20 REASONS WHY THE PUBLIC ARE BLIND TO THE JFK CONSPIRACY, AND MANY OTHERS.

[Matthew Koch]

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 The fact that after birtherism got started one or two Clinton staffers forwarded it opportunistically on facebook or whatever, or that grassroots Democrats partisan to Hillary may have, does not cut it as evidence implicating Hillary or her campaign, and the Clinton campaign overtly sought to dampen that sort of thing from its staffers. The actual basis for the argument I have usually heard if one were to press the point is that a former deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, Phil Berg, who filed the first legal action associated with birtherism, claimed he was a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Neither Hillary nor her campaign had anything to do with that. 

If there was a hidden hand in birtherism (probably was) the smoke surrounding it suggests it was coming from the right seeking to discredit a potential and then actual Democratic nominee in the general election. (I do not believe either McCain or Romney or their campaigns had anything to do with promoting birtherism either. Unlike Trump, each of those two Republicans had some conscience about things.)

I like how you are saying what I said is baseless in one breath and in the next say it probably came from Hillary side which is #3 or #4 maybe both, then you proceed exhibit #20 The Hidden hand of the cabal must be behind this! 💯😝!

[Matthew Koch]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 Will you at least agree that Donald pushed this issue for attention, and to send a wink-wink nudge-nudge to the Republican base that it was okay to doubt the "American-ness" of a mixed-race guy born and mostly raised in Hawaii?

Or do you think he had the best of intentions?

Pat you checked another cliché left box; 'projecting racism onto others' you are quite the Cliché Guevara today.. 

Funny how all these people didn't think Trump was racist until he was President hence why no one like Snoop Dog for example brought it in his roast and also why rappers used to say they were Donald Trump 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, Matthew Koch said:

I like how you are saying what I said is baseless in one breath and in the next say it probably came from Hillary side which is #3 or #4 maybe both, then you proceed exhibit #20 The Hidden hand of the cabal must be behind this! 💯😝!

But you see Matthew, you smear Hillary Clinton personally on this point without support from facts. It is not right to do that. Instead of correcting retracting, or being more careful in the first place, you counterattack. I'm not interested in debating this. Your posting a video of Hillary with intent to provoke or inflame is off-topic and is not helping critical discussion of the JFK assassination. (And do not typecast me; this is not about whether I like Hillary Clinton or not politically.) 

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

But you see Matthew, you smear Hillary Clinton personally on this point without support from facts. It is not right to do that. Instead of correcting retracting, or being more careful in the first place, you counterattack. I'm not interested in debating this. Your posting a video of Hillary with intent to provoke or inflame is off-topic and is not helping critical discussion of the JFK assassination. (And do not typecast me; this is not about whether I like Hillary Clinton or not politically.) 

Greg Reread #20 out loud to yourself then ask yourself if a vast rightwing conspiracy against me and my husband seems to fit hence why I included it. I'm not smearing Hillary her own record speaks for itself which in case you forgot is why alot of people voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party after the DNC super delegates rigged the primaries for Hillary. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You have a list but you do not explain its relationship to the claim in your title that they apply to "the" JFK assassination conspiracy theory. For example, the JFK assassination conspiracy theory that the Mob killed JFK of Blakey/HSCA: only a few on this forum accept it. I don't know if you do, but most here do not. Which of your twenty points in terms of explanatory power applies in explanation to what you call in your title "being blind" to the JFK conspiracy theory that the Mob did it? 

You are omitting a point 21: some people reject conspiracy theories because they believe them not to be true, based on their assessment of the evidence. Why did that not make your list of 20 points?

Now if you mean your 20 points to assume a prior premise, as applying only to being blind to conspiracy theories which are indeed true ... a logical prior ... which conspiracy theory do you mean, specifically, with reference to "the" JFK conspiracy?

Please be specific. Otherwise this is just shadow boxing in air. 

You haven't explained how your 20 points apply to any specific JFK assassination theory because you haven't said which one you mean.

Also, if conspiracy is understood as meaning two or more persons plotting to commit a crime, then 100 percent of people believe in conspiracies because everyone believes there are Mob hits, and every contract killing is a criminal conspiracy, that is, a conspiracy. It all goes to cases, which ones then. 

But back to your 20 points. Which of your 20 points do you believe apply in explanation of the fact that most on this forum are resistant to the Mob conspiracy killing of JFK?

Hi Greg,

You haven’t understood that what I have written is a list of mostly psychological conditions and biases that prevent a person from seeing what is in front of their eyes. 
 

The list isn’t a skeleton key to solving the JFKA or any other conspiracy. Which you seem to have misinterpreted it as. 
 

If you are not free biases or inhibiting psychological conditions, then you can’t critically think, or be objective. Please note that our resident psychology professor on the forum concurred with me about these “stumbling blocks.” 
You responded at cross purposes wanting a list of psychological conditions to solve the birther fiasco or whether or not the mob was involved in killing JFK. Which suggests to me that the post triggered you, and that you are posturing for some kind of debate that relates to a topic you want to debate. If you remember, we had a debate, perhaps one year ago, in which you proposed an alternate fiscal system which was doomed to fail because you fundamentally don’t understand the nature of very wealthy people. You clearly demonstrated a disposition that the list above could explain using multiple points. 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I like how you are saying what I said is baseless in one breath and in the next say it probably came from Hillary side which is #3 or #4 maybe both, then you proceed exhibit #20 The Hidden hand of the cabal must be behind this! 💯😝!

You figured that out very quickly, Matt K. When you go through a body of Greg’s posts here on the forum, he exhibits a number of these points. He doesn’t consciously realise it, he just assumes anyone else is wrong. If he is operating and thinking from the amygdala, the emotional brain, then his chances of actually being right are very small indeed. This is a great shame as he works very hard on his research. 

[Guest]

On 2/24/2023 at 10:03 AM, John Cotter said:

Great stuff, Chris.

Thank you, John. I think people could do a lot worse than having a go at being introspective and analysing their own thoughts and how they come to them, in addition to analysing their opponents. We’d all be in a much better place as a society. 

[Greg Doudna]

Actually Chris, overlooking the mild ad hominem response instead of substantive response, your 20 points are quite good, I mean that seriously, you just haven't shown how they relate as explanatory power to perceptions of the JFK assassination conspiracy because you won't define what you mean by that, not that that could not potentially be done. But your 20 points are quite good in terms of a more Chomsky or C. Wright Mills power-structures analysis, or Gramsci, and how propaganda works, but that goes apart from "conspiracy" thinking and is more in terms of what you yourself correctly observe as causes of inability to "see what is in front of their [our] eyes", a subject that has fascinated me no end (the "purloined letter" phenomenon, drawing on the famous short story of Edgar Allen Poe of 1840 of that name). This is different from conspiracies which involve secrecy leading up to overt criminal acts, but concerns the ability to spin what is publicly visible to have people think they see the opposite or differently, which is an art form to behold, the stuff of ancient classical rhetoric and ancient and modern magic and modern public relations and advertising and political campaigns. But I did jerk your chain a little there Chris, will try not to going forward, carry on.  

[Pat Speer]

While Chris' list is in itself informative, in the context of the Kennedy assassination it is mildly distracting. He must know that the vast majority of people who study such lists and think themselves beyond all that are members of the critical thinking community. These people think the JFKA research community are wackos, because, well, people like James Randi and Michael Shermer have said as much. 

Of course, on the other hand, we have people like James Fetzer--a professor of critical thinking who used his status to push some of the sloppiest bullcrap ever pushed on this forum or elsewhere. 

So, in short, appealing to logic hasn't worked in this case, as logic has traditionally been used as a tool to push agendas, whatever the agenda.

For most, the emotion comes first, and the rationale comes after. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Actually Chris, overlooking the mild ad hominem response instead of substantive response, your 20 points are quite good, I mean that seriously, you just haven't shown how they relate as explanatory power to perceptions of the JFK assassination conspiracy because you won't define what you mean by that, not that that could not potentially be done. But your 20 points are quite good in terms of a more Chomsky or C. Wright Mills power-structures analysis, or Gramsci, and how propaganda works, but that goes apart from "conspiracy" thinking and is more in terms of what you yourself correctly observe as causes of inability to "see what is in front of their [our] eyes", a subject that has fascinated me no end (the "purloined letter" phenomenon, drawing on the famous short story of Edgar Allen Poe of 1840 of that name). This is different from conspiracies which involve secrecy leading up to overt criminal acts, but concerns the ability to spin what is publicly visible to have people think they see the opposite or differently, which is an art form to behold, the stuff of ancient classical rhetoric and ancient and modern magic and modern public relations and advertising and political campaigns. But I did jerk your chain a little there Chris, will try not to going forward, carry on.  

Well, thank you for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it. I apologise for anything you have construed as ‘mild ad hominem’. In my defence, our last significant interaction was a little tetchy, less that cordial. In my opinion it perhaps didn’t put us on the most solid footing for a free and open dialogue this time. Nevertheless I think my observation was correct, you may disagree.

I am not sure if you aware but, I earn my living from PR. i have been very familiar with the mechanisms used to shape public opinion for quite a long time. I have referenced Chomsky, C.Wright-Mills, Edward Bernays, Gustav Le Bon, Etienne de la Boetie, Dr Joost Meerloo and other more modern figures here on the forum, as well as a host of other respected psychologists, authors and philosophers. I would argue that Machiavelli’s “The Prince” is as important as any book a person could read on the matter. In my opinion we find ourselves on the end of ‘dark psychology’, which is an area I have done plenty of reading on. The people who run our societies are Machiavellian’s (in the background), with narcissists as front men. 

“The purloined letter” is a majestic piece of writing, and I do think all here would benefit from reading it, or listening to it. 

A conspiracy can range from a very overt act, to something very subtle indeed. I loosely defined the term as involving two or more people, as the dictionary does. It covers a wide spectrum of happenings in the world today. 
 

A very good planner wouldn’t need to spin things, if his storyboard is very good, people would assume that as truth instantly and those that didn’t might use Occam’s Razor or a similar trained or conditioned thought process. What can defeat the public is that the Prussian style school system that we have in the West teaches people what to think, and not how to think. Its done when children’s minds are like a sponge, for the purpose of achieving conformity and obedience. For most people their minds are shaped from that early age. If we encourage more critical thinking, a conspiracy would be much harder to achieve. Though, I do concede that because of many factors, I don’t believe it is a level playing field, regardless if the influence of schooling. I do believe that certain personalities possess exceptional critical thinking skills, and that a Machiavellian (a planner, or architect type) will also question things, see patterns and often smell a rouse. It might be you need a thief to catch one. These types are not staring at Plato’s cave wall, even if the rest are content to do so. 
 

I do think this is an interesting and important conversation, Greg.  
 

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

While Chris' list is in itself informative, in the context of the Kennedy assassination it is mildly distracting. He must know that the vast majority of people who study such lists and think themselves beyond all that are members of the critical thinking community. These people think the JFKA research community are wackos, because, well, people like James Randi and Michael Shermer have said as much. 

Of course, on the other hand, we have people like James Fetzer--a professor of critical thinking who used his status to push some of the sloppiest bullcrap ever pushed on this forum or elsewhere. 

So, in short, appealing to logic hasn't worked in this case, as logic has traditionally been used as a tool to push agendas, whatever the agenda.

For most, the emotion comes first, and the rationale comes after. 

I think you’re right, Pat. Not all those who identify as something, are in reality exceptional at it. Our life experience tells us that there is a ‘Pareto Distribution’ in almost every field we look at (80/20 rule). 
 

Here on the forum we have an eclectic bunch from varying locations, education, life experience and intelligence. I would hope that this place would be a concentration of critical thinkers, in reality it too reflects the 80/20 rule. I had hoped that by posting this list that people would take a moment to read it and consider if they are influences by the above. None of us are immune to it but, its at least my personal opinion that some are more prone to it than others. 
 

As for logic, as a society we are trained not to critically think or question narratives from authority. To me that’s programming and not logic, or rationality. 
 

Regarding your last sentence, one of the chief problems is that as long as fear is attached to the subject matter, the emotion does not dissipate, it can be a constant. I think you know my thoughts on the animal brain and the rational thinking part of the brain.