Jump to content
The Education Forum

CONSPIRACY REALISTS


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lone nutters tend to use "theory" with regard to conspiracy in the same sense that young-earth creationists use "theory" with regard to evolution. I.e., a theory is just a wild guess, if not a delusion or deliberate lie. Conspiracy "theorists" like evolutionists are wackos or worse. But when used in "single bullet theory," the word theory suddenly becomes respectable, the most likely explanation.

A theory as used in science is not just a hunch or wild guess. (Nor is it a delusion or deliberate lie, which in science is known as a "hoax.") A theory is the most likely explanation of something based on the evidence. And in the true scientific sense of "theory," the "single bullet theory" is not a theory at all, because it's physically impossible. It's about as far from a theory as you can get.

I don't know what we should call ourselves, though I guess "realists" is as good as anything in the sense of accepting reality. "Conspiracy realists" seems redundant, since any realist can see conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

Is there a word for people who simply use common sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone nutters tend to use "theory" with regard to conspiracy in the same sense that young-earth creationists use "theory" with regard to evolution. I.e., a theory is just a wild guess, if not a delusion or deliberate lie. Conspiracy "theorists" like evolutionists are wackos or worse. But when used in "single bullet theory," the word theory suddenly becomes respectable, the most likely explanation.

A theory as used in science is not just a hunch or wild guess. (Nor is it a delusion or deliberate lie, which in science is known as a "hoax.") A theory is the most likely explanation of something based on the evidence. And in the true scientific sense of "theory," the "single bullet theory" is not a theory at all, because it's physically impossible. It's about as far from a theory as you can get.

I don't know what we should call ourselves, though I guess "realists" is as good as anything in the sense of accepting reality. "Conspiracy realists" seems redundant, since any realist can see conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

Is there a word for people who simply use common sense?

From my battles on mainstream websites recently I have learned that Yes Ron There Is a Word for People Who Just Use Common Sense.

Wingnuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

Mr. Drago,

Thanks for pointing this out. (" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' )

I must have missed this Mack quote somewhere.

Do you still have it? Or the passage it's from which it is taken?

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

(Journalists, incidentally, are qualified to cover everything equally in depth, with or without expertise, using simple words the rest of us can understand. A journalist's writing can most easily be recognized by their ability to keep people informed throughout their work, such as noting in an article about the Department of Homeland Security that "the agency was formed in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, when two airliners flew into the World Trade Center buildings." Otherwise, how would we know when or why DHS came into existance, or what happened on September 11?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

The problem with historians vis-a-vis the JFK assassination is that, unlike us, they have no interest and/or do no research in it.

How else can you explain, for example, the distinguished historian Robert Dallek stating, in his biography of JFK, that JFK was shot by Oswald "in the back of the neck." That's a lie, and either Dallek knows it's a lie and is knowingly repeating it, or else he simply doesn't know the simple facts. In either case he does not deserve to be called a historian. His apparent ignorance of the subject he is writing about is appalling.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

Mr. Drago,

Thanks for pointing this out. (" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' )

I must have missed this Mack quote somewhere.

Do you still have it? Or the passage it's from which it is taken?

Miles

Miles,

It was from a very recent post by Mr. Kelly. I'm running late, but you won't have a problem finding it quickly.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

Myra,

Of course. But I'm concerned with countering the negative connotations inherent in the use of "conspiracy theorist" in general, and in particular when applied to those of us who research the JFK assassination.

Conspiracy is reality in this case.

The "theory" is no more.

Hence we confront the name-callers head on by succinctly expressing the truth whenever we describe ourselves as JFK "conspiracy realists."

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While most conspiracy theorists or conspiracy realists (or whatever term one chooses) agree that the government investigation was a massive failure, or even a hoax, they remain quite divided in their opinions about what really happened. In a microcosm, the Education Forum is an example of that fragmented reality. There does not and will never exist a unified conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's murder.

In a sense it has always been a problem that opponents of the official story have remained so divided on the major issues as well as the minor ones. People have a vastly different concept of which evidence is the most important when it comes to proving a conspiracy existed. This may be one of the main obstacles to justice in this case and why it has never been served.

Nowhere is the divergence and disparity of approaches more evident than in all the books that have been published on the likelihood of conspiracy and the true nature of the evidence. I suppose it could be argued that there is a sort of consensus or convergence on one thing; most notably there WAS a conspiracy. Beyond that, everyone has their own ideas about exactly what happened.

It does seem that many conspiracy believers are still looking for the smoking gun or the incontrovertible proof. Others believe that proof has long existed.

Many conspiracy researchers seem to be independent mavericks and free thinkers. Some of them might resist being labeled in such a manner that their beliefs were lumped in with those of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

(Journalists, incidentally, are qualified to cover everything equally in depth, with or without expertise, using simple words the rest of us can understand. A journalist's writing can most easily be recognized by their ability to keep people informed throughout their work, such as noting in an article about the Department of Homeland Security that "the agency was formed in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, when two airliners flew into the World Trade Center buildings." Otherwise, how would we know when or why DHS came into existance, or what happened on September 11?)

Duke, why would I care if some elite snob doesn't want me in their elite club? I, and many others here, spend hours every day studying history, real history not the lies in text books. I won't be intimidated out of accurately describing myself as a historian. And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us.

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!

The problem with historians vis-a-vis the JFK assassination is that, unlike us, they have no interest and/or do no research in it.

How else can you explain, for example, the distinguished historian Robert Dallek stating, in his biography of JFK, that JFK was shot by Oswald "in the back of the neck." That's a lie, and either Dallek knows it's a lie and is knowingly repeating it, or else he simply doesn't know the simple facts. In either case he does not deserve to be called a historian. His apparent ignorance of the subject he is writing about is appalling.

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

HISTORIANS.

Myra,

s

Of course. But I'm concerned with countering the negative connotations inherent in the use of "conspiracy theorist" in general, and in particular when applied to those of us who research the JFK assassination.

Conspiracy is reality in this case.

The "theory" is no more.

Hence we confront the name-callers head on by succinctly expressing the truth whenever we describe ourselves as JFK "conspiracy realists."

Charles

And Charles I'm a strong proponent of the George Lakoff strategy of reframing. Do not accept the enemy's frame. As Lakoff stresses, negating a frame only reinforces it.

For example, interviewer asks why "conspiracy theorists" don't move on. Best comeback is to ignore the phrase and say:

"As a historian I..." Because, if you respond: "Conspiracy theorists know that it's critical to understand what happened...,"

then the listener just hears: "Conspiracy theorists bla bla bla Ginger..."

Negating a frame evokes the frame.

You can NOT win by negating their frame.

You must REFRAME.

If you absolutely insist on letting the enemy frame the discourse and put words in your mouth then there are a couple of comebacks that may be effective:

-I understand what you're doing with "conspiracy realist," but it still uses that loaded word "conspiracy" which otherwise reasonable people recoil from. The propagandists have succeeded in sullying the word to the point were people are downright irrational about it. They seem to be more afraid of being called a "conspiracy theorist" than they are of being ruled by fascists. At least in this country.

-David Talbot has labeled RFK "the first conspiracy theorist." IMO he is aggressively trying to take back the term and I admire it. Of course I wouldn't try to speak for him, and would like to know his thoughts on this. In fact I asked in another thread but he didn't answer.

-Greg Palast often notes that conspirators love to dismiss "conspiracy theorists."

However, I strongly believe that you can NOT win by negating a frame.

Negating a frame evokes the frame.

Don't think of an elephant!

...

What are you thinking about?

...

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects.../simple_framing

(Historian.)

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."

-- William Kelly

How shall we know ourselves?

Conspiracy Realists

Agreed?

Charles

Mr. Drago,

Thanks for pointing this out. (" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' )

I must have missed this Mack quote somewhere.

Do you still have it? Or the passage it's from which it is taken?

Miles

Miles,

It was from a very recent post by Mr. Kelly. I'm running late, but you won't have a problem finding it quickly.

Charles

Hi Bill, I've been chuckling quietly for awhile as conspiracy supporters trip all over themselves praising David Talbot's book. Do they not know that his publisher is CBS? If not, why not? Is it OK to believe some CBS efforts but not others? Golly, life is difficult! :)Note the CBS disclaimer at the end of the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/07/earlyshow/leisure/books/main2766164.shtml?source=search_story

Gary Mack

P.S. Yes, Talbot's book is available in the Sixth Floor Museum's store (or will be - it's on order).

MY RESPONSE:

Hi Gary, Yea, I just don't understand those CBS folk - producing a documentary on JFK assassination, sending reporters and producers to Dallas, "interview" Tippit's good friend Carl Mather and then not using it, but listing his wife in the credits? What's with that?

And then Talbot's publisher Simon & Schuster (aka CBS?) sues the CIA to get Valarie Plame's book published?

I just don't understand those people either.

BK

I've never been called a 'conspiracy supporter' before. Is that some new kind of Jock strap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek.

John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case).

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...