoked me further... John Kay.  I didn't know he was blind until the 80's.  Even if you don't like classic rock read the lyrics, they're relevant today.  Almost poetic, imho.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=steppenwolf+it's+never+too+late&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=3f5993d9c9ea483a9ee5ffa277a0cfe7&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=ste&sc=8-3&cvid=3f5993d9c9ea483a9ee5ffa277a0cfe7

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[John Kozlowski]

12 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

As I mentioned in a prior post I wasn't aware of a 100 round drum magazine modification for the AR15.  I'd bet 90-95% of private citizens in the U S were not either.  And are still not.  I don't recall it being mentioned, much less featured in the mass media reports.  No pictures of them in today's wide wide world of video.  This is suppressed news we should all know.  Just about anybody can buy one.  It's legal.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dayton-shooters-gun-called-an-orchestra-of-metal-and-hellfire/ar-AAFpS8N?li=BBnbcA1

Fast as you can pull the trigger.  Finger getting tired?  Add a bump stock.  It's a 100 round machine gun.  AFTER the Las Vegas Mass Murder killing Fifty Nine people, as a concession to the outrage, Publicity, and his image, despite NRA protest, da Chump outlawed them.  So if you have a stout finger you can still get off a hundred shot's in around a minute and a half.  Insane.

Insane for any radical or mentally challenged person to possess.  Needless for the rest of us.  Who are you going to fight with it?  The "invasion", gangs?  You and a "well regulated " militia to protect us from our own gov't per the second amendment?  You're done screwed before you started.  Sorry to rant again here but it's time somebody in the USA got pissed.  Besides me.

Since John K accidentally provoked me further... John Kay.  I didn't know he was blind until the 80's.  Even if you don't like classic rock read the lyrics, they're relevant today.  Almost poetic, imho.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=steppenwolf+it's+never+too+late&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=3f5993d9c9ea483a9ee5ffa277a0cfe7&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=ste&sc=8-3&cvid=3f5993d9c9ea483a9ee5ffa277a0cfe7

 

Heres an article that mentions the 100rd mag.

https://time.com/5643405/what-to-know-shooting-dayton-ohio/

[Ron Bulman]

27 minutes ago, John Kozlowski said:

Heres an article that mentions the 100rd mag.

https://time.com/5643405/what-to-know-shooting-dayton-ohio/

Thanks for the link.  The video illustrates the terror of the moment from a distance.  The 100 round magazine is mentioned in passing though no video/pictures of it.  More important,  this article, surprising to me from Time in the first place, was immediately disappeared within the MSM, not featured as it should be.  Maybe media matters could pick it up.

[Darrell Curtis]

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

This post by Lance Pay-out is complete pseudo-scientific bunk, written by a non-scientist who presumes to lecture to us about the "scientific community."

What "scientific community" is Mr. Pay-out referring to?  Certainly not the people at Harvard Medical School, where I graduated in 1983.   (BTW, I'm "Dr. Niederhut,"  Mr. Pay-out.  Mr. Niederhut was my dad, the old math teacher.) Is he talking about the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, which awarded my certification 30 years ago, in 1989?

So, I'll reiterate.  "Conspiracy theorist" is a CIA propaganda term that does not denote a monolithic demographic group or psychiatric phenotype.  What does it mean, really?  What do Flat Earthers have in common with highly educated, informed research scholars who have accurately debunked false government narratives about the JFK assassination and 9/11?  Not much.

Frankly, I'm highly skeptical about anyone in Mr. Pay-out's so-called "scientific community"-- peer reviewed or otherwise-- who writes about "conspiracy theorists" as if this constitutes a meaningful demographic.

It has never been difficult for the CIA to pay academicians to write crap.

 

 

The term conspiracy theorist raises a question that never seems to be asked. What is the term for a conspiracy that is verifiable, and those who speak of and believe in these conspiracies? Would this be a conspiracy factist? Along with the derisive, derogatory term "conspiracy theorist" often comes the idea that *all*  conspiracies are false and believing in them is delusional. But that obviously isn't the case when we consider the Gulf of Tonkin, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, MK-Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, and my personal favorite "Et tu, Brute?" Apparently that was just something Shakespeare invented for entertainment purposes.

It's frustrating and tiresome that so often the words "science" and "scientific" (among others, alone and in combinations) are bandied about as if they automatically give credibility or legitimacy where it isn't necessarily the case.