As we approach the 50th anniversary. I wonder if anybody has (or is currently planning to) make some new documentaries about the subject. I can't say that I've seen anything new except Jesse Ventura's episode on Conspiracy Theory where he claimed to have E. Howard Hunt's confession on audio.
As we approach the 50th anniversary. I wonder if anybody has (or is currently planning to) make some new documentaries about the subject. I can't say that I've seen anything new except Jesse Ventura's episode on Conspiracy Theory where he claimed to have E. Howard Hunt's confession on audio.
I live in Dallas and I was in the sixth grade when Kennedy was shot. I went to movies, both before and after at the Texas theater where Oswald was caught. For years I rode the same bus he used to escape, and that bus line took me past his home and the School Book Depository.
Dallas was 'ground zero' for so may conspiracy stories, many of which showed a lack of knowledge of the area. That is one of the reasons that I am always skeptical of any CT.
Two decades later, and 15 years after his immersion in conspiracy research, he realized he’d abandoned his journalistic training along the way.
“I had learned the basics — step back and look at all sides. But I’d read all the pro-conspiracy books and was convinced they were probably right,” he said. “When I decided to step back, I realized they weren’t telling me the whole story, just one side of it.”
Discovery, defeat
By that point, Mack was a name in conspiracy circles.
The changed motorcade route story is one I remember and as a local, I knew that it was impossible to get to Stemon's northbound from Main Street. There is not entrance ramp from Main. I was in grade school and not driving, but I knew that.
I have an idea that all the Kennedy conspiracies are one reason why I tend to debunk. When you are still a kid and you can poke holes in someone's beloved theory, it is fun and makes one feel powerful. So you read others and realize that a lot of them are SO wrong.
Dallas was 'ground zero' for so may conspiracy stories, many of which showed a lack of knowledge of the area. That is one of the reasons that I am always skeptical of any CT.
You are always skeptical of any CT based on your assessment of a single CT? I'd be curious to see the links you used to forge that logic chain if you are willing to share.
You are always skeptical of any CT based on your assessment of a single CT? I'd be curious to see the links you used to forge that logic chain if you are willing to share.
I think you missed the words "one of the reasons".
However being familiar with vast amount of bunk behind various JFK theories is actually a fairly substantial reason to be skeptical of other conspiracy theories, seeing as it pretty much sits near the head of the conspiracy hierarchy. If you believe in chemtrails or 9/11 being controlled demolition, then you automatically believe there was more than one shooter.
I can't comment on the ones I don't know of, so I only included the one clearly stated, but I can speculate others as well based on the data set of posts, but I don't think that's good form right out of the box.
However being familiar with vast amount of bunk behind various JFK theories is actually a fairly substantial reason to be skeptical of other conspiracy theories, seeing as it pretty much sits near the head of the conspiracy hierarchy.
I'm not familiar with the official charts, but I can understand how JFK might rise to the top with a bullet, but I don't know how this stuff is graded.
If you believe in chemtrails or 9/11 being controlled demolition, then you automatically believe there was more than one shooter.
The evidence is the lack of contradictory examples. I've interacted with hundreds of chemtrailers. I've never found any that don't think there was a conspiracy behind JFK and 9/11. While not conclusive proof, it's a pretty big sample.
Of course you can never make 100% true statements about any group. But this is pretty significant, I'd say >95%
Spurred in part by the growth of new media, conspiracism
has become a major subcultural phenomenon. This shift has not
gone unnoticed in academia. In recent decades, there has been
an explosion of research into the psychology of belief in conspiracy
theories. Much of this research interest has focused
on the individual correlates of conspiracy belief, but perhaps
the most consistent finding in the work on the psychology of
conspiracy theories is that belief in a particular theory is
strongly predicted by belief in others—even ostensibly unrelated
ones (Douglas & Sutton, 2008; Goertzel, 1994; Swami,
Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010; Swami et al., 2011).
For instance, someone who believes that the American government was behind the 9/11 attacks is very likely to also believe that Princess Diana was deliberately assassinated. One proposed
explanation for this connection is that beliefs in conspiracy
theories somehow support one another (Goertzel, 1994).
Even though the perpetrators may be different in each case, the
fact that one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully
executed in near-perfect secrecy suggests that many such plots
are possible. Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview
in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive
network known as a monological belief system (Clarke, 2002;
Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011).
Joe, that is ONE of the reasons. My parents raised me as a skeptic. My dad was a pharmacist and he frequently ranted against the folks with 'miracle cures'. Mind you, he was an old fashioned pharmacist, one that learned by becoming an apprentice instead of going to a college. My dad understood a lot more of how medicines act than I think a lot of modern pharmacists do. He seemed to have often been aware of drug and other issues, before they came to public attention. My mom liked Anacin for headache relief. It was aspirin and caffeine and another drug. My dad got concerned about the 3rd drug in it and refused to allow my mom to continue to take it. That was a year or so, before Anacin had to pull it's product and redo the formulation.
My parents had bought a new house, in 1949, and when they found out that my mom was expecting the next year, my dad repainted the entire interior of the house, with a lead free paint.
I was taught to be a skeptic about advertisements as well.
This sounds suspiciously like an argument from ignorance, Mick. Carl Sagan and that infamous one white crow may have a thought or two on this.
I've interacted with hundreds of chemtrailers. I've never found any that don't think there was a conspiracy behind JFK and 9/11. While not conclusive proof, it's a pretty big sample.
And yet you did precisely that, which is why I brought attention to it: "If you believe in chemtrails or 9/11 being controlled demolition, then you automatically believe there was more than one shooter."
Had you said "the vast majority" or anything similar, I'd have no problem with it. But you went with the "automatically," italicized no less. Hard to express an absolute in more stark terms than that.
From your link:
Spurred in part by the growth of new media, conspiracism has become a major subcultural phenomenon.
"In part" suggests there were other factors involved as well. Some would point to increased access to previously inaccessible data and the attendant evidence that there was in fact instances to support the idea of a this or that conspiracy as being an important factor.
For instance, someone who believes that the American government was behind the 9/11 attacks is very likely to also believe that Princess Diana was deliberately assassinated. One proposed explanation for this connection is that beliefs in conspiracy theories somehow support one another (Goertzel, 1994).
A proposed explanation that ct's somehow support one another? Hard hitting, incisive stuff, that is. I think I hear their proposal for their next grant and the need for "further research" to iron out the kinks in the "somehow."
Even though the perpetrators may be different in each case, the
fact that one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully
executed in near-perfect secrecy suggests that many such plots
are possible.
Got loaded language and facile oversimplification, oh researchers? Sheesh.
Over time, the view of the world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview
in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive
network known as a monological belief system
This is certainly a possibility for some and a probability for many. That said, a strong case can be made that everything after the dash applies equally to the debunking community. In fact, that's my thesis to a t.
Had you said "the vast majority" or anything similar, I'd have no problem with it. But you went with the "automatically," italicized no less. Hard to express an absolute in more stark terms than that.
There's an implied "almost 100%" in almost all definitive statements. Like "if I drop an apple it will fall". One can always posit exceptions, and one can often find exceptions.
This does not change the facts though. Chemtrailers (almost all) think JFK was killed by a conspiracy that was then covered up.
This is certainly a possibility for some and a probability for many. That said, a strong case can be made that everything after the dash applies equally to the debunking community. In fact, that's my thesis to a t.
This is said all the time, but it's not supported by evidence as far as my experience goes. I may be new here, but I am not new to the the debunker/skeptic universe as a whole, and my chief kick against it is that this very line is parroted far, far more than it is practiced.
As for challenging the existing dogma, that's precisely what I am doing here because the walk does not match the talk anywhere near the degree to which is assumed.
As problematic as I found that study you cited, they couldn't have nailed my view of the debunker/skeptic model any better than they did because after long observation from outside the choir room looking in, I see a "unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system."
I would love to see this as a separate thread because I think it's a vital issue and warrants serious consideration.
jFK was simply killed by a passed off mobster, Sam Giancani.
After his failed attempt to discredit JFK by killing Marilyn Monroe, and leaving personal love letters strewn about her bedroom.
Unfortunately for him, the secret service cleaned them all up, before anybody else got there.
I mixed this DOCUMENTARY, and talked to the filmmaker. Who talked extensively to the offspring and family members of Sam Giancana.
Are you aware that Sam bankrolled Marilyn Monroe early in her career?
I know. A president being taken out by a simple mob guy isn't as mysterious as some illuminati, CIA conspiracy, but that's the way it is.
Occam's razor at work.
I've read a lot about the JFK assassination. And really, as with most killings, the way to get away with these things is to have as few people in the know. And I'm talking one or two people. The more people involved, the sooner things get leaked out.
So where did LHO fit into this?
And why has the premise presented in the documentary not taken off if it is so well researched? There must have been some kind of reaction to it?
So where did LHO fit into this?
And why has the premise presented in the documentary not taken off if it is so well researched? There must have been some kind of reaction to it?
I laughed aloud when I saw Ventura struggling with that. FFS I was able to get three shots off from a pump-action .22 FN rifle at the age of 16. It was a particularly old rifle, my father had bought it from a local Garda Sargeant back in 1957, and it was already quite old then.
A much better series of test of plausibility was CBS in 1967, average 5.6 seconds. Fastest time 4.1 seconds. One guy got three hits in 5.2 seconds. And these guys are shooting at a moving target.
Meaning Ventura's fumbling recreation, and his comment "and he did it in six? Bullshit!" is basically a lie.
A much better series of test of plausibility was CBS in 1967, average 5.6 seconds. Fastest time 4.1 seconds. One guy got three hits in 5.2 seconds. And these guys are shooting at a moving target.
One guy, is Howard Donahue. Page 9, "Mortal Error": "More importantly, the elapsed time from first shot to last was only 4.8 seconds, well under the 5.6 maximum. A second timer measured the elapsed time of the shooting at 5.2 seconds, but still within the range."
"The changed motorcade route story is one I remember and as a local, I knew that it was impossible to get to Stemon's northbound from Main Street. There is not entrance ramp from Main. I was in grade school and not driving, but I knew that."
What the conspiracy book writers depended on was that most of the country didn't live in Dallas.
They would publish a map from one of the Dallas newspapers, which did not show the one block zig zag from Main over to Elm and claim from the map, that the route was changed at the last minute.
I laughed aloud when I saw Ventura struggling with that. FFS I was able to get three shots off from a pump-action .22 FN rifle at the age of 16. It was a particularly old rifle, my father had bought it from a local Garda Sargeant back in 1957, and it was already quite old then.
Speaking of struggling, Robert Blakey who headed the House Assassination Committee, said, i believe it was on a NOVA TV special, that the MC could not be fired twice, without aiming, in less than 2.3 seconds. He had an MC and proceeded to demonstrate, without rushing, as he went through the motions of pretending to fire a shot, recycling, bringing the rifle to his eye and pulling the trigger again, without pausing to aim. With my watch's stopwatch function, i clocked him at 1.9 seconds.
The Warren report stated that Frasier, of the FBI had fired 3 shots at a target at 25 yards, in 4.6 seconds, an average of 2.3 seconds per shot. Frasier was aiming, as the size of the shot grouping was mentioned.
Blakey was incorrect in stating that Frasier's shot timing was without aiming.
As we approach the 50th anniversary. I wonder if anybody has (or is currently planning to) make some new documentaries about the subject. I can't say that I've seen anything new except Jesse Ventura's episode on Conspiracy Theory where he claimed to have E. Howard Hunt's confession on audio.
I attended the 40th anniversary in 2003. Ventura was the featured speaker. In his speech he said he had talked to Castro in Cuba and that Castro had told him, Oswald couldn't make the shot. The previous day, i had visited the 6th floor museum and stood looking down Elm from the window next to the sniper nest, which is an enclosed exhibit, precluding access to the sniper window itself. Down on the street, in the middle lane, was an X, approximating where the fatal shot occurred. While not an absolute certainty, the shot was doable. It was also possible to fire 3 shots in the minimum time necessary for the first and third shots to have struck JFK.
A much better series of test of plausibility was CBS in 1967, average 5.6 seconds. Fastest time 4.1 seconds. One guy got three hits in 5.2 seconds. And these guys are shooting at a moving target.
Meaning Ventura's fumbling recreation, and his comment "and he did it in six? Bullshit!" is basically a lie.
Oh excellent, narration provided by Dan "Head moved violently forward" Rather --I love how ALL the focus is always on wether or not LHO could have made the shots. Yeah, he could have--so could somebody else!! It was never proven that he was the shooter, nor did he ever have a chance to defend himself. Also, debunkers spend about 0% of their time focusing on others who SAW separate shooters, not spend any time on the clear bungling of the evidence handling by doctors
Oh excellent, narration provided by Dan "Head moved violently forward" Rather --I love how ALL the focus is always on wether or not LHO could have made the shots. Yeah, he could have--so could somebody else!! It was never proven that he was the shooter, nor did he ever have a chance to defend himself. Also, debunkers spend about 0% of their time focusing on others who SAW separate shooters, not spend any time on the clear bungling of the evidence handling by doctors
"Conspiracy theory" is just code for the death of eyewitness testimony. If a news agency tells me something has happened, the burden of proof lies on them to prove it, and if eyewitness testimony flies in the face of official story, I want to know why. If the testimony turns out to be inaccurate, fine. But, you are not going to get MORE people to believe official tales if eyewitnesses are consistently not asked to testify in things like the Warren Commission. 3rd guy shot in Dallas 50 years ago was NOT asked to testify, dozens of witnesses who had info were scrubbed from record. I guess if we are all cool with that, then swell!!
"Conspiracy theory" is just code for the death of eyewitness testimony. If a news agency tells me something has happened, the burden of proof lies on them to prove it, and if eyewitness testimony flies in the face of official story, I want to know why. If the testimony turns out to be inaccurate, fine. But, you are not going to get MORE people to believe official tales if eyewitnesses are consistently not asked to testify in things like the Warren Commission. 3rd guy shot in Dallas 50 years ago was NOT asked to testify, dozens of witnesses who had info were scrubbed from record. I guess if we are all cool with that, then swell!!
Not really. Conspiracy theory is the “the attribution of deliberate agency to something that is more likely to be accidental or unintended.” You are simply saying that we should put more stock in eyewitness testimony, which is an entirely different topic, and likely very wrong - because eyewitness testimony has been shown countless times to be unreliable.
