Jump to content
The Education Forum

CONSPIRACY THEORY by Paul Craig Roberts


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.

You are quite right but YOU were the person who triggered the derail (post #4) so your complaint is like the Peid Piper complaining that all the kids had left town, 'the boy' getting upset the wolf ate the sheep or Chicken Little wondering why the other animals were hysterical. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

It is fascinating to note the "censorship" by disassociation taking place even on this forum. The 9/11 topic not only intersects the JFK topic, indeed it runs parallel to it!

The same forces that control the dissemination of information about the JFK assassination by suppression of it are responsible for the suppression of opposing views being reported by the main stream media regarding 9/11.

No matter what side of this fence you find yourself, it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" -- poppy-cock!

Where were you Tom Scully when Lifton started an ill advised Fetzer bashing in the JFK forum because of Fetzer's work on 9/11???

Where? Why was Fetzer's response moved to a different thread, but Lifton's entire thread remains in place--OFF TOPIC?

I have had enough of this.

Greg, I saw a compelling reason to move this thread out of JFK Debate, for the reason I posted. I could not justify moving Lifton's entire thread out of JFK Debate. Sorry, I just don't see grounds for doing that, and I don't see any contradiction moving this thread, but not moving the entire Lifton thread.

Moved thread titled, "CONSPIRACY THEORY by Paul Craig Roberts

Redefining the concept to equal irrational beliefs"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17857 to the forum titled, "Political Conspiracies A section for non-JFK conspiracies."

Gonna keep on moving OT threads out of JFK Debate forum because there are more appropriate places on the Education Forum to move them to, and because Evan will one day grow weary enough from the effects of being attacked personally by the authors of OT threads to cede the chore of moving such threads, to other members of the moderation team. ....

As the author of BEST EVIDENCE, I hope that someday—and perhaps not that far off in the future—we will have the full truth about the assassination of President Kennedy. As people who have read my work know, I believe there was a high level political plot involved in the JFK assassination—and that the plot that took JFK’s life had nothing to do with Russia, or Castro, or anything of the sort.

And, of course, I am pleased that Doug Horne, the senior ARRB staffer who was Chief Analyst, Military Affairs, was (and is) a strong supporter of my work.

Meanwhile, I want to take this moment—when it has just been announced that Bin Laden was located and killed—to make a statement that, as I see it, pertains to one of the problems connected to this “JFK research” movement; and particular, as to how this entire movement is perceived by much of the media.

Specifically, I want to completely disassociate myself from those who believe:

(a) that we did not go to the moon

(b ) that the 9/11 attacks on this country had anything whatsoever do with a domestic U.S. plot.

If you want to know why Rachel Maddow (who I respect and watch) —and others—group JFK assassination research with “the crazies,” it is (in part) because of these ancillary belief systems.

If you're a TV producer, the easiest way to impeach the credibility of those who believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination is to note that some of those deeply involved in one or another aspect of JFK research also subscribe to these "other" belief systems. Such media people predictably ask: “Do you also believe we didn’t go to the moon?” “Do you really believe that 9/11 was a domestic plot?”

The answer, in some quarters, is an unqualified, "yes." And in a flash, all credibility vanishes.

All of this is most unfortunate. I say “unfortunate,” because personally, I am aware that some important research has in fact been done by studious JFK researchers who also happen to subscribe to these beliefs. They pride themselves on being able to think "outside the box," but their idea of the boundaries of "the box" and mine are worlds apart.

As far as I am concerned, associating these beliefs with JFK research has led (and will continue to lead) to a public relations disaster.

It is my firm believe that the most critical evidence in the Kennedy case"—the autopsy and the Zapruder film—was falsified. Those concepts are counter-intuitive, and require a lot of close analysis. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence." I believe we should be held to that standard, and try to live up to it.

I hold those beliefs about the Kennedy assassination, along with the view that Oswald—a young, idealistic, CIA operative who went to the USSR for the US Government—should properly be viewed as “the man who didn’t do it.”

I am certain that time will eventually validate my own beliefs, but I do not subscribe to the notion that we didn’t go to the moon, or that 9/11 was a domestic plot.

DSL

5/1/11; 10:25 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I object further to your now having re-posted Lifton's ill-advised, off topic, "chalk full of fallacious" arguments, post over again, here--in this new thread--where it is CLEARLY OFF TOPIC! Are you kidding me? What does this have to do with Roberts' article? Think it through. What a bunch of crap and double standards this is becoming. The only reason I brought his post up was to demonstrate the double standard being employed. You have now re-posted THE CONTENT of the post. That is completely...weird, to say the least.

I strongly recommend that you make your own above post INVISIBLE as it is clearly OFF TOPIC. You are adding insult to injury. I have been rather kind in my assessment of your actions thus far. But, this one is very hard to take gently. Perhaps we should send Lifton's post directly to the MSM so that they will realize that he is in no way related to the rest of us? Perhaps we should all just say, "Thank you David for setting us straight!" We all read his opening post IN ANOTHER FORUM (JFK) where it was not necessarily on topic. You judged that it was on topic there...fine, although I disagree.

However, it is definitely OFF TOPIC HERE.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, you are being hypocrtitcal. You start off a controversy of no merit, waffle about, fanning the flames, and then display indignation at any responses that don't support your agenda.

If you want to talk about the topic, do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for me to further point out the poignance of Roberts' article since it has been so histrionically demonstrated here by the action(s) of a moderator.

No need for you to feign "brain-deadness" while evaluating this issue. It is "OK" to actually "get it" in public. The thrust of the article was concerned with the failure or refusal of the MSM to fairly REPORT research that runs counter to the Official Story, be that story the events of 11/22/1963 or the events of 9/11/2001.

The key idea in the article speaks to the exclusion of such "counter" research from MAIN STREAM MEDIA reportage, and its being relegated to expression outside of that MAIN STREAM. In this specific case (EF) the MAIN STREAM FORUM is most definitely the JFK ASSASSINATION Debate forum. The author cites the JFK Assassination as a prime example of how evidence and research that runs counter to the Official Story is ostracized and excluded from the MSM, much like the treatment of 9/11 research.

So, John--what do you want to talk about now? That was the thrust of the article. It was exactly as I described it and that's what I've been talking about the whole time. But, even the EF chose to exclude this article--which cites parallels to the JFK cover-up within it--because the article was deemed off-topic for the MAIN STREAM (JFK) forum.

That is absurd. However, it is very helpful in easily demonstrating the point in Roberts' article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, what I'd like to talk about is off topics like Nebraska, Police Thuggery in Miami and the news blackouts in such matters.

However, that's for another time.

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, what I'd like to talk about is off topics like Nebraska, Police Thuggery in Miami and the news blackouts in such matters.

However, that's for another time.

Carry on.

That is one of the best ROFL's I've had in a long time, John. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.''

No worries, Greg. How about trying to repair it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.''

No worries, Greg. How about trying to repair it?

I think you helped me to realize that it has already been repaired. The point's been proved empirically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.''

No worries, Greg. How about trying to repair it?

I think you helped me to realize that it has already been repaired. The point's been proved empirically.

Good. Now how about getting back on topic. I'm sure there are some who would like to discuss it (not me). So, get over it and get on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.''

No worries, Greg. How about trying to repair it?

I think you helped me to realize that it has already been repaired. The point's been proved empirically.

Good. Now how about getting back on topic. I'm sure there are some who would like to discuss it (not me). So, get over it and get on.

I've been on topic the whole time! Don't you see that was the topic? Egad, man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rolleyes.gif
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...