Conspiracy theories a threat.

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, Darrell Curtis said:

The term conspiracy theorist raises a question that never seems to be asked. What is the term for a conspiracy that is verifiable, and those who speak of and believe in these conspiracies? Would this be a conspiracy factist? Along with the derisive, derogatory term "conspiracy theorist" often comes the idea that *all*  conspiracies are false and believing in them is delusional. But that obviously isn't the case when we consider the Gulf of Tonkin, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, MK-Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, and my personal favorite "Et tu, Brute?" Apparently that was just something Shakespeare invented for entertainment purposes.

It's frustrating and tiresome that so often the words "science" and "scientific" (among others, alone and in combinations) are bandied about as if they automatically give credibility or legitimacy where it isn't necessarily the case.

Darrell, expanding somewhat further:

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Darrell Curtis said:

The term conspiracy theorist raises a question that never seems to be asked. What is the term for a conspiracy that is verifiable, and those who speak of and believe in these conspiracies? Would this be a conspiracy factist? Along with the derisive, derogatory term "conspiracy theorist" often comes the idea that *all*  conspiracies are false and believing in them is delusional. But that obviously isn't the case when we consider the Gulf of Tonkin, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, MK-Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, and my personal favorite "Et tu, Brute?" Apparently that was just something Shakespeare invented for entertainment purposes.

It's frustrating and tiresome that so often the words "science" and "scientific" (among others, alone and in combinations) are bandied about as if they automatically give credibility or legitimacy where it isn't necessarily the case.

If a conspiracy has been verified - for example, the Lincoln assassination - it no longer requires a theory.  I accept the Lincoln assassination conspiracy as a historical fact.

The term "conspiracy theorist" does indeed have a pejorative connotation.  It doesn't demand one, of course, but it has taken on one precisely because so many conspiracy theories are silly.  "Tinfoil hat" stuff, as the saying goes.

As I have shown on numerous threads, there has been over the past 15 or so years a huge body of research into the psychological factors that drive conspiracy thinking.  This research has been conducted by reputable scientists working in a variety of disciplines.  It has been conducted around the world.  It has been reported in peer-reviewed journals and reputable periodicals.

I am simply the messenger here; I happen to have been a lawyer for many years, but I could be an uneducated hog farmer for all it matters.  The work stands on its own.  Anyone who even glances at the materials I have cited can see that these are serious scientists doing serious scientific work.  The terms are not being "bandied about."

In all the work, the fact that conspiracies actually exist is acknowledged.  The fact that believing in conspiracies is not inherently pathological is acknowledged.  What a conspiracy means for purposes of the research is clearly explained.  What the research focuses on is what psychological, sociological and other identifiable factors cause some people to be drawn to conspiracies, often in the face of exhaustive investigation to the contrary, the best evidence, logic and common sense.  A definite psychological profile is emerging.

Some people are drawn to fringe conspiracy theories, even when there is no real-world basis for one.  Their theories literally fly in the face of the best evidence, logic and common sense, yet they refuse to see this.  This is the "conspiracy thinking" that the researchers are talking about.  The research simply asks why this is.  Why do some people actually prefer such explanations for historical events (often for multiple historical events)?

It doesn't strike me as illogical or unreasonable for intelligence agencies to take a close look at the more extreme conspiracy communities.

The uproar that my posts in this vein have caused speak volumes.  Those who hold to the most extreme, fringe sorts of conspiracies - "the Jews did it" camp of the 9/11 Truthers, for example - squawk the loudest.  They can't really dispute what I am posting, so the messenger must be shot.  My posts are "bovine excrement," "gibberish."  I am a lawyer who is way out of his depth, pretending to be a psychologist.  Our one actual psychiatrist succeeds only in embarrassing himself and then tries to convince you the vast body of scientific research is some sort of CIA conspiracy in its own right; voila, the lemmings are so pleased not to have to think that they mindlessly wave their pom-poms.

If I were a conspiracy theorist (which I have been and remain open to becoming again), I would not be upset by Lance's posts unless they hit a little to close to home, unless I recognized myself in what he has described.

I will issue the same challenge here that I issued on another thread:  Take 45 seconds to read the following and tell me if it sounds like serious work is being done or it's all some "CIA plot" or "non sequitur."  This is from the European Journal of Social Psychology, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282974/:

Early studies on conspiracy theories relied mostly on correlational evidence in cross‐sectional designs (e.g., Abalakina‐Paap, Stephan, Craig, & Gregory, 1999; Goertzel, 1994), or studied conspiracy thinking as a function of demographic variables such as political party affiliation (Wright & Arbuthnot, 1974) or ethnicity (Crocker, Luhtanen, Broadnax, & Blaine, 1999). Although scarce and methodologically limited, these early studies provided two key insights that laid the foundations for current research on conspiracy theories. The first key insight is that although conspiracy theories differ widely in content, subjective beliefs in them are rooted in the same underlying psychology. This insight is suggested by findings that the single best predictor of belief in one conspiracy theory is belief in a different conspiracy theory (Goertzel, 1994; see also Lewandowski, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013; Swami et al., 2011; Sutton & Douglas, 2014). Even beliefs in mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated (e.g., Princess Diana was murdered vs. Princess Diana staged her own death; Wood, Douglas, & Sutton, 2012). While many conceptually distinct conspiracy theories exist, the tendency to believe in them appears to be underpinned by broader beliefs that support conspiracy theories in general (e.g., beliefs in cover ups; Wood et al., 2012). Some scholars argue for a conspiracy mindset as a relatively stable predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories that varies between persons (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014). Despite the high variability in conspiracy theories—involving topics that range from climate change to chronic illnesses to terrorist attacks—research demonstrates that largely similar and predictable psychological processes drive people's belief in them.

The second key insight is that besides individual differences, belief in conspiracy theories is highly sensitive to social context. For instance, ideological motivations influence political conspiracy beliefs depending on election results (e.g., Democrats believe governmental conspiracy theories particularly if there is a Republican in the White House, and vice versa; Wright & Arbuthnot, 1974; see also Golec de Zavala & Federico, 2018; Uscinski & Parent, 2014; Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018). Moreover, throughout history people have believed conspiracy theories particularly in impactful societal crisis situations, such as during fires, floods, earthquakes, rapid societal change, violence, and wars (McCauley & Jacques, 1979; see also Van Prooijen & Douglas, 2017). Finally, social structures that shape citizens’ feelings of vulnerability increase belief in conspiracy theories, as reflected in findings that feelings of powerlessness predict conspiracy beliefs (Abalakina‐Paap et al., 1999; Imhoff & Bruder, 2014), and that conspiracy beliefs are high particularly among members of stigmatized minority groups (Crocker et al., 1999; Davis, Wetherell, & Henry, 2018; Van Prooijen, Staman, & Krouwel, in press).

Recent research has drawn heavily on these two key insights, by extensively testing how stable individual differences predict a tendency to believe conspiracy theories (Darwin, Neave, & Holmes, 2011; Imhoff & Bruder, 2014; Swami et al., 2011; Van Prooijen, 2017), what causal factors increase belief in conspiracy theories (e.g., Douglas & Sutton, 2011; Van Prooijen & Van Dijk, 2014; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008), what basic cognitive processes are involved when people perceive conspiracies (Douglas, Sutton, Callan, Dawtry, & Harvey, 2016; Van Prooijen, Douglas, & De Inocencio, 2018), and what the consequences are of believing conspiracy theories (Bartlett & Miller, 2010; Douglas & Leite, 2017; Jolley & Douglas, 2014a,b). It is safe to say that the scientific study of conspiracy theories has been emerging over the past decade: Both the body of knowledge on this phenomenon, as well as the number of researchers actively working on it, has expanded rapidly.

One limitation of the current state of affairs in the scientific research domain of conspiracy theories, however, is that the field is lacking a solid theoretical framework that contextualizes previous findings, that enables novel predictions, and that suggests interventions to reduce the prevalence of conspiracy theories in society. Recent review articles have sought to address this limitation by providing a framework that illuminates the motivational basis of conspiracy theories—specifically that conspiracy theories appeal to people for epistemic, existential and social motivational reasons (Douglas et al., 2017), and by developing an evolutionary model—the Adaptive Conspiracism Hypothesis—that specifies how the human tendency to believe conspiracy theories evolved through natural selection (Van Prooijen & Van Vugt, in press). These initiatives notwithstanding, at present the field of conspiracy theories is still in its infancy in terms of theory development. To stimulate further theorizing, we propose four basic principles of belief in conspiracy theories that we distilled from research conducted so far. These four basic principles are supported by many studies and, in conjunction with existing models, may provide an organizing framework for researchers to develop more sophisticated theories and research on this phenomenon.

[W. Niederhut]

FYI, folks.  Lance Payette's so-called "scientific" literature referenced above is not real science.  It's Kafkaesque junk-- theories about public beliefs based on erroneous premises about scientific and historical facts. 

Most of these papers were written by political "scientists" whose "data" consists of surveys about public opinions regarding alleged "conspiracy theories."

As an example, read Payette's 1994 reference paper (above) by a political "scientist" at Rutgers named Goertzel.  Goertzel prefaces his paper by pointing out that, despite the increasing evidence proving that Oswald was a Lone Assassin, more Americans after 1992 seemed to believe irrational "conspiracy theories" claiming that Oswald was NOT a Lone Assassin...  

I am greatly relieved that Payette, at least, knows enough history to admit that Lincoln's assassination involved a conspiracy.

Anyone who has carefully studied the 11/22/63 assassination evidence knows that the same is true in the case of JFK's murder.  Does Goertzel?

As for 9/11, as Professor Daniel Ganser observed, "All theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories," including the deeply flawed official U.S. government narrative.

But Cass Sunstein, another one of Payette's favorite "scientists," is a lawyer who has pioneered the concept of having government-funded "infiltrators" (propagandists) visit social media sites to disrupt and undermine research communities investigating the scientific and historical evidence about 9/11.

 

[Guest]

Gee, a little while ago NiederNut had taken a pledge not to read my posts anymore!  Perhaps, like Jimbo, he arrived here via the "wrong browser" (an inside joke from many months ago, when Jimbo took a similar pledge but couldn't resist).  Careful though, NiederNut - Robert Harper has zero tolerance for people who don't keep their word.

I just suggested on another thread that NiederNut is losing it.  Allow me to quote myself since it is entirely relevant here:

The second paper I cited is by Dr. Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Associate Professor in Social and Organizational Psychology, VU Amsterdam, Holland.  See http://www.janwillemvanprooijen.com/.  His coauthor is Dr. Karen M. Douglas, Professor of Social Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Kent, England.  Her "primary research focus is on beliefs in conspiracy theories."

In an effort to discredit the above paper, which was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Social Psychology (https://www.easp.eu/publications/ejsp/?), NiederNut read so far as the first introductory paragraph.  There he encountered citations to a book by Daniel Pipes for the unremarkable proposition "In fact, conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to be true (e.g., Watergate; incidents of corporate corruption), although the vast majority of conspiracy theories that citizens have believed throughout history have been false."  I have not read Pipes' book and know nothing about him, but even his critics are far from dismissive.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes.

NiederNut also encountered a citation to sources for the unremarkable proposition "accumulating evidence reveals that conspiracy theories are common among surprisingly large numbers of citizens."  The works cited are Oliver J. E., & Wood T. (2014), "Medical conspiracy theories and health behaviors in the United States," JAMA Internal Medicine, 174, 817–818, and Sunstein C. R., & Vermeule A. (2009), "Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures," The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17, 202–227.

Sunstein, whom NiederNut misidentifies as "Susstein," is an American legal scholar.  He was a professor of law at the University of Chicago for 27 years, the U of C being one of the truly premier law schools in the nation.  According to Wikipedia, "Studies of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin.  In 2018, the Holberg Prize committee said, he 'reshaped our understanding of the relationship between the modern regulatory state and constitutional law. He is widely regarded as the leading scholar of administrative law in the U.S., and he is by far the most cited legal scholar in the United States and probably the world.'"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

On the basis of these two introductory citations, which he finds "hilarious," NiederNut dismisses the entire paper as "ridiculous."

Are you sure you want to keep paying attention to this guy?

I'm just a layman, but I might suggest (in laymen's terms, mind you) that NiederNut is "desperate" because he's getting his butt kicked in public.  I might even uncharitably suggest that he's "losing it," but what do I know?  You be the judge.

Now we've moved on to a citation to a work by someone named Goertzel.  Goertzel's work  isn't "my" reference paper, NiederNut, it's a citation in the peer-reviewed paper by van Prooijen and Douglas.  The citation is to Goertzel T. (1994), "Belief in conspiracy theories," Political Psychology, 15, 733–744.  Goertzel is cited critically by van Prooijen and Douglas as an example of "early studies on conspiracy theories [which] relied mostly on correlational evidence in cross‐sectional designs."  (FWIW, Goertzel is Emeritus Professor in the Sociology Department at Rutgers University.  He is hardly a dummy - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Goertzel.)

Again, NiederNut is highlighting innocuous citations in the introduction to the paper in an effort to discredit the paper itself.  This is sophomoric and should be beneath a licensed psychiatrist.  But perhaps not one who is losing it.

Keep coming at me, NiederNut.  I made my living doing this for 35 years.

[James DiEugenio]

Richard Sprague was one of the finest criminal lawyers of his era.

He had a stellar record in Philadelphia.  He was appointed special prosecutor on the Jock Yablonski case.  In two legal proceedings involving several trials he proved a conspiracy to kill candidate Yablonski that stemmed from incumbent miners' leader Tony Boyle.

In his book, Badge of the Assassin, Bob Tanenbaum showed how he uncovered a conspiracy to kill two New York City policemen by 3 members of the Black Liberation Army. The hunt for evidence went from San Francisco to New Orleans to Mississippi and took something like four years.

Conspiracy is as American as apple pie. Goes all the way back to Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.  These types of cases get prosecuted in court every day.  

As Lance DeHaven Smith showed, it was the MSM that began rebranding the term in 1967 right after the CIA memo came out on the JFK case.  That concept was then revivified when the film JFK came out. In other words, this is not an evidentiary move, its a polarizing political move. Conspiracies are all over the historical map, how do you get a bigger conspiracy than Iran/Contra?  And recall how that was uncovered?  By accident: the Hasenfus shootdown. He survived and they found the CIA ID on him  that led to Ilopango air base in El Salvador and the likes of Felix Rodriguez and Richard Secord. (Sort of like Oswald placing Banister's address on his FPCC stuff)

And even though there was a massive senate and court inquiry, neither one got to the worst aspect: the drugs for arms trade. What made it all worse was that George H W Bush covered it all up by pardoning everyone.

So please with this goofy stuff about conspiracies not being part of American life.  They are part and parcel of the American state. 

If Sprague and Tanenbaum had been around for three years, they would have unraveled this one.

Edited August 10, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I would like to give some advice to WN.  He is a very valuable poster here and he is erudite with a broad background.

Don't waste your time with Peyote.  He is about at the level of DVP,  except he is  more  pompous.

Do what I did and you can hide his posts and not have to read them, unless you slip up and come in on the wrong browser, which fortunately I have not done lately. He has about as much interest in the facts and truth of the JFK case as I have in astrophysics.  He redefines the word T-r-o--l-l

Just a complete time waster.

If I recall correctly, its a very simple process to hide someone's posts. If you do not know how, PM Kathy Becket, as she showed me how and I now have about four people on my list.  It makes it a much more enjoyable experience.

Edited August 10, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to give some advice to WN.  He is a very valuable poster here and he is erudite with a broad background.

Don't waste your time with Peyote.  He is about at the level of DVP,  except he is  more  pompous.

Do what I did and you can hide his posts and not have to read them, unless you slip up and come in on the wrong browser, which fortunately I have not done lately. He has about as much interest in the facts and truth of the JFK case as I have in astrophysics.  He redefines the word T-r-o--l-l

Just a complete time waster.

If I recall correctly, its a very simple process to hide someone's posts. If you do not know how, PM Kathy Becket, as she showed me how and I now have about four people on my list.  It makes it a much more enjoyable experience.

I just skip over his posts as a general rule, maybe read say the first, sometimes last sentence.  The rest is so much blather.  Same with DVP.  Why waste your time?  Responding only seems to encourage them, though I realize their disinformation should sometimes be repudiated for the sake of those seeking the Truth on the site.  To truly engage is like wrestling with a pig, you get muddy, can never "win", and he likes it.  Besides, they take up (lot's of) space and bury relevant posts.   

[Stephanie Goldberg]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

I just skip over his posts as a general rule, maybe read say the first, sometimes last sentence.  The rest is so much blather.  Same with DVP.  Why waste your time?  Responding only seems to encourage them, though I realize their disinformation should sometimes be repudiated for the sake of those seeking the Truth on the site.  To truly engage is like wrestling with a pig, you get muddy, can never "win", and he likes it.  Besides, they take up (lot's of) space and bury relevant posts.   

See, I grew up with a different saying about pigs.  Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.  I never considered the muddy wrestling aspect...

[Ron Bulman]

Regarding recent posts on this thread.  This just popped up, then disappeared when I looked for it again without searching for it a few minutes later. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-man-said-he-was-proud-of-declaring-aoc-should-be-shot-now-hes-in-jail-for-it/ar-AAFAFfq?li=BBnb7Kz

Edited August 10, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[Chris Davidson]

An excerpt from the playbook:

[James DiEugenio]

That's the playbook alright and the NY Times took it up.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/8/2019 at 9:10 PM, Cory Santos said:

Reporter Jim Koethe was killed from force to the throat.  Please, what medical or police report stated he was killed by a ... karate chop, lol, having been a practitioner of Shotokahn Karate for decades in addition to my boxing history this is somewhat humorous.  This looks like an example of something being repeated over and over so please share the basis for the karate chop story.  From what I found, he was drinking with a guy who had a criminal history.  This guy, named Reno, was eventually charged but not prosecuted in court for various reasons.  Is it a strange coincidence, perhaps.  I see no proof it was anything more.  

This comes from pgs. 326-7 in Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked.  "Koethe… talented writer for the Dallas Morning News... murdered September 1964.  … medical examiner said his death was the result of a broken neck... disagreed with some reporters about who plotted the death of President Kennedy.  Most simply agreed Oswald was guilty.  His parents and close friends knew that Jim Koethe was writing a book on the assassination.  He supposedly had met some unsavory types who offered to share information on the subject.  … unable to reach him authorized newspaper personnel asked that his apartment be unlocked and searched.  Koethe's body, fresh from a shower and wrapped in a towel was discovered.  Strangely, none of his personal effects, writings or notes were ever found.  … No investigation of the Koethe murder was officially conducted."

No speculation about a karate chop.  But the medical examiner did conclude he died from a broken neck.  Could he have slipped, fallen and broken his neck?  I guess so.  someone should have asked the M. E. if there were say other signs of head trauma from such.  With no investigation it sounds like the DPD didn't want to know anything more.  I wonder if the death certificate is still available.  Might it reveal further detail? 

[Cory Santos]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This comes from pgs. 326-7 in Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked.  "Koethe… talented writer for the Dallas Morning News... murdered September 1964.  … medical examiner said his death was the result of a broken neck... disagreed with some reporters about who plotted the death of President Kennedy.  Most simply agreed Oswald was guilty.  His parents and close friends knew that Jim Koethe was writing a book on the assassination.  He supposedly had met some unsavory types who offered to share information on the subject.  … unable to reach him authorized newspaper personnel asked that his apartment be unlocked and searched.  Koethe's body, fresh from a shower and wrapped in a towel was discovered.  Strangely, none of his personal effects, writings or notes were ever found.  … No investigation of the Koethe murder was officially conducted."

No speculation about a karate chop.  But the medical examiner did conclude he died from a broken neck.  Could he have slipped, fallen and broken his neck?  I guess so.  someone should have asked the M. E. if there were say other signs of head trauma from such.  With no investigation it sounds like the DPD didn't want to know anything more.  I wonder if the death certificate is still available.  Might it reveal further detail? 

Thanks for that.  So then using the same burden I apply to all evidence on both sides, this site gives more information but I will need to see the sources it has because it appears there was an investigation.  Unfortunately I have emailed the professor before with no reply so I do nor expect one now.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death11.htm

Problem with this site and what you listed they both do not have sources for the information readily available.

So where did the karate chop story come from? Is it time to finally label this part of the story as false sensationalism?

Larry, if you see this can you answer some questions?

Edited August 11, 2019 by Cory Santos

[Darrell Curtis]

On 8/9/2019 at 4:01 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Darrell, expanding somewhat further:

Chris, that's exactly right. Very well stated. Where did you find that?

[John Kozlowski]

7 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Thanks for that.  So then using the same burden I apply to all evidence on both sides, this site gives more information but I will need to see the sources it has because it appears there was an investigation.  Unfortunately I have emailed the professor before with no reply so I do nor expect one now.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death11.htm

Problem with this site and what you listed they both do not have sources for the information readily available.

So where did the karate chop story come from? Is it time to finally label this part of the story as false sensationalism?

Larry, if you see this can you answer some questions?

I’m pretty sure Penn Jones was the 1st to write about him being killed by a karate chop. 

Edit: Actually it goes back further than that. Found this on Spartacus Educational.

David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)

The body of the young Dallas reporter was found swathed in a blanket on the floor of his bachelor apartment on September 21, 1964. Police said the cause of death was asphyxiation from a broken bone at the base of the neck - apparently the result of a karate chop.

Robbery appeared to be the motive, although Koethe's parents believe he was killed for other reasons. Whoever ransacked his apartment, they point out, was careful to remove his notes for a book he was preparing, in collaboration with two other journalists, on the Kennedy assassination.

Within a week a 22-year-old ex-con from Alabama named Larry Earl Reno was picked up selling Koethe's personal effects and held on suspicion of murder.

Reno's lawyers were Mike Barclay and the ubiquitous Jim Martin, both friends of Ruby roomie George Senator. Martin and Senator, one recalls, were with Koethe at that enigmatic meeting on November 24, 1963. When the Reno case came before the grand jury, District Attorney Henry Wade secretly instructed the jurors not to indict - an extraordinary move for a chief prosecuting officer with as strong a case as he had. The grand jury returned a no-bill.

Reno, however, remained in jail on a previous charge. When they finally sprang him, in January 1965, he was re-arrested within a month for the robbery of a hotel. This time the prosecution, led by a one-time law partner of Martin's had no qualms about getting an indictment, and a conviction. Reno was sentenced to life for the hotel robbery. At the trial his lawyers called no witnesses in his defense.

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by John Kozlowski