Jump to content
The Education Forum

Beyond Theory


Recommended Posts

Lisa Pease article in  Garrison Magazine, Why the CIA Killed RFK, near the end touches on a subject important to all of us.  The label framing Conspiracy Theorists as a derogatory term.  A few years back/on JFKFacts I argued that I was not a conspiracy theorist but a Conspiracy Realist.  That it had been proven beyond what a reasonable person under reasonable circumstances would require to believe that in Fact it was a Conspiracy.  That if in Fact it is a Proven Conspiracy it's not a Theory.  That ignorance of the Fact's is the only excuse for believing otherwise.

She points out "The" memo.  I'd never connected it to the Garrison investigation of Shaw.  Thought it was just a response to Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Sylvia Megaher et. al.  "When NO DA Garrison arrested Shaw...the CIA fired off a memo to it's media assets (and agents) titled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report".

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

"Similarly, the memo urges the framing of this as "conspiracy theories" as if no conspiracy can ever be actual.  The phrase as barely mentioned in the media before the memo, and widely used after it, according to a study by Professor Emeritus Lance de Haven-Smith in his book Conspiracy Theory in America".

It's no longer a theory, it's reality.  A Fact.  One the MSM can't accept.  Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

"Go read some books.  We need to move people past theories and into knowledge , so we can reclaim our history before it disappears forever, forcing us to repeat these horrific lessons."  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's a lot of media pieces out there attempting to psychoanalyze "conspiracy theorists", yet they never discuss their points compared compared alongside the people who have been conditioned to reject any conspiracy-oriented discussion (for western governments at least, because Western Governments are infallible). I diagnose those people as just plain STUPID. 

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the term 'conspiracy theorist' has become generally associated with the kind of individual that indulges in wild speculation and pure fantasy. Someone that is possibly unhinged. The kind of individual that is prone to rant, rave and attempt to shut down anyone that points out the often rather obvious and gaping holes in their outlandish ideas, whilst blindly agreeing with others that tow the basic conspiracy line, even when their ideas are incompatible. The kind of individual that tends to veer away from considered, scientific thinking and rationale. I think this is the general perception. Personally, having been a member here for quite a while now, I know you can't tar everyone with that same brush, but you don't have to travel far on this forum to form the notion that a conspiracy theorist isn't neccessarily someone that you should take too seriously. Sometimes it gets quite nasty.

It's fair and accurate to say that nothing has been proven to contradict the basic conclusions of the DPD in the immediate wake of the assassination. Nothing. You'd expect a little more from what purports to be a serious research community. Precisely how much have a myriad of conspiracy theorists achieved over more than half a century  to present a convincing alternative explanation of the known facts, to even nudge the ignorant masses a little closer towards their perceived truth?

There are conspiracies and there are people that investigate them. But I think those that undertake serious research probably wouldn't comfortably describe themselves as 'conspiracy theorists'. A conspiracy theorist starts with the conviction that there must have been a conspiracy. Nothing on Earth will ever persuade them otherwise. So where does that lead? It's written all over this forum. I know that I could come on here as a 'conspiracy theorist', throw some near random nonsense into the mix that supports a conspiracy, and that I would be taken seriously by some. That does not suggest a cohesive, sensible research community.

So if I were a conspiracy theorist and I wanted to be taken seriously, the last thing I would do is describe myself as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Paul   - what exactly do you believe are the "conclusions" reached by the DPD? That some items were discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD? It seems that Chief Curry's later acknowledgment that they never could place the alleged suspect on that floor with the alleged gun in his hand holds true, and is in fact the starting point for most "theories".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Lance DeHaven shows in his book about the subject, that label of "conspiracy theorist" was utilized in order to neutralize what was happening in the JFK field by 1967. It was a way of avoiding the evidence by resorting to name calling.

As Lance shows, it had rarely been used before by the NY Times. But after 1967, its usage went off the charts and has never gone back to its baseline.

The other time it happened was after Oliver Stone's film JFK came out.  That film actually caused a level playing field to be formed for awhile. The percentage of those believing Kennedy was killed in a plot went to 90%, which is almost where it should be, which is 100%.   All of this, even though the NY Times had done all it could to mold public opinion in advance, by publishing 34 stories before the premiere, almost all negative.

The proof that this is why it is used is in the newly released documents from last year.  One of them is from reporter Peter Khiss of the NY Times.  He revealed that the Times really did not call off its inquiry into the case as most thought in 1967.  From what little inquiry they did they realized the WR was wrong.  But they decided they were going to stick with their editorial slant anyway. 

Geez, wonder why Phil Shenon  did not reveal that document?  Maybe because he worked for the Times?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. 

From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct a more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to avoid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Eddy, there is little doubt that Specter knew he had a big problem with things like that.

I mean if you take a look at how many questions he asked Boswell, its a joke.  I think its like 14.  But it was Boswell who wrote up the autopsy descriptive sheet which showed the back wound much lower than the neck and the dimensions of that wound to be much larger than the anterior neck wound.

Try and find where Specter asks him about that.

What makes it worse is that its signed as verified by Burkeley.

Try and find where Specter questioned Dr. Burkeley.  Or SIbert and O'Nneill. Or Stringer.  Or Ebersole.

The total number of questions that the Commission asked the three pathologists was about 300.  Now compare that to how many questions they asked Crafard.  Its about ten times that many.  

In my view, Specter knew what he had to do for his career.  And he did it.

He then spent the rest of his life lying about it.  In fact,it was likely Specter who called up Shenon and asked him to do a cover up for the 50th.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. 

From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct a more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to avoid. 

Eddy, it's not hard to avoid.  It's impossible.  The circumstantial evidence, including what you mention about the exit wound is overwhelming.  It's not a theory if one reads about the subject in depth in an objective manner.  Why current larger University Historians refuse to acknowledge this is part of the problem.  They Should have graduate assistants digging into the subject if they were true to pursuing the truth of History.  But the department head's won't approve such.  Because the dean's wont.  Speculation about a conspiracy theory.  Forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Paul   - what exactly do you believe are the "conclusions" reached by the DPD? That some items were discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD? It seems that Chief Curry's later acknowledgment that they never could place the alleged suspect on that floor with the alleged gun in his hand holds true, and is in fact the starting point for most "theories".

I'm referring to the initial investigation that established the salient facts, which were later corroborated by The Warren Commission. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President, and that he acted alone. Regarding Oswald's location at the time of the shooting, he was seen at the window with a gun. That same gun he took into work that very morning. The same gun that was ballistically linked to the crime. Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

I'm referring to the initial investigation that established the salient facts, which were later corroborated by The Warren Commission. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President, and that he acted alone. Regarding Oswald's location at the time of the shooting, he was seen at the window with a gun. That same gun he took into work that very morning. The same gun that was ballistically linked to the crime. Etc.

The “established facts” as appears in the WCR were not subject to legal test or cross examination. They are often cherry-picked assertion, frequently contradicted or otherwise unlikely - as can be determined by the numerous varying descriptions of persons on the sixth floor.

The notion that “conspiracy theorists” have never disproven such “facts” or proven other facts assumes such theorists possess police powers of subpoena or other investigatory power. In truth, all that was necessary was to chart the cover-up - which has been a highly successful and established effort.

Paul - how is it the DPD charged their suspect before the circumstantial physical evidence could even be linked to him? How is it the FBI solved the case within two hours of the shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

And you, Jim, are one of the most respected conspiracy theorists there is.

I am not a theorist. 

OTOH, someone who buys the Single Bullet Fantasy, Brennan, and  cannot decide if Randich and Grant showed that CBLA is a fraud--which even Blakey and the FBI have admitted--that person is living in a world of denial and junk science. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The single bullet is a theory, aided by moving a wound and zig zagging in the air, disproven by the simple fact Perry knew what he saw was an entrance wound in the throat.  A defense lawyer for Oswald would have ate this up.  Dr. Perry, how may years have you been an ER surgeon?  How many gunshot wounds would you estimate you've seen?  You are familiar with the difference in a entrance wound opposed to one of exit.  Can you explain those differences and why you concluded on 11/22/63 the Presidents throat wound was one of Entrance?

Oswald's guilt as a lone nut is a theory.  Based on a lack of evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2019 at 8:27 AM, Paul Baker said:

I'm referring to the initial investigation that established the salient facts, which were later corroborated by The Warren Commission. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President, and that he acted alone. Regarding Oswald's location at the time of the shooting, he was seen at the window with a gun. That same gun he took into work that very morning. The same gun that was ballistically linked to the crime. Etc.

No no no. You try and establish 'the salient facts'. When you try, and you use the evidence available to all, you cannot honestly conclude the Investigation or the Warren Commission established the salient facts. 

Edited by Eddy Bainbridge
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...