CONSPIRACY REALISTS

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Myra- good sugestion. I have no problem following Peter Dale's example.

But it is worth noting that he is an academic in another field; he is or was in the English Department at UC Berkely.

It is definitely noteworthy that he is published by University of California Press, however. Perhaps if Scott tried publishing his books while

a history professor he might have more trouble?

My scepticism as to the possibilities of being at once a truth-buff and an employed academic, were recently reinforced when I read somewhere

that the head of the American Political Science Association was on the CIA asset in 1953.

Of course Political Science is the most overtly Ho-like of the academic disciplines, with economics running a close 2nd?

[Terry Mauro]

" ... 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.

****************************************************

"And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us."

YESSSSSS, Girlfriend!!!

Now, I've always looked at it from the view of say, a forensic investigative analysis.

How about Conspiracy Forensics Investigators, or Students of Conspiracy Forensics Investigations, or CFI's?

[Myra Bronstein]

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).

You've forced me to the dictionary Ron:

"Main Entry: his·to·ri·an

Pronunciation: hi-'stor-E-&n, -'stär-

Function: noun

1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis

2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sour...mp;va=historian

I know what you're saying though; Scott is an English prof. Valid point and I appreciate the info.

But I have no problem calling anyone on this forum ('cept the CIA propagandists) a "historian."

We're as devoted to real history as any group of people I've ever known.

And I refuse to use the frame that propagandists have wielded as a weapon so effectively for decades to discredit us.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

********************************************************

"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."

Wow, Michael. That is SO on the money!

[Charles Drago]

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.

But there IS concensus.

At least on the "how" question.

CONSPIRACY!

Yet again I submit that we would be well advised when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof, deflect all efforts to conflate "how" with "who and why," and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?

Charles

Edited June 3, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Terry Mauro]

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).

You've forced me to the dictionary Ron:

"Main Entry: his·to·ri·an

Pronunciation: hi-'stor-E-&n, -'stär-

Function: noun

1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis

2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sour...mp;va=historian

I know what you're saying though; Scott is an English prof. Valid point and I appreciate the info.

But I have no problem calling anyone on this forum ('cept the CIA propagandists) a "historian."

We're as devoted to real history as any group of people I've ever known.

And I refuse to use the frame that propagandists have wielded as a weapon so effectively for decades to discredit us.

*************************************************************

And, I'll up you one more with the words, "Theory," "Theorem," "Axiom," and "Aphorism."

From my Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary Copyright 1966:

theory (the'er-e, thir'e) n. pl, -ries

1. A plan or scheme existing in the mind only. n speculative or conjectural view of something. 2. An integrated group of the fundamental principles underlying a science or its practical applications: the atomic theory. 3. Abstract knowledge of any art as opposed to the practice of it. 4. A closely reasoned set of propositions, derived from and supported by established evidence and intended to serve as an explanation for a group of phenomena: the quantum theory. -Syn. See DOCTRINE, HYPOTHESIS. [ < LL < Gk. theoria view, speculation]

AND, how about, theorem?

theorem (the'or-rem, thir'em) n.

1. A proposition demonstrably true or acknowledged as such. 2. Math. a. A proposition setting forth something to be proved. b. A proposition that has been proved or assumed to be true. c. A rule or statement of relations formulated in symbols. [LL < Gk. thorema sight, theory < theoreein to look at ] - the-o-re-mat-ic (the'er-e-mat'ik), the'o-rem'ic (the'er-rem'ik) adj.

axiom (ak'se-am) n.

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth. 2. An established principle or rule. 3. Logic & Math. A self-evident proposition accepted as true without proof. [ < Gk. < axioein to think worthy ]

axiomatic (ak'se-e-mat-ik) adj.

1. Of, pertaining to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident. 2. Aphoristic. Also ax'i-o-mat'i-cal. - ax'i-o-mat'i-al-ly adv.

As in, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

aphorism (af'e-riz'em) n.

1. A brief statement of a truth or principle. 2. A proverb; maxim. [ < MF < Med.L < Gk. < apo- from + horizein to divide ] - aph'o-rist n. - aph-o-ris-tic (af'e-ris'tik) or - aph-o-ris'ti-cal adj. - aph'o-ris'ti-cal-ly adv.

AND, from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Copyright 1983:

theorem, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, statement in words or symbols that can be established by means of deductive logic; it differs from an AXIOM in that a proof is required for its acceptance. A lemma is a theorem that is demonstrated as an intermediate step in the proof of another, more basic theorem. A corollary is a theorem that follows as a direct consequence of another theorem or an axiom.

axiom, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, general statement accepted without proof as the basis for logically deducing other statements (THEOREMS). Examples of axioms used widely in mathematics are those related to equality (e.g., "If equals are added to equals, the sums are equal") and those related to operations (e.g., the ASSOCIATIVE LAW). A postulate, like an axiom, is a statement that is accepted without proof; it deals, however, with specific subject matter (e.g., properties of geometrical figures), not general statements.

So, maybe we should be called "theorem-ists, axiom-ists, or aphor-ists?"

It's up for grabs, but anything is better than "theorists."

[Terry Mauro]

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.

But there IS concensus.

At least on the "how" question.

CONSPIRACY!

Yet again I submit that we would be well advised when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof, deflect all efforts to conflate "how" with "who and why," and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?

Charles

*****************************************************

"But there IS concensus.

At least on the "how" question.

CONSPIRACY!"

Absolutely, Charles!

"...when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof,..."

Because, without that documentation in hand, our credibility is nil.

"...and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?"

Take back our republic, by force if need be. And, where's Charlie Black? What are we going to do with the perps, Charlie? STRING THEM UP BY THE YOU-KNOW-WHATS!!! That's what. If there are any of them still alive, that is.

But, all joking aside, if there was some way to hold the perps responsible, we'd probably have a better chance of indicting them for war crimes via egregious disregard for, and for continually and deliberately being in direct violation of The Accords set forth at The Geneva Convention following World War II. Aimed at and including, those Black-Ops committed by U.S.A. hired and employed mercenary S.O.F.'s, covert operators, assassins, and assorted government contracted corporations looking to make a windfall off the expected troop deployment, the general crap-stirrers and agitators, purposely and strategically stationed in SEA, including Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia, as well as in Central and South America, including Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Chile, the former Eastern European bloc consisting of and including Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, and what was left of the Czech Republic following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Middle East, including Egypt, Iraq and Iran, including Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, for the sole purpose of keeping a state of war continually festering in these foreign backwaters specifically in order to make billions of dollars to line the pockets of the corporate structure aligned and in collusion with their Anglo-American empirical business partners.

That's what, and that's why.

[Charles Drago]

Yes, Terry.

But ...

Some years ago at a Lancer conference, I brought forward, in the company of George Michael Evica, the notion of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for our shared inquiry, modeled after that which had been formed in South Africa.

My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed.

(Apologies to the Manicheans in the crowd, but I cannot, in good conscience, join you.)

I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth.

It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them.

And hate begets hate.

Charles

Edited June 3, 2007 by Charles Drago

[John Geraghty]

I've just finished my undergraduate degree in History and medieval Irish and Celtic studies, so I suppose that would officialy make me a historian.

As John Judge says, and I would tend to agree with him,

"You can call me a conspiracy theorist, if I can call you a coincidence theorist. I prefer to say I'm an alternate historian."

John

[Ron Ecker]

We could say that our work is all about reclaiming history. But that term has already been taken, ironically by a lone nutter. This further confirms the Orwellian world that we live in.

[Terry Mauro]

Yes, Terry.

But ...

Some years ago at a Lancer conference, I brought forward, in the company of George Michael Evica, the notion of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for our shared inquiry, modeled after that which had been formed in South Africa.

My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed.

(Apologies to the Manicheans in the crowd, but I cannot, in good conscience, join you.)

I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth.

It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them.

And hate begets hate.

Charles

**********************************************************

"My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed."

How can that possibly work in our favor, when the assassination itself, was to ensure a free ride on the backs of American taxpayers for the likes of such criminals as the Bush family, elitist wannabes such as the Reagans, the neocons who've managed to outsource our whole economy to The Third World, leaving our industrial base all but vacated and decaying in Detroit, Ohio, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and the Midwest. Corporate down-sizing of our healthcare system with the loss of jobs and no reasonable facsimile set in place to catch the rest of us who've been all but disenfranchized and left to fall through the cracks. This was all part and parcel of the royal scam in the form of a coup d'etat on 11-22-63 from which we've now been left to reap the grapes of wrath just so those of the fortunate 15 percentile may revel in the spoils of the war that's been allowed to be waged against the American Middle Class for the last 40 years. How can a system be expected to be cleansed when it continues to be run, and to a certain degree, guided by, the progeny of the very perps who called for the assassination, or sat idly by while watching it happen?

"I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth."

By the time they decide to come forward, they'll be on their deathbeds, and barely lucid enough to make any sense. Did you think Hunt was going to come clean at the eleventh hour? I didn't. The only thing he had in mind was to muddy the waters even further, advancing no one's cause but his own, and that of his collaborating cohorts.

"It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them."

I don't realistically see anything like disempowerment ever being realized by anyone who is even remotely cognizant of the deliberate mechanizations set in place both politically and socially as a result of the assassination. Nor, do I expect anyone born during, or after the event to be able to relate the present economical conditions facing this nation as being a direct result or culmination of the events of 11-22-63.

"And hate begets hate."

As does ignorance beget the same.

I suggest we make tracks for Cuba before the Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea hits the fan.

[Charles Drago]

Terry,

I'm in the middle of packing, so give me 12 hours or so and I'll respond with appropriate seriousness to your well-taken points.

Don't forget the aloe.

CD

[John Dolva]

Charles, I agree with everything you say in your post. I guess being a christian is an issue, but leaving that aside, I don't want to see the US rent asunder or people suffering there as they are in other places of the world. There has to be an end to the cycle of violence and the more attempts at reconciliation as opposed to response in kind the more likely the cycle of violence loses momentum.

I believe (hmmm... echoes, of MLK my very numero uno favourite american.) that the majority of americans are rational, breathe the same air, and love their children just like the rest of us.

Recently there have been a series of high profile cases convicting a few of the many Civil Rights activists murderers. The tragedy is that in each case behind or beside each of these persons are a much larger number who are not brought to justice.

Take Byron De La Beckwith for example. Sure he pulled the trigger, but the number of accomplices before and after the fact is staggering.

The Mississippi three, the same. The accomplices reach into the highest circles of the Mississippi governemnt at the time. There are clear document trails that indicate that the MSC were the ones who provided the details of where to find the M3's and then conspired to thwart the investigation and deny justice. This was endemic, involving coroners, the legal profession, Law enforcement, as well as members of the government and society in general, from lowly workers to wealthy persons.

IOW its a whole segment of society that should be on trial.

Seeing one of their members shackled in prison garb, they know full well what to expect if they reveal themselves. The death penalty itself is a great hindrance as well. These piecemeal convictions virtually assure that any records not yet revealed are burnt and mouths kept shut.

A worse consequence is that the new generations are kept in the dark about just how horrific the centuries of terror in the south really were. The southerners themselves, meanwhile suffered horrendously under some Union armies and during reconstruction. That must also be acknowledged. The procalamation of emancipation did not come until towrads the latter half of the Civil War and then at least a semblnce of Civil Rights, including desegregation of Unon Federal departments like the Army, Navy and Air Force, not until the 50's. And even then, in Vietnam, who was usually on point? The disproportionate deaths of blacks in Vietnam is well documented.

All they see is now one lone man taking the blame for something that happened long ago. A history forgotten is one bound to repeat sooner or later.

How do you put a whole segment of society on trial? Without wasting huge amounts of money and seeding further discord? There must be a give and take. The assassinations of the sixties, IMO, are all interlinked. For the perps in the US to undo the crimes of the past and the whole of society to move forward there must be an element of forgiveness where contrition is genuine.

Forgive, and definitely do not forget.

Edited June 4, 2007 by John Dolva

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Yes, Terry.

How can that possibly work in our favor, when the assassination itself, was to ensure a free ride on the backs of American taxpayers for the likes of such criminals as the Bush family, elitist wannabes such as the Reagans, the neocons who've managed to outsource our whole economy to The Third World, leaving our industrial base all but vacated and decaying in Detroit, Ohio, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and the Midwest. Corporate down-sizing of our healthcare system with the loss of jobs and no reasonable facsimile set in place to catch the rest of us who've been all but disenfranchized and left to fall through the cracks. This was all part and parcel of the royal scam in the form of a coup d'etat on 11-22-63 from which we've now been left to reap the grapes of wrath just so those of the fortunate 15 percentile may revel in the spoils of the war that's been allowed to be waged against the American Middle Class for the last 40 years. How can a system be expected to be cleansed when it continues to be run, and to a certain degree, guided by, the progeny of the very perps who called for the assassination, or sat idly by while watching it happen?

quote]

I shall leave instructions that when I shuffle of this Moral coil, the above, be carved onto my headstone as expressing better than I could ever hope to achive, my political, societal and economic beliefs. Terry, your'e my kinda Socialist. And for the record its called Class war.

[John Dolva]

True, but the process to it follows a series of events.

This is difficult for capitalists to understand.

The Russian Revolution was a process where 100's of groupings jostled for the publics ear. Over time, by word of mouth, Lenin became the person to listen to. Hundreds of thousands were drawn to his speeches and the rest fell by the wayside. Without microphones and speakers, his speeches were repeated in real time through the audience so all would get what he said.

The vanguard of a properly educated working class does not cause the revolution. The class war, when it comes, is a product of irreconcilable contradictions within the capitalist system. It's at this point that the vanguard, by having the answers, move to the front line. The period between then and now is a process of education and at this point in time it's an education born of experience that means using the assumed rights one has in the system as it is and coming up against the limitations. Rhetoric, no matter how correct in essence, unless accompanied with the relevant conditions fall on deaf ears.

A vanguard that rushes ahead of the populace is ultimately counterproductive, and, like the Weathermen, the Red Brigade and other extremist "infantile disorders of the left" merely allows the ruling class to isolate and eliminate the self appointed vanguard. The True Vanguard is appointed by the people when the time is ripe.

Edited June 4, 2007 by John Dolva