Jump to content
The Education Forum

Debilitating Morass of Conspiracy Mindset


Recommended Posts

Do you feel yourself debilitated?

From Patricia Lambert's review of Mel Ayton's new book on the RFK assassination:

So those who despair of the country ever freeing itself from the debilitating morass of the conspiracy mindset should take heart. It is books like this splendid one from Mel Ayton that will hasten the day.

You can read the entire review here:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/40733.html

By the way, what a leap of logic Lambert demonstrates with that statement. Even if Sirhan Sirhan was a lone nut, that does not mean LHO was a lone nut, or vice versa. Even if Ayton could demonstrate beyond anyone's doubt that Sirhan acted alone, what possible relevance does that have to the JFK case, or the Martin Luther King, Jr. case, for that matter? Each case must rise and fall on its own merits.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Tim, Mel demonstrates very little, apart from a Posnerian ability to promote the facts that support his case, and ignore, downplay or distort those he finds uncomfortable. Now, I'm so debilitated after that I must go lay down in a darkened room and sip weak tea until I am fully restored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Yes, Patricia was correct about the debilitating effects of having to think about Ayton, Bugliosi and company! Take it easy, Stephen, your strength will return!

Well hopefully, I dont wish to spend the rest of my life like a Victorian Lady with a fit of the vapours.

This "conspiracy mindset" nonsence is, of course, a useful way to pidgeonhole any serious researchers. By implying that if you believe that JFK and his Brother were assassinated as part of a wider political conspiracy, you must also believe in faked moon landings, missiles hitting the pentagon and all things Illuminatti, we are being branded by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Patricia was correct about the debilitating effects of having to think about Ayton, Bugliosi and company! Take it easy, Stephen, your strength will return!

Well hopefully, I dont wish to spend the rest of my life like a Victorian Lady with a fit of the vapours.

This "conspiracy mindset" nonsence is, of course, a useful way to pidgeonhole any serious researchers. By implying that if you believe that JFK and his Brother were assassinated as part of a wider political conspiracy, you must also believe in faked moon landings, missiles hitting the pentagon and all things Illuminatti, we are being branded by association.

I do find it interesting that so many who look into the JFK case and decide there was no conspiracy feel the need to look at the MLK case and RFK cases as well, and most always decide there was no conspiracy behind these killings. Conversely, many here would agree that it's possible Sirhan or Ray acted alone, or as part of a small conspiracy. Which begs the question: are we as guilty of being "conspiracy-minded" as they are of being "anti-conspiracy minded?" I suspect their predisposition against conspiracy is stronger than our predisposition towards conspiracy.

There are, of course, a few exceptions to the general rule that someone favoring no conspiracy in JFK will see no conspiracy elsewhere.. Back in the 70's Bugliosi received a lot of attention for suspecting that Sirhan didn't act alone. (Has he ever disavowed these suspicions?) Far stranger, Gus Russo, who thinks Oswald killed Kennedy for Castro, and ignores Jack Ruby, proposed that Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak was assassinated by the Chicago mob, and that his killer Zangara was a paid hit man only pretending to be a lone nut. Even more bizarre, Russo holds that the orchestrator of this charade was Dave Yaras, Jack Ruby's lifelong friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider it a war between Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nuts, as much as a battle between those seeking the truth and complete story who keep an open mind and work with the goal of solving the case(s) to a legal and moral certainty, (vs) and those with an agenda - and closed mind - whether LN or CTs.

Some CTs, like G. Robert Blakey, Dan Moldea and those who say it will always be a mystery and we will never know the truth are worse and more dangerous than LNs, who we know merely attribute a false psycho motive to their assassin.

Besides CT and LNs, there is a third, and growing body of independent researchers without an agenda other than the truth, who are beginning to make a difference despite the opposition from both other camps.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider it a war between Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nuts, as much as a battle between those seeking the truth and complete story who keep an open mind and work with the goal of solving the case(s) to a legal and moral certainty, (vs) and those with an agenda - and closed mind - whether LN or CTs.

Some CTs, like G. Robert Blakey, Dan Moldea and those who say it will also be a mystery and we will never know the truth are worse and more dangerous than CTs, who we know merely attribute a false psycho motive to their assassin.

Besides CT and LNs, there is a third, and growing body of independent researchers without an agenda other than the truth, who are beginning to make a difference despite the opposition from both other camps.

BK

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

"Some CTs, like G. Robert Blakey, Dan Moldea and those who say it will also be a mystery and we will never know the truth are worse and more dangerous than CTs, who we know merely attribute a false psycho motive to their assassin."

Worse and more dangerous for getting away with putting Johannides on the HSCA. He can burn in hell for that supposed "oversight."

And, yes I will whip that dead horse into eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point Pat...in his Manson book, Bubliosi goes on at some length to describe

a situation in which LAPD was really not being very aggressive in their investigation,

letting leads lie, not doing comprehensive background checks, etc.

He relates calling one of the teams and going though a whole list of things they should

have checked...and getting a response that they are only cops and they check what

they are told to.

His implication is that its the DA / prosecutor who is going to make it happen, in that

case he had the kids and wanted Manson so he kept pushing.

One has to ask what would have happened if the prosecutor had been satisfied with

just the kids....would Manson have gone free....and Bugliosi points out several of the

crowd was never charged and even went on to perform other murders, some never

seriously investigated.

So....if the Sirhan prosecutor was satisfied with just Sirhan and the Ray prosecutor with

just Ray....who's going to push to develop a conspiracy, given Bugliosi's assessment of

the Manson investigation...probably nobody.

-- I'm still not convinced our "justice" system can find a conspiracy unless a very unusual

DA is at the helm....hmmm....which would suggest Bugliosi should relate to Garrison rather

than trash him....yeah, right...

-- Larry

Yes, Patricia was correct about the debilitating effects of having to think about Ayton, Bugliosi and company! Take it easy, Stephen, your strength will return!

Well hopefully, I dont wish to spend the rest of my life like a Victorian Lady with a fit of the vapours.

This "conspiracy mindset" nonsence is, of course, a useful way to pidgeonhole any serious researchers. By implying that if you believe that JFK and his Brother were assassinated as part of a wider political conspiracy, you must also believe in faked moon landings, missiles hitting the pentagon and all things Illuminatti, we are being branded by association.

I do find it interesting that so many who look into the JFK case and decide there was no conspiracy feel the need to look at the MLK case and RFK cases as well, and most always decide there was no conspiracy behind these killings. Conversely, many here would agree that it's possible Sirhan or Ray acted alone, or as part of a small conspiracy. Which begs the question: are we as guilty of being "conspiracy-minded" as they are of being "anti-conspiracy minded?" I suspect their predisposition against conspiracy is stronger than our predisposition towards conspiracy.

There are, of course, a few exceptions to the general rule that someone favoring no conspiracy in JFK will see no conspiracy elsewhere.. Back in the 70's Bugliosi received a lot of attention for suspecting that Sirhan didn't act alone. (Has he ever disavowed these suspicions?) Far stranger, Gus Russo, who thinks Oswald killed Kennedy for Castro, and ignores Jack Ruby, proposed that Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak was assassinated by the Chicago mob, and that his killer Zangara was a paid hit man only pretending to be a lone nut. Even more bizarre, Russo holds that the orchestrator of this charade was Dave Yaras, Jack Ruby's lifelong friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point Pat...in his Manson book, Bubliosi goes on at some length to describe

a situation in which LAPD was really not being very aggressive in their investigation,

letting leads lie, not doing comprehensive background checks, etc.

He relates calling one of the teams and going though a whole list of things they should

have checked...and getting a response that they are only cops and they check what

they are told to.

His implication is that its the DA / prosecutor who is going to make it happen, in that

case he had the kids and wanted Manson so he kept pushing.

One has to ask what would have happened if the prosecutor had been satisfied with

just the kids....would Manson have gone free....

Highly unlikely given Susan Atkins sensational LA Times piece

of December 14, 1969.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vIrB5r5Bu...CiogHpZ5p4ng67Q

Atkins' tale appeared 8 days after the Hells Angels rioted at Altamont during

the infamous Rolling Stones concert tragedy, and many "establishment types"

were eager to inventory "counter-culture" bogeymen at the end of the 60's.

Bugliosi turned Atkins' version of the murders into the prosecutors brief on Manson.

imo, Atkins was the master-mind of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Debilitating Morass cant has something in common with the psychiatric hospitals in which dissidents were placed in the USSR: both are attempts to recast political issues in normative psychological terms. Most would agree that the problem of Soviet tyranny was socially constructed and not the product of individual psychological problems. It could have been helped by

a) some sort of political checks and balances

:blink: a free press.

I think the best cure for Tim's "Debilitating Morass" here in the US would be the introduction of

a) some sort of political checks and balances

B) a free press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Terry, Terry, it was not Professor Blakey who assigned Joannides to be the CIA liason(or one of them) to the HSCA. I know from his statements that Blakey now regrets not taking seriously his staff's complaints about Joannides.

Why do you think Blakey even knew Joannides before the CIA assigned him to be the (a?) liason officer with the HSCA?

Let's hope Morley et al win their appeal re the Joannides documents.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen wrote:

This "conspiracy mindset" nonsence is, of course, a useful way to pidgeonhole any serious researchers. By implying that if you believe that JFK and his Brother were assassinated as part of a wider political conspiracy, you must also believe in faked moon landings, missiles hitting the pentagon and all things Illuminatti, we are being branded by association. " [Emphasis supplied.]

But, Stephen, is it our own fault for not disassociating the serious researchers from those who propound such far-out theories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen wrote:

This "conspiracy mindset" nonsence is, of course, a useful way to pidgeonhole any serious researchers. By implying that if you believe that JFK and his Brother were assassinated as part of a wider political conspiracy, you must also believe in faked moon landings, missiles hitting the pentagon and all things Illuminatti, we are being branded by association. " [Emphasis supplied.]

But, Stephen, is it our own fault for not disassociating the serious researchers from those who propound such far-out theories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider it a war between Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nuts, as much as a battle between those seeking the truth and complete story who keep an open mind and work with the goal of solving the case(s) to a legal and moral certainty, (vs) and those with an agenda - and closed mind - whether LN or CTs.

Some CTs, like G. Robert Blakey, Dan Moldea and those who say it will always be a mystery and we will never know the truth are worse and more dangerous than LNs, who we know merely attribute a false psycho motive to their assassin.

Besides CT and LNs, there is a third, and growing body of independent researchers without an agenda other than the truth, who are beginning to make a difference despite the opposition from both other camps.

BK

there is a third, and growing body of independent researchers without an agenda other than the truth, who are beginning to make a difference despite the opposition from both other camps.

Exactly where does one Enlist in this fact finding group?

Certainly not here! Certainly not on JFK Lancer!, and certainly not on the McAdams funny paper either.

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...