Jump to content
The Education Forum

** Why Conspiracy Theories Prevail **


Recommended Posts

the part to pay attention to is at 21:50. i have an edited mp3 but it's ten mb i dunno if i can post it here.

this is about Boston but it applies to the rampant pareidolia everywhere in regards to "conspiracies".

"It's been the kind of week that leaves everyone looking for answers. But answers were hard to come by. Skeptic magazine editor-in-chief and author of The Believing Brain, Michael Shermer, joins us to discuss why people can be so susceptible to misinformation, conspiracy theories and jumping to conclusions. We also hear the story of student journalist Eric Twardzik, who found himself incorrectly identified as a suspect in the Boston bombings this week by radio host Jay Thomas. Twardzick's open letter to Jay Thomas was posted on Vice this week.

http://www.cbc.ca/da...iracy-theories/

let it load and play it from here_______\/

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/day6_20130419_46247.mp3

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias

http://www.michaelshermer.com/ (not plugging his books, just posting information.)

Edited by Blair Dobson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to listen or read to guess the gist of it. We CTs don't believe in a conspiracy based on evidence (things, for example, like a big exit wound in the back of JFK's head, which has to be obsessively ignored for 50 years by the mainstream media and other right-thinking people) but because we want to believe in a conspiracy. We're basically sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to listen or read to guess the gist of it. We CTs don't believe in a conspiracy based on evidence (things, for example, like a big exit wound in the back of JFK's head...

Which, of course, doesn't exist--and never did--as proven (now and forever) by this X-ray and autopsy photograph:

00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

Tell me again, Ron, WHY you'd think there was a "big exit wound in the back of JFK's head" after looking at the above X-ray and photo (which are pictures that were deemed by the HSCA to be unaltered "in any manner" [7 HSCA 41])?

No matter how many "Back Of The Head" witnesses there are, how can any of them conquer and defeat the BEST evidence regarding the President's head wounds--which is the evidence displayed above?

...a big exit wound in the back of JFK's head, which has to be obsessively ignored for 50 years by the mainstream media and other right-thinking people.

It's ignored by right-thinking people because it doesn't exist and never did.

Actually, "ignored" isn't the right word to use there either. "Dismissed as being incorrect" would be a better way to say it, because the "BOH" wound witnesses haven't been ignored. They've just been proven to be wrong. (Yes, all of them, as amazing as that seems.)

Ron, have you seen/heard Dr. McClelland's crazy explanation about the head wound? Until the last few years, I hadn't realized how ridiculous McClelland's explanation really was. But when it's analyzed, I don't see how anyone (LNer or CTer) can buy it for even a second. More on that HERE and HERE.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Regardless of how lousy the autopsy may or may not have been, how does that affect what we can see with our very own eyes in those autopsy photos and X-rays?

Because even if Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell were total incompetents, those pictures are still there -- they ARE what they are. And they're showing President Kennedy, after death, with no big hole in the back of his head. It ain't there. And there's nothing you, I, or any of the Parkland or Bethesda "BOH" witnesses can do about it.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Regardless of how lousy the autopsy may or may not have been, how does that affect what we can see with our very own eyes in those autopsy photos and X-rays?

What if the back of the head photo, for example, was faked? I'm sure you have heard of this possibility being discussed somewhere in the literature, haven't you? Not that the government would do such a dastardly thing, trying to fool us. According to you, If we see it in a government photo "with our very own eyes," then, to quote Madeline Kahn in Blazing Saddles, "It's twue, it's twue!"

Everything about this case has been gone over a thousand times. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a lone nutter about it (I've quit arguing with young-Earth creationists too), and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the back of the head photo, for example, was faked?

I guess you completely overlooked a portion of my earlier post, where I mention this:

"...pictures that were deemed by the HSCA to be unaltered "in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]..."

So, was the HSCA's photographic panel full of nothing but boobs and/or cover-up agents too, Ron?

Does the "fakery" ever end in a conspiracy theorist's world? Ever?

And that X-ray I posted earlier is ALSO fake, Ron?

And the Zapruder Film was faked too? Because the Z-Film is another piece of physical evidence that totally corroborates the "No Hole In The BOH" conclusion:

https://www.box.com/shared/7n9bertqjo

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you completely overlooked a portion of my earlier post, where I mention this:

"...pictures that were deemed by the HSCA to be unaltered "in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]..."

So, was the HSCA's photographic panel full of nothing but boobs and/or cover-up agents too, Ron?

The HSCA? Isn't that the organization that lied in its report by saying no one at the autopsy corroborated a large wound in the back of the head (when in fact several did)? Citing the HSCA really bolsters your case for no hole.

And that X-ray I posted earlier is ALSO fake, Ron?

Could very well be, or it could be someone else's skull. People do stuff like this, you know, especially if they're helping to cover up the crime of the century. The fact is, the autopsy material is compromised and virtually worthless as evidence.

And the Zapruder Film was faked too? Because the Z-Film is another piece of physical evidence that totally corroborates the "No Hole In The BOH" conclusion:

I don't know if it was or not. I do recall that there's a frame in which there appears to be nothing under the scalp on the back of JFK's head.

You know, this is all so frustrating. Whenever I say that I won't argue with a lone nutter or young-Earth creationist, they say something so amazing or aggravating that I can't help myself and I respond. I have to find some kind of antidote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing the HSCA really bolsters your case for no hole.

But I bet you're not arguing about this part of their report, are you?:

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 3

You know, this is all so frustrating. Whenever I say that I won't argue with a lone nutter or young-Earth creationist, they say something so amazing or aggravating that I can't help myself and I respond.

Yeah, the gall of someone to actually think that ALL of the evidence in the whole JFK murder case hasn't been faked. I should be flogged for believing such an outrageous thing!

I have to find some kind of antidote.

I've got a great antidote:

Stop pretending everything's been faked in the JFK case.

That oughta do it.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I bet you're not arguing about this part of their report, are you?:

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 3

They had no choice but to say that. The acoustical evidence came up late in the investigation and caught them with their pants down. But no need to worry. As I recall, they referred the matter to the Justice Dept for further investigation, and Justice of course did nothing but let sleeping dogs (and second shooters) die.

I've got a great antidote:

Stop pretending everything's been faked in the JFK case.

I don't, so that's no antidote at all. Here's the best antidote: Please don't respond again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, they [the HSCA] referred the [acoustics] matter to the Justice Dept for further investigation, and Justice of course did nothing but let sleeping dogs (and second shooters) die.

But the NAS didn't, did they?

Have you forgotten about the National Academy of Sciences conclusion regarding the bombshell acoustical evidence?:

"The previously analyzed sounds were recorded about one minute after the assassination and, therefore, too late to be attributed to assassination shots." -- CBA/NAS Final Report; May 14, 1982

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The acoustical crap can be debunked by merely taking one good look at Robert Hughes' film:

Debunking The HSCA's Acoustics Evidence

Stop pretending everything's been faked in the JFK case.
I don't.

That's good. Which means you pretty much have no choice but to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was at least ONE of the gunmen firing at President Kennedy. That's more than most Internet CTers will admit.

Here's the best antidote: Please don't respond again.

I guess you'll need the 2nd best antidote.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means you pretty much have no choice but to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was at least ONE of the gunmen firing at President Kennedy. That's more than most Internet CTers will admit.

I don't know where you got that, but please, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means you pretty much have no choice but to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was at least ONE of the gunmen firing at President Kennedy.
I don't know where you got that, but please, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Yeah, I kind of figured it was too much to expect an Internet CTer to actually admit Oswald was a shooter at all. My mistake. Forgive me.

Which means since you admitted that not ALL of the evidence in the whole case has been faked, this must then indicate that you are of the odd opinion that there can exist in this case legitimate evidence pointing to Lee Oswald and yet still have Mr. Oswald innocent of the crime.

Yes, I know that my favorite author and attorney, Vince Bugliosi, has often stated that, in unusual cases, there could be from one to three pieces of (non-faked) evidence pointing to the guilt of someone and yet have them innocent of said offense. So I guess it depends on how many pieces of the "Oswald Did It" evidence you are willing to believe are legitimate pieces of uncorrupted evidence. Would you care to provide a number?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i didn't realise Shermer was a LN'r....He smells like an asset they roll out everytime the subject comes up.

Thing is, what he said about bias is essentially correct. A good exmple of the two sided coin of truth.

David Von Pein

post-3373-0-75757600-1366578957_thumb.jpg

-can you tell me where this xray came from, tell me the chain of handling?

-can you explain to me why in all of the xrays, the teeth, jaw and neck are all cropped out?

for everyone:

has anyone ever seen the xrays from the Tippet murder?

not that i want to threadjack my own thread and interrupt the awesome and usual childish arguments going on here...

:clapping:box

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...