A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'

[Guest]

Right, the threads here are an absolute model of "educated scholars" driven by "intellectual curiosity" and "rational skepticism" to achieve a "better understanding of the facts."  This is why Mr. Truther Psychiatrist uses blanket terms like "ubiquitous, fraudulent narratives," "specious arguments" and "nonsense" to characterize any views that don't fit in his weird little corner of reality.

We propose the quasi-religious hypothesis for CTs: CTs are quasi-religious representations, in that their contents, forms, and functions parallel those found in beliefs supported by institutionalized religions, though CTs lack certain features of organized religions. Being quasi-religious offers an explanation of CTs’ ubiquity, especially in postindustrial secular societies. But CTs appeal especially to constituencies who are averse to the strictures of organized religions or established political orthodoxies. CTs have a subversive flavor that contradicts official accounts of events, be they secular or religious. This feature is difficult to explain via cognitive science, but is a primary focus of social representations theory. Social representations theory explains how CTs enable laypersons to make sense of complex, ambiguous situations, how CTs spread, and how they may change during spreading. However, social representations theory does not focus primarily on how representations get used by social groups to achieve political ends, and so we invoke frame theory to deal with this aspect.

"Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory," Frontiers of Psychology (2013), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712257/.

If I wanted to be more precise, I would say that the JFK conspiracy community is a fundamentalist quasi-religion, with its own smattering of quasi-denominations and quasi-cults, and its own intolerance of heretics.  There, are we all happy now?  

[Cliff Varnell]

What sort of personality disorder is demonstrated by someone who professes not to care about a subject but goes on and on (and on) about it obsessively?

Edited August 12, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What sort of pathology is demonstrated by someone who professes not to care about a subject but goes on and on (and on) about it obsessively?

Gosh, now Cliff is a psychiatrist too?  Are you going to "weaponize" psychoanalysis too, big fella?

I happen to be in a period of Exceeding Boredom at the moment.  While I care little to nothing about the JFK assassination anymore (barring a BOMBSHELL), I am fascinated, as I always have been, by the psychology of these internet communities and conspiracy thinking in general.  As long as the Truther Psychiatrist keeps serving up softballs, I'll take a whack at them.  If you'll join in, my fun will be doubled!

Wait a minute - Cliff Varnell is calling me obsessive???  Isn't that like the Black Hole of Obsessiveness calling the teapot black?  Can we talk about SOMETHING else now - ANYTHING else, I beg you - other than the hole in JFK's shirt?  Are you up to 5,000 posts on that subject yet?

Edited August 12, 2019 by Guest

[Cliff Varnell]

34 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Gosh, now Cliff is a psychiatrist too? 

No, I asked the question.  Then I edited the post to "personality disorder."

Quote

 

Are you going to "weaponize" psychoanalysis too, big fella?

Although clothing is worn over the skin the clothing evidence in the JFK assassination clearly gets under your skin.  That's why you brought it up out of the blue 10 months after I confronted you with it

Quote

I happen to be in a period of Exceeding Boredom at the moment.

Points to a personality disorder, doesn't it?

Quote

 

  While I care little to nothing about the JFK assassination anymore (barring a BOMBSHELL), I am fascinated, as I always have been, by the psychology of these internet communities and conspiracy thinking in general.  As long as the Truther Psychiatrist keeps serving up softballs, I'll take a whack at them.  If you'll join in, my fun will be doubled!

Wait a minute - Cliff Varnell is calling me obsessive???  Isn't that like the Black Hole of Obsessiveness calling the teapot black?  Can we talk about SOMETHING else now - ANYTHING else, I beg you - other than the hole in JFK's shirt? 

Not with you.  With you I stick to the subject that kills you inside.

Quote

 

Are you up to 5,000 posts on that subject yet?

Unlike incompetent lawyers I grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What sort of personality disorder is demonstrated by someone who professes not to care about a subject but goes on and on (and on) about it obsessively?

He could be getting paid to infiltrate and harass people on this forum-- like Cass Sunstein's Big Brotherly "cognitive infiltrators."

They operate on the basis of Sunstein's bizarre theory that "most conspiracy theories about the U.S. government are false," because, 1) the government rarely deceives the American people, and 2) the mainstream media always keeps the public fully informed about covert military ops...  🤪

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

17 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

He could be getting paid to infiltrate and harass people on this forum-- like Cass Sunstein's Big Brotherly "cognitive infiltrators."

They operate on the basis of Sunstein's bizarre theory that "most conspiracy theories about the U.S. government are false," because, 1) the government rarely deceives the American people, and 2) the mainstream media always keeps the public fully informed about covert military ops...  🤪

 

 

Think maybe he's "hum" bugliosizing us?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm a betting man and I'd fade a bill on "narcissistic personality disorder" to describe both Lance Payette and Donald Trump should they get quality psychiatric examination.

Lance just has a bigger vocabulary.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

There is no extant physical evidence found with the body proving conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination.

This is extant physical evidence found with the body proving conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Unlike incompetent lawyers[ , ] I grasp the significance of physical evidence found with the body in a murder case.

It's interesting to take note of which pieces of physical evidence that most Internet conspiracy theorists consider to be not fake or manufactured to frame a guy named Oswald. Since the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat are situated lower than the actual bullet hole in the skin of President Kennedy's upper back, conspiracists like Cliff Varnell feel free to travel down the "Something Here Doesn't Look Right" road of conspiracy.

But if many of the CTers are right when they claim that virtually all other pieces of physical evidence in this case have been faked and falsely manufactured in order to frame a guy named Oswald, then I'm just wondering why those crackerjack Patsy Framers didn't fake JFK's shirt and suit jacket too. It would seem that nothing was beyond the capabilities of those ace evidence manipulators, e.g.: per most CTers, the unseen "they" were able to get into the TSBD and up to the sixth floor to rearrange all the ballistics evidence up there so it would perfectly fit the Oswald-Did-It narrative; they were able to break into Ruth Paine's garage and plant some backyard photos depicting the Patsy with the same rifle they managed to plant on the sixth floor; they managed to plant two identifiable bullet fragments in JFK's limousine that traced back to that same rifle they planted in the TSBD; and on and on.

But they forgot about faking the clothing evidence. ~~~slaps forehead~~~

But, then too, nobody's perfect all the time, right? Not even Presidential assassins and cover-uppers. So I guess Cliff is willing to cut the otherwise super-efficient evidence manipulators a little slack when it comes to the shirt and coat. Right, Cliff?

End result (per many conspiracy theorists): JFK's shirt and coat were just about the only pieces of physical evidence in this case that weren't tampered with in some way by the authorities. (Plus, there are the Oswald fingerprints on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest. Most CTers don't think those prints were planted, but only because they feel comfortable utilizing the "He Worked There" cop-out of an excuse to explain why Lee Harvey Oswald's prints were the only ones found on those boxes, excluding the prints of policemen.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/John F. Kennedy's Clothing

Edited August 13, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing.

They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies.

They would not allow  a dissection of the back wound.

Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again.

If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be.

Need i add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript.

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.

It only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)

And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....

"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."

But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.

But that is how desperate these loons get.  Notice he does not say any of it is wrong.  Because its not. 

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.

Edited August 13, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.

Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.

Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a l-i-a-r.

 

Quote

But that is how desperate these loons get.  Notice he does not say any of it is wrong.  Because it's not. 

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.

Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner ---- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Oh, dear God, I have unwittingly unleashed Cliff's Irrefutable Theory!!!  The puppet masters who pay me big bucks had promised a $5000 bonus if I didn't refer to it by the end of the year, and now I've blown it!  ("He could be getting paid to infiltrate and harass people on this forum" - and you want to talk to me about pathologies and personality disorders?  Really?)

Actually, I mentioned CIT because I saw Cliff had recently revived it as the solution to making the JFK assassination interesting to bored millennials.  I went so far as to skim his write-up on the Deep Politics forum, where I noted he had not received a single reply since posting it more than two months ago.  Is DP perhaps a more rational site where I should be peddling my puppet masters' wares? If so, I will see if my puppet masters will allow me to shift assignments.  (Hint:  Most millennials don't know or care who JFK was.  It's ancient history.  You might as well try to pique their interest in the assassination of Caesar.)

The rational person's guide to CIT is basically:

1.  Yes, the alignment of the bullet holes is a legitimate issue.
2.  Yes, there are discrepancies in the evidence, as we would expect in the chaos surrounding the assassination.
3.  JFK was in a moving car, shifting and waving to the crowd, and wearing a bulky back brace.  We can never duplicate the precise circumstances of the bullet's impact.
4.  Numerous photos show JFK's jacket heavily bunched in the neck area, some of them with the jacket collar almost at ear level.
5.  The body is gone - we will never know the precise location of the back wound.
6.  At least one effort to duplicate what happened is available in a documentary on YouTube, and it did indeed show the shirt and jacket bunching together.  (They did the same when I and another poster experimented at home, but you may assume for purposes of this analysis that we are lying frauds.  Perhaps try it yourself?)
7.  The Warren Commission and HSCA were aware of the alignment issue but nevertheless adopted the Single Bullet explanation.
8.  CIT COMPLETELY IGNORES the mountain of other evidence as to what took place in Dealey Plaza and its aftermath.
9.  CIT posits a JFK who is basically a department-store mannequin, wearing a shirt glued to his torso and a cardboard jacket.
10.  CIT POSITS TWO ENTRANCE WOUNDS WITH NO EXIT WOUNDS.  Those two entrance wounds just magically happened to line up so closely that the Single Bullet explanation is entirely plausible.
11.  Because of #10, Cliff is forced to posit DISSOLVING BULLETS and similar James Bond wackiness for which there is utterly no evidence.
12.  The rational person - which I would like to think includes most millennials - is going to say "Well, yes, that is indeed an interesting puzzle, but there is a mountain of other evidence, I have to view the puzzle in context, and I there does seem to be a plausible explanation for the puzzle while CIT asks me to accept two entrance wounds with no exit wounds, not to mention dissolving bullets, no proven gunman at the front, and other raw speculation.."

As I've said repeatedly, every conspiracy theory stumbles over (1) Lee Harvey Oswald, the actual man and his actual life, and (2) the actual events in Dealey Plaza.  Every conspiracy theory is forced to posit a Lee Harvey Oswald who bears little if any resemblance to the actual LHO and a sequence of events in Dealey Plaza that bears little resemblance to the actual events.  You can posit grand and even plausible-sounding theories involving hordes of Dark Forces until you are forced to deal with the actual Oswald and the actual events of Dealey Plaza. 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp

Lest we forget, she was also in the "Garrison is wacked-out and dangerous" camp ("As the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment," see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison).  I'm guessing Jim is less enthusiastic about this aspect of her work.

Although Jim of course hates it, I commend to you False Witness by Patricia Lambert.  It is one of the most fascinating assassination-related books you will ever read.  Garrison had NOTHING.

There you go, Jim, I've graciously opened a door for you.  Bluster away.  Stamp your foot, sling insults, demonstrate your vast knowledge of arcane irrelevancies, bluster bluster bluster.