Embarrassing questions

[Steve Duffy]

Also, and I ask this in all sincerity, do you accept the findings of the HSCA, that there was a "probable" conspiracy in the Death of John Kennedy?

And, speaking of thinking critically, does that not sound like lawyer speak to cover for any further information that may turn up in the future. And if you do accept their findings, how, then, do you explain the failure of the Justice Department to follow up on such an important matter?

[Dawn Meredith]

Reading your posts is a total waste of time

Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now?

Ron: Perfect solution. If everyone just ignored these people they really WOULD go away. Then true information sharing, debate, and intelligent discourse would occur. Forums would become places of learning for future generations. Sigh....

Dawn

[John Simkin]

Also, and I ask this in all sincerity, do you accept the findings of the HSCA, that there was a "probable" conspiracy in the Death of John Kennedy?

And, speaking of thinking critically, does that not sound like lawyer speak to cover for any further information that may turn up in the future. And if you do accept their findings, how, then, do you explain the failure of the Justice Department to follow up on such an important matter?

I have also asked him this question on another thread. He failed to answer it and I suppose he will do the same this time. If François Carlier is so determined to accept the view of the status quo, he should be aware that the last time the US government looked at the assassination of JFK, they came to the conclusion that the Warren Commission "failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President." The report was also highly critical of the Secret Service: "The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper."

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." It added that "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm

Why are you so keen to accept the conclusion of the Warren Commission when all the evidence suggests that it made a total mess of its attempts to cover-up the assassination of JFK?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

François Carlier's mind set appears to be indistinguishable from that of Chip Berlet. My arguments about him apply to François.

Supporting links may be found at the original place of publication: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6047.shtml

A deluxe version (with graphics) may be found here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/conspiracies-and-conspiracism.html

Conspiracies and conspiracism

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jun 28, 2010, 00:28

MADISON, Wisc. -- A new study from Political Research Associates. entitled Toxic To Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating, by Chip Berlet now proclaims that conspiracy theories are “toxic to democracy” because they share some portion of moral responsibility for irresponsible acts, such as the shooting of the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, which some have associated with Rush Limbaugh and other pro-life zealots. By adopting a sweeping stance that does not discriminate between different cases on the basis of logic and evidence, Berlet discredits himself. Since conspiracies only require collaboration between two or more individuals in illegal acts, they are as American as apple pie.

Perhaps Berlet didn’t get the memo, but according to the government, the US was attacked on 9/11 by 19 Islamic fundamentalists who used box cutters to hijack four airplanes, outfox the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and commit multiple atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. When I published a critique of the “official account,” which suggests the facts contradict it, I used the title, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, in the knowledge that either way a conspiracy was involved -- either one told by the government using THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, or something far more sinister, which involved key members of the Bush administration with a little help from their friends. (See, e.g., “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and the PowerPoint presentation, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?,” which is archived at 911scholars.org.)

According to Berlet, belief in a conspiracy turns out to be the manifestation of a “belief system” that violates the principles of logic. Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, however, the violations of logic seem to be committed by the author. Berlet commits many fallacies in the course of his study, including some stunning, easily disprovable generalizations about reasoning:

“Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic. These theories operate from a pre-existing premise of a conspiracy based upon careless collection of facts and flawed assumptions. What constitutes ‘proof’ for a conspiracist is often more accurately described as circumstance, rumor, and hearsay; and the allegations often use the tools of fear -- dualism, demonization, scapegoating, and aggressively apocalyptic stories -- which all too often are commandeered by demagogues.” (Toxic to Democracy)

No one would deny that a certain proportion of the American public may be vulnerable to “conspiracism” in this sense, which represents the modus operandi of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing zealots, who find conspiracies to be a ubiquitous part of public life, from left-wing efforts to spend the country into oblivion to encouraging illegal immigrants to flow into the country unabated to questioning whether Barack Obama has the qualification for office of being “native born.” These are the kinds of “conspiracy theories” that are dime a dozen, which find gullible followers across the country by the bushel basket.

But so what? If conspiracy theories like these are supposed to be “toxic to democracy,” then democracy needs to be made of sterner stuff. Circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, after all, tend to be the starting point for more serious studies of specific events. The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a case in point. Who has not heard swirling rumors about Halliburton having cut corners, the BP practice of putting profits before safety, and the further catastrophes that await those who reside along the coast of the states that are most directly affected? Puzzlement over phenomena that do not readily fit into our background knowledge and preliminary understanding is the point of departure for scientific investigations that may better reveal the truth.

Suppose we were prohibited from speculation and rumor in relation to the events that have made the most difference to American history in recent time? The most important aspect of reasoning is comparisons between different theories to measure which best explains the data. Indeed, Jesse Ventura’s AMERICAN CONSPIRACES advances no less that 14 illustrations of the collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about illegal ends, from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (where four co-conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the very same time), to the big-money conspiracy to overthrow the government in 1934 on to Watergate, the Jonestown Massacre, the Iran-scam that gave the presidency to Ronald Reagan, drug-dealing by the CIA, and many more -- a list that can be readily expanded by the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X (see, for example, "JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t").

Berlet claims (what he calls) conspiracism “must be confronted as a flawed analytical model, rather than a legitimate mode of criticism of inequitable systems, structures, and institutions of power.” He claims it suffers from four debilitating features as “metaframes” of the model:

* dualism, according to which the world is -- presumably simplistically -- divided into the forces of good and the forces of evil;

* scapegoating, according to which an individual or group of people is wrongly stereotyped with negative characteristics;

* demonization, according to which an individual or a group is taken to be the personification of evil; and,

* apocalyptic aggression, which occurs when scapegoats are targeted as enemies of the “common good” and may be subjected to violence.

What is fascinating about these categories is how well they fit many of the government’s own campaigns to convince the American people to support an unpopular course of action. After 9/11, for example, the world was divided into the forces of good (the Americans) and those of evil (the Mulsims). Members of the Muslim community were said to be fanatical and violent, contrary to the principles of the Koran. Nineteen alleged hijackers and al Qaeda were scapegoated as responsible for those atrocities. And wars of aggression would be launched against Iraq and Afghanistan, which continue to this day.

Berlet tells us that what “conspiracy theorists lack is the desire or ability to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative research.” We can all remember being told Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but eventually even George W. Bush acknowledged that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We were told that Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda, but investigations by the Senate and the Pentagon showed that that was not the case. And when Ed Haas of “The Muckraker Report” questioned Tex Tomb of the FBI about why 9/11 received no mention on a “wanted poster” for Osama bid Laden, he was told the reason was the FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. But if Saddam was not responsible and if Osama was not responsible, then who was responsible for 9/11?

Indeed, according to THE 9/11 COMMISSION, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The number from Iraq was zero. So why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? That looks like a stunning illustration of the failure to follow basic rules of logic or investigative research. As Ron Suskind, THE PRICE OF LOYALTY, reported, George W. Bush’s first secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, was astonished that war with Iraq was discussed at the first meeting of the cabinet, nearly nine months before the events of 9/11. Which means 9/11 was used as a fabricated rationale to support a predetermined conclusion, which appears to have been a policy that was adopted by Bush and Cheney before their formal inauguration.

While Berlet insists that “conspiracism” fails to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative journalism, he should have explained that rumor and conjecture represent the second stage of scientific modes of reasoning, where it is crucial to elaborate all possible alternative explanations to insure that the true hypothesis is not excluded from scratch. Thus, the first stages of puzzlement and of speculation are followed by those of adaptation (of hypothesis to evidence, using likelihood measures of evidential support) and of explanation (when the evidence has “settled down” and the best supported hypothesis is entitled to acceptance in the tentative and fallible fashion distinctive of science (see “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories: 9/11 and JFK”).

The essence of Berlet’s book, however, is that he believes conspiracy theories come out of psychological needs of prejudiced people, which makes them INTERNAL FANTASIES. He is thereby throwing the crime baby out with the conspiracy bath water. Conspiracies really do happen in the EXTERNAL WORLD. They are not merely internal figments of the imagination. It is true that some people embrace conspiracy theories and reveal themselves by the inability to improve or adjust their views in light of new evidence or new hypotheses. If they are scapegoating, then the internal origin of their conspiracy need is manifest. However, conspiracy crimes are commonplace and external to us. When they are the subjects of objective investigations, those who study them are governed by logic and evidence, which are basic to rationality.

Ultimately, Berlet has defined a belief system called “conspiracism” that has only tenuous connections with conspiracies. While some gullible persons may satisfy its constraints, there are vastly more conspiracies than there are examples of conspiracism. Ask what Shakespeare would have had to write about if not for plots against the kings and queens of England. How many victims of conspiracies have died in the 20th century alone? In his brilliant study, “The Silence of the Historians,” for example, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., lists the names of more than two dozen prominent political figures -- from Franz Ferdinand and Czar Nicholas II to Salvadore Allende and Fidel Castro -- who were targeted for assassination by multiple conspirators on a single page of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (page 402).

The ultimate failure of Berlet’s study is that it succumbs to the kind of simplistic thinking that he condemns. The world is divided into forces of good (the rational thinkers) and evil (the conspiracy theorists). The evil conspiracy theorists are stereotyped as trading in circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, while the rational thinkers follow the rules of logic and investigative journalism. Their careless collections of facts and flawed assumptions are often commandeered by demagogues. And of course they can be used to incite unjustified violence against innocent parties. But this presumes knowledge of which claims are true and which assumptions are flawed. Simplistic thinking of Berlet’s kind does not advance understanding. As Michael Moore said, when asked if he was into conspiracy theories, ”Only those that are true.” Each case must be evaluated on its merits using logic and evidence.

Thanks to Mike Sparks for inviting my attention to Berlet’s study and more.

James H. Fetzer is the editor of assassinationscience.com and co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. His academic web site is found at www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer

There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :

A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"

Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.

That's very sad.

But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.

Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.

Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.

And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!

It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.

That's bad !

And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.

When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.

Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?

I can think of an analogy.

Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.

A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.

That's a good image.

Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.

Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.

Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.

Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !

But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….

(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)

For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?

Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.

That's very sad !

/F.C./

[David Von Pein]

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."

And, as usual, whenever CTers point out this flawed HSCA conclusion, those CTers always fail to note that the Dictabelt evidence from which the HSCA's "4th shot" sprung is evidence that has been totally discredited--to the point that it's simply astounding to find ANY person in the world (who knows anything about the JFK case) who is still propping up the Dictabelt "4th shot" garbage here in 2010.

Debunking The HSCA's Acoustics Evidence

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Bollocks back @ Hay.

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

[David Von Pein]

Martin Hay is a magician (not to mention the fact he's seeing things). He sees a motorcycle near the Elm & Houston corner in the picture below. Amazing:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDO4NFFBZAI/AAAAAAAAEwM/NHW6JMtBHqA/s400/Hughes+Film.bmp

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Dr. Thomas must have moved the goal posts again, eh Martin? Suddenly, a motorcycle DOESN'T need to be at the corner of Elm & Houston anymore in order for the acoustics/Dictabelt evidence to be valid. Is that correct?

It was absolutely MANDATORY for a DPD cycle to be located at that corner at the time of the first gunshot when the HSCA's acoustics people investigated the case in 1978. But now that rule is null & void?

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Apparently there's an invisible motorcycle on Houston Street here (which is approx. 2 to 3 seconds before Oswald fired his first shot):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDO4NFFBZAI/AAAAAAAAEwM/NHW6JMtBHqA/s400/Hughes+Film.bmp

And, incredibly, there are CTers who apparently still think that it's H.B. McLain's cycle that had the stuck-open microphone.

And yet it's the LNers who the conspiracy mongers accuse of being guilty of outmoded thinking?

What a joke.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Acoustic ashmoustic. If the HSCA had not lied and suppressed evidence, it would have been obliged to conclude conspiracy without any bothersome Dictabelt. (I guess the HSCA couldn't just destroy the Dictabelt, like the FBI destroyed Oswald's note, or like the DOD destroyed its file on Oswald, etc., and get away with it.) The gaping hole in the back of JFK's head (seen and attested to by some two dozen people in Dallas and at Bethesda) was proof of a second gunman. So the HSCA simply buried its own witness statements about such a wound. Why is that?

[Dean Hagerman]

Acoustic ashmoustic.

[François Carlier]

François Carlier's mind set appears to be indistinguishable from that of Chip Berlet. My arguments about him apply to François.

Supporting links may be found at the original place of publication: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6047.shtml

A deluxe version (with graphics) may be found here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/conspiracies-and-conspiracism.html

Conspiracies and conspiracism

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jun 28, 2010, 00:28

MADISON, Wisc. -- A new study from Political Research Associates. entitled Toxic To Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating, by Chip Berlet now proclaims that conspiracy theories are “toxic to democracy” because they share some portion of moral responsibility for irresponsible acts, such as the shooting of the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, which some have associated with Rush Limbaugh and other pro-life zealots. By adopting a sweeping stance that does not discriminate between different cases on the basis of logic and evidence, Berlet discredits himself. Since conspiracies only require collaboration between two or more individuals in illegal acts, they are as American as apple pie.

Perhaps Berlet didn’t get the memo, but according to the government, the US was attacked on 9/11 by 19 Islamic fundamentalists who used box cutters to hijack four airplanes, outfox the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and commit multiple atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. When I published a critique of the “official account,” which suggests the facts contradict it, I used the title, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, in the knowledge that either way a conspiracy was involved -- either one told by the government using THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, or something far more sinister, which involved key members of the Bush administration with a little help from their friends. (See, e.g., “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and the PowerPoint presentation, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?,” which is archived at 911scholars.org.)

According to Berlet, belief in a conspiracy turns out to be the manifestation of a “belief system” that violates the principles of logic. Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, however, the violations of logic seem to be committed by the author. Berlet commits many fallacies in the course of his study, including some stunning, easily disprovable generalizations about reasoning:

“Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic. These theories operate from a pre-existing premise of a conspiracy based upon careless collection of facts and flawed assumptions. What constitutes ‘proof’ for a conspiracist is often more accurately described as circumstance, rumor, and hearsay; and the allegations often use the tools of fear -- dualism, demonization, scapegoating, and aggressively apocalyptic stories -- which all too often are commandeered by demagogues.” (Toxic to Democracy)

No one would deny that a certain proportion of the American public may be vulnerable to “conspiracism” in this sense, which represents the modus operandi of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing zealots, who find conspiracies to be a ubiquitous part of public life, from left-wing efforts to spend the country into oblivion to encouraging illegal immigrants to flow into the country unabated to questioning whether Barack Obama has the qualification for office of being “native born.” These are the kinds of “conspiracy theories” that are dime a dozen, which find gullible followers across the country by the bushel basket.

But so what? If conspiracy theories like these are supposed to be “toxic to democracy,” then democracy needs to be made of sterner stuff. Circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, after all, tend to be the starting point for more serious studies of specific events. The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a case in point. Who has not heard swirling rumors about Halliburton having cut corners, the BP practice of putting profits before safety, and the further catastrophes that await those who reside along the coast of the states that are most directly affected? Puzzlement over phenomena that do not readily fit into our background knowledge and preliminary understanding is the point of departure for scientific investigations that may better reveal the truth.

Suppose we were prohibited from speculation and rumor in relation to the events that have made the most difference to American history in recent time? The most important aspect of reasoning is comparisons between different theories to measure which best explains the data. Indeed, Jesse Ventura’s AMERICAN CONSPIRACES advances no less that 14 illustrations of the collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about illegal ends, from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (where four co-conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the very same time), to the big-money conspiracy to overthrow the government in 1934 on to Watergate, the Jonestown Massacre, the Iran-scam that gave the presidency to Ronald Reagan, drug-dealing by the CIA, and many more -- a list that can be readily expanded by the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X (see, for example, "JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t").

Berlet claims (what he calls) conspiracism “must be confronted as a flawed analytical model, rather than a legitimate mode of criticism of inequitable systems, structures, and institutions of power.” He claims it suffers from four debilitating features as “metaframes” of the model:

* dualism, according to which the world is -- presumably simplistically -- divided into the forces of good and the forces of evil;

* scapegoating, according to which an individual or group of people is wrongly stereotyped with negative characteristics;

* demonization, according to which an individual or a group is taken to be the personification of evil; and,

* apocalyptic aggression, which occurs when scapegoats are targeted as enemies of the “common good” and may be subjected to violence.

What is fascinating about these categories is how well they fit many of the government’s own campaigns to convince the American people to support an unpopular course of action. After 9/11, for example, the world was divided into the forces of good (the Americans) and those of evil (the Mulsims). Members of the Muslim community were said to be fanatical and violent, contrary to the principles of the Koran. Nineteen alleged hijackers and al Qaeda were scapegoated as responsible for those atrocities. And wars of aggression would be launched against Iraq and Afghanistan, which continue to this day.

Berlet tells us that what “conspiracy theorists lack is the desire or ability to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative research.” We can all remember being told Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but eventually even George W. Bush acknowledged that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We were told that Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda, but investigations by the Senate and the Pentagon showed that that was not the case. And when Ed Haas of “The Muckraker Report” questioned Tex Tomb of the FBI about why 9/11 received no mention on a “wanted poster” for Osama bid Laden, he was told the reason was the FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. But if Saddam was not responsible and if Osama was not responsible, then who was responsible for 9/11?

Indeed, according to THE 9/11 COMMISSION, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The number from Iraq was zero. So why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? That looks like a stunning illustration of the failure to follow basic rules of logic or investigative research. As Ron Suskind, THE PRICE OF LOYALTY, reported, George W. Bush’s first secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, was astonished that war with Iraq was discussed at the first meeting of the cabinet, nearly nine months before the events of 9/11. Which means 9/11 was used as a fabricated rationale to support a predetermined conclusion, which appears to have been a policy that was adopted by Bush and Cheney before their formal inauguration.

While Berlet insists that “conspiracism” fails to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative journalism, he should have explained that rumor and conjecture represent the second stage of scientific modes of reasoning, where it is crucial to elaborate all possible alternative explanations to insure that the true hypothesis is not excluded from scratch. Thus, the first stages of puzzlement and of speculation are followed by those of adaptation (of hypothesis to evidence, using likelihood measures of evidential support) and of explanation (when the evidence has “settled down” and the best supported hypothesis is entitled to acceptance in the tentative and fallible fashion distinctive of science (see “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories: 9/11 and JFK”).

The essence of Berlet’s book, however, is that he believes conspiracy theories come out of psychological needs of prejudiced people, which makes them INTERNAL FANTASIES. He is thereby throwing the crime baby out with the conspiracy bath water. Conspiracies really do happen in the EXTERNAL WORLD. They are not merely internal figments of the imagination. It is true that some people embrace conspiracy theories and reveal themselves by the inability to improve or adjust their views in light of new evidence or new hypotheses. If they are scapegoating, then the internal origin of their conspiracy need is manifest. However, conspiracy crimes are commonplace and external to us. When they are the subjects of objective investigations, those who study them are governed by logic and evidence, which are basic to rationality.

Ultimately, Berlet has defined a belief system called “conspiracism” that has only tenuous connections with conspiracies. While some gullible persons may satisfy its constraints, there are vastly more conspiracies than there are examples of conspiracism. Ask what Shakespeare would have had to write about if not for plots against the kings and queens of England. How many victims of conspiracies have died in the 20th century alone? In his brilliant study, “The Silence of the Historians,” for example, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., lists the names of more than two dozen prominent political figures -- from Franz Ferdinand and Czar Nicholas II to Salvadore Allende and Fidel Castro -- who were targeted for assassination by multiple conspirators on a single page of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (page 402).

The ultimate failure of Berlet’s study is that it succumbs to the kind of simplistic thinking that he condemns. The world is divided into forces of good (the rational thinkers) and evil (the conspiracy theorists). The evil conspiracy theorists are stereotyped as trading in circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, while the rational thinkers follow the rules of logic and investigative journalism. Their careless collections of facts and flawed assumptions are often commandeered by demagogues. And of course they can be used to incite unjustified violence against innocent parties. But this presumes knowledge of which claims are true and which assumptions are flawed. Simplistic thinking of Berlet’s kind does not advance understanding. As Michael Moore said, when asked if he was into conspiracy theories, ”Only those that are true.” Each case must be evaluated on its merits using logic and evidence.

Thanks to Mike Sparks for inviting my attention to Berlet’s study and more.

James H. Fetzer is the editor of assassinationscience.com and co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. His academic web site is found at www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer

There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :

A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"

Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.

That's very sad.

But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.

Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.

Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.

And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!

It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.

That's bad !

And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.

When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.

Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?

I can think of an analogy.

Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.

A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.

That's a good image.

Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.

Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.

Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.

Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !

But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….

(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)

For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?

Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.

That's very sad !

/F.C./

Mister Fetzer,

Good evening.

I see you have read my post and copied/pasted an article of yours.

That's fine by me.

But why didn't you try to ANSWER my questions instead ?

Is it because, as the title of this thread says, they are "embarrassing" to conspiracy theorists ?

Once again, I am asking you :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

Surely you will acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with my asking those interesting questions.

I assure you I would love to know your answers.

/F.C./

[David Von Pein]

To Jim DiEugenio (re: Myers):

OF COURSE I prop up Dale Myers' excellent computer work! I have for years. And will continue to do so.

You actually think that a critique by an ANYBODY-BUT-OSWALD conspiracy monger like yourself is going to debunk Dale Myers' TEN-PLUS YEARS of work on the JFK case?!

Take a real pill, Jim.

Myers' animation work was called "excellent" by a group of independent forensic animation experts (at Z-Axis Corp.). See link below:

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm#zaxis

But even without Myers' top-notch work, any reasonable 3-year-old can easily determine that the SBT is true. It couldn't be more obvious, and Vince Bugliosi is 100% correct when he said that the SBT is so obvious that "a child could author it".

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[Ron Ecker]

I've been here awhile, and this is the worst thread I can remember seeing on this forum. This is the pits.

[David Von Pein]

What is obvious of course is that someone switched the bullet. That is why the FBI called Tomlinson that night and told him to shut up.

Only the most gullible person imaginable could actually believe the FBI called Tomlinson and told him

to "shut up".

James "Anybody But Oswald" DiEugenio IS that gullible conspiracy theorist.

Given Tomlinson's sudden miraculous about-face re: the stretchers, don't you think that Darrell was probably laying it on a little thick about the "shut up" business? (Either that, or the CT author who wrote that nonsense was adding the usual 8 inches of CT icing to the cake.)

No way the FBI used those words when (and if) they ever talked to Darrell C. Tomlinson on 11/22.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein