Conspiracy, conspiracy, who’s got the conspiracy?
Theory, that is.
The funny thing about the ubiquity of conspiracy theories is that some of them are true. The trouble is figuring out which ones they might be, because the majority are not.
Now that the Epstein death conspiracy theories are being floated nearly everywhere, I though it might be time to air an edited version of an amalgam of two previous posts of mine on the subject of conspiracy theories. The two focused on JFK assassination theories, but the points I make apply to all such theories.
I’ve noticed a pattern now too often for it to be a coincidence: people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to cling to them in the face of all evidence to the contrary. In fact, when they are offered evidence to the contrary, they often will not even look at it. Why let the facts get in the way of a good (or bad) argument? It’s easier to just raise more objections, or to repeat the original assertion.
I’ve mentioned that Bugliosi’s book debunking the JFK assassination conspiracy theories is very long, in part because it attempts to deal with every single one. Most people are not going to read the whole thing. But the first 500 pages or so are quite doable, often riveting, and present a ton of facts that are exceedingly convincing to those who have minds open enough to take it all in objectively.
The rest of the book can be considered as a reference—and a handy one at that, since it is also available though Kindle, and a great deal of it is posted online for free at Google Books.
Since Bugliosi has pondered virtually every aspect of the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy buffs, he’s pondered how they go about their business, and he has this to say (see pp. 951 ff):
It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility, that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act, despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, and not an ounce showing that any of these groups had anything to do with the assassination.
It is further remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren’t troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence. More importantly, there is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don’t realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you…
…[T]he evidence against Oswald is so great that you could throw 80% of it out the window and there would still be more than enough to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt…
The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald’s guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the individual branches. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence.
Bugliosi is describing something I’ve noticed as well. There is indeed a mountain—or a forest, or whatever comparison you like—of solid evidence implicating Oswald, from a multiplicity of sources, such that it could not be planted simultaneously. There are countless witnesses to actions before and after the assassination, and that involve the murder of Officer Tippit as well. There are fingerprints. There are mail orders for firearms and fake IDs written in Owald’s handwriting and photos that are NOT faked (and that his widow attested to having taken herself—did she frame Oswald as well?).
There is an absence of all of this evidence for everyone else. All that is left is “well, this person talked to that person once” or “this person was acquainted with that person” or “this group had reason to want Kennedy dead,” and on and on and on. Tiny discrepancies—common to all prosecutions of all crimes that do not involve a video of the perpetrator committing the act and an uncoerced confession—are found and focused on. Witnesses might disagree on a detail here and there. Sometimes some change their story. Not every single fact is completely nailed down. But, as Bugliosi points out, the evidence for Oswald as the sole perpetrator is so enormously overwhelming that it has been proven not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a doubt.
However, doubting remains, and is extremely prevalent. A poll from 2003 indicated that 70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The persistence of such ideas reflects, among other things, the fact that people are reluctant to believe that an insignificant individual such as Oswald could have committed an act that changed history. But it happens all the time—and, by the way, it was one of Oswald’s motivations: he wanted to change history and to change his own insignificance and turn it into significance.
Yet another reason for the prevalence of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists is that the sort of logical thinking that makes for the evaluation of a good legal case is not necessarily common among humanity. Critical thinking is difficult, and understanding a huge and unwieldy body of evidence is time-consuming and somewhat boring. Much more fun, and much easier, to poke a hole in a fact or two, to rely on outright lies or misrepresentations of what happened, and to jaw at length in paranoia on various and sundry discussion boards.
Bugliosi makes an especially interesting point in his introduction, one I hadn’t really thought of before, which is that although most of the people who believe in the various conspiracies are probably sincere in their beliefs, many of those who actually write the conspiracy books are not. They are lying and they know it, but they count on their readers not to realize this.
The Kennedy assassination involves an almost unimaginable amount of data and evidence, so much so that most of us have forgotten many of the details although we may think we remember them. Authors of conspiracy books—who generally are exceedingly familiar with these details—are counting on their readers’ faulty or incomplete memories.
On pages xxviii-xxix of the introduction to his book, Bugliosi points out:
The conspiracy theorists [most of those who originate and profit off them, that is] are so outrageously brazen that they tell lies not just about verifiable, documentary evidence, but about clear, photographic evidence, knowing that only one out of a thousand of their readers, if that, is in possession of the subject photographs. Robert Groden (the leading photographic expert for the conspiracy proponents who was the photographic adviser the Oliver Stone’s movie JFK) draws a diagram on page 24 of his book High Treason of Governor Connally seated directly in front of President Kennedy in the presidential limousine and postulates the “remarkable path” a bullet coming from behind Kennedy, and traveling from left to right, would have to take to hit Connally—after passing straight through Kennedy’s body, making a right turn and then a left one in midair, which, the buffs chortle, bullets “don’t even do in cartoons.” What average reader would be in a position to dispute this seemingly common-sense, geometric assault on the Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory?…But of course, if you start out with an erroneous premise, whatever flows from it makes a lot of sense. The only problem is that it’s wrong. The indisputable fact here—which all people who have studied the assassination know—is that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, but to his left front.
Bugliosi goes on to add that Connally’s jump seat was also three inches lower than Kennedy, and his head was turned to his right (which is clear from the Zapruder film) at the time the bullet hit. The proper trajectory of the bullet was therefore exactly as the Warren Commission stated. None of these facts are all that difficult to ascertain, and there is little doubt that conspiracy author and consultant Groden is (or should be) well aware of them. And this is just a single point on which conspiracists prevaricate; there are countless others.
Bugliosi continues [emphasis mine]:
I am unaware of any other major event in world history which has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the assassination of JFK.
The question is why? Bugliosi notes that conspiracy sells, and he is correct. There is no question that some of the motivation to write these things is to make money. But for at least some of the conspiracy authors and promoters there is probably another reason, which is that belief in conspiracies undermine faith in our government as a whole. Earl Warren had this to say about the matter (page xxi of the introduction):
To say now that [the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Departments of State and Defense], as well as the [Warren] Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean the whole structure was absolutely corrupt from top to bottom, not one person of high or low rank willing to come forward to expose the villainy, in spite of the fact that the entire country bitterly mourned the death of its young president.
To add some thoughts based on events that have occurred since I originally wrote that, Russiagate and then the exposure of Russiagate has only underlined the believability of the idea that the government (“deep state”) did something as crooked and awful as killing Kennedy. In Russiagate, we saw a false conspiracy theory pushed about Trump by certain government agencies (or at least people in those agencies who were quite high up), and then we saw that conspiracy theory about Trump and Russia unravel as evidence has been presented for the very real conspiracy against Trump by those agencies. Which theory one believes is true should be based on the facts and the clarity and abundance and convincing nature of the evidence, and I think it’s clear that Russiagate was false and the Russia Hoax was conspiracy to promote a false conspiracy (something like the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). But most Democrats probably disagree with me, and see the reverse (Russiagate was true and its undermining was false) as quite obvious. I think the evidence is absolutely overwhelming for the side in which I have come to believe, but the others of course disagree.
And the entire episode only fosters the general idea of government conspiracies on conspiracies on conspiracies.
And speaking of conspiracies to hide the truth, a significant number of pundits have been asserting for quite some time that the far right was responsible for Kennedy’s death (I discussed the phenomenon at greater length here).
From my reading of Oswald’s testimony and demeanor, he was well aware that he would be championed and/or exonerated by those who would want to believe him innocent. His famous “I am a patsy” remark was a brilliant statement along those lines. Bugliosi’s book explains that Oswald maintained a resistance to police interrogation that was impressive; he virtually never lost his imperturbable demeanor during the time he was in custody. When confronted with clear evidence of his guilt, he calmly and arrogantly denied whatever implicated him, no matter how powerfully it did so. When asked, for example, to explain a fact that pointed strongly to his guilt, he merely answered, “I don’t explain it” (page 255).
Perhaps Oswald correctly surmised that others would do his explaining for him.
The weirdest conspiracy theory I have encountered involved the JFK Assassination. A friend of a friend believed that JFK was shot by the driver of the limousine. He had has evidence a documentary which allegedly showed footage of the driver turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy in the head with a pistol. He excitedly played the footage for us, claiming it would prove once and for all that the chauffeur did it. The result was a blurred mess, looking like a painting of the killing done by a drunken Jackson Pollock. The conspiracy buff kept saying, “Look, see the gun!? See the gun!?”–and pointing to a tiny sliver of a gunmetal-ish color. He could not be convinced that what we were watching was anything but the chauffeur popping JFK in the head. What it did convince me was that the friend of the friend was bonkers.
Your link, “…pundits have been asserting for quite some time …” doesn’t go to anything about the Kennedy assassination.
Kate:
Some of those links are probably dead, because I cut and pasted parts of the present post from old posts.
great post Neo. its like cult members, when the world doesn’t end with a comet, they come up with new theories to explain it.
I always thought that Stones movie was absurd. By JFK having Diem knocked off, he both South Vietnam and would have had to intervene like LBJ did.
actually the movie Executive Action was more plausible. I think the JFK conspiracy theorists would not change their mind even if Oswald came back to earth and admitted guilt . Actually the same applies to the Rosenberg defenders.
bought South Vietnam
Conspiracy theories come about because we need to see patterns. Patterns keep everything from being random. And random is scary. You never know when to duck.
Then you need ambiguity. That has to be reified, firmed up. So something is inserted. Might be wrong, objectively, but it connects a couple of items.
Then you need Authority being distrusted because of its history, or possibly because they’ve made mistakes in the instant case. Gotten out over their skis. As with the TWA 800 case, three separate reasons for explosive residue, one of which was self-refuting on its face, but Authority tried it. So…the theorist asks, what did they do that for? Can’t be a good reason. So it’s a bad reason. Somebody has to be seen to benefit. That’s one of the tough ones in the JFK case. People and institutions are presumed to have benefited although there’s no reason to think they would have except a knowing frown.
As I mentioned wrt the Gander crash, icing as a cause benefited the Canadian air field security about keeping bombs off aircraft as the Air India explosion demonstrated.
And not having TWA 800 shot down by terrorists kept Clinton from having to take severe action someplace. Does this prove anything? Nope. But it’s a required ingredient of conspiracy theories.
I think the point of origin of the inaccurate schematic drawings he refers to was Josiah Thompson. It’s a reasonable wager that it was an honest mistake on his part.
No question Oswald shot the President and Gov. Connolly. The trouble is, demonstrating that Oswald was working for someone else requires inductive reasoning, and that’s something to which a certain sort of person is allergic. When you assemble a list of people he associated with, you find (1) his family, (2) Ruth Payne and her associates in the Russian-emigre community in Dallas, (3) various co-workers and supervisors (nearly all s/t because the one thing at which he was an adept was getting fired from his job).
Most entertaining conspiracy theory: Jim Garrison’s, propagated by Oliver Stone. The military-industrial complex took down Pres. Kennedy by subcontracting the job to a claque of French Quarter homosexuals. They proved it with geometric logic.
It was always obvious to me that there was no conspiracy. A conspiracy would have required participation of the Secret Service, the entire Dallas Police force (how would you know who would be on that detail that day?), the entire staff of Parkland Hospital (ditto), all the FBI investigators, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and most significant to me, since I’m from Philadelphia, Chief Counsel Arlen Spector, who desperately wanted to further his political career, and doubtless would have been elected President if he had exposed a conspiracy. Where were the conspirators going to meet: Cowboys’ Stadium?
the movie Executive Action was more plausible.
ROTFL
Actually the same applies to the Rosenberg defenders.
The Rosenberg defenders were pig-headed practitioners of motivated reasoning, not conspiracy theorists. The most inveterate of them were Walter and Miriam Schneir, who gave up on their thesis after the Venona disclosures. In any case, Morton Sobell eventually came clean. Alger Hiss has a residue of defenders – all associated with his son or with Victor Navasky. Their last effort was to assemble a daisy-chain of suppositions toward the thesis that the spy referred to in the Venona transcripts was one Wilder Foote, a public relations official who had traveled with the Secretary of State. Mr. Foote ended his days working in the publications department of the United Nations. He’s spent the 1930s as a small-time newspaper editor in Vermont, the echt sleeper agent, I guess. Mr. Foote’s family wasn’t pleased with this gambit and said the Navasky proteges who’d spoken to them were deceptive.
Richard Aubrey:
I think one big reason for the popularity of conspiracy theories is that they allow the adherents to think of themselves as member of an elite group that knows the score, whereas the rest of us are just naive fools.
My wife’s uncle had a high-end photo development shop in Chicago at the time, and developed the still pictures from the Zapruder film that appeared in Life Magazine. He never expressed any doubt about there being only one bullet.
I had seen a short documentary about a group that used a 3D CADD package, precise measurements of Dealey Plaza and book depository, and Kennedy’s limo, and a frame by frame of the Zapruder film; to prove that the magic zig-zagging bullet actually flew straight as an arrow.
No one doubts Oswald did the deed.
The question is did anyone put him up to it or support his effort?
Let’s see, we are supposed to believe that a LIFELONG gangster named Ruby (originally from Chicago) gets pissed off at Oswald for shooting JFK, and that he, Ruby – a gangster, decides to seek revenge by shooting Oswald
Sure.
I have a bridge over the East River in NYC I wish to sell you.
A gangster with strong political views acts out because his political idol – a President – gets whacked.
Sorry, gangsters have no interest in politics above what directly affects them and their “business.”
Recall that Joe Kennedy (the dad of JFK) earned a lot of his fortune as a bootlegger during Prohibition; he knew a lot of real world gangsters (organized crime folks.)
The “mob” helped swung the 1960 presidential election for JFK by messing with the ballots in Chicago, giving JFK Illinois and thus the presidency.
And being mobsters, they expect a return on their investment (in this case, being left alone by the DOJ/Federal Govt.)
So what does JFK then do?
He appoints RFK as US Attorney General and RFK proceeds to go full throttle and brings the entire Federal DOJ to go after the mob in an effort to extinguish the mob.
So the mob, instead of reaping benefits from JFKs election, wind up being totally screwed over by JFK.
Mobsters do not like getting screwed over.
So who had a reason to knock off JFK? The mob.
Not that they shot JFK; they just got Oswald to do it.
He was a patsy.
There simply is no way on earth that Ruby, a lifelong gangster decides to seek revenge on Oswald for shooting JFK.
Gangsters seek money and do what they are told by “higher ups.”
They could care less about any politics that does affect their business.
Really now, does anybody really think a mobster, Ruby, shot Oswald because of what Oswald did?
Give me a break.
one thing Ill say about Jack Rubinstein is that as a kid when he was described as a nightclub owner, I assumed it was a place like Ricky Ricardo’s Tropicana. Now that Im older I realize that it was more like Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing
Let’s see, we are supposed to believe that a LIFELONG gangster named Ruby (originally from Chicago) gets pissed off at Oswald for shooting JFK, and that he, Ruby – a gangster, decides to seek revenge by shooting Oswald
He wasn’t a gangster. He and his brothers were serial entrepreneurs. (One of their lines was a home manufactured board game). He always worked for himself. It was a living but not a lucrative one. A reporter who was present when police were searching his residence said there was little of interest there (“just a dumpy apartment”). He’d never married and never sired children. He was in a line of work where you had to contend with skeevy characters – be they union reps or people running protection rackets or some of your clientele. That he regularly crossed paths with gangsters didn’t make him a gangster.
Now that Im older I realize that it was more like Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing
Supposedly he aspired to run class joints, but was vague on just what that meant. Dusky strip joints, where he acted as his own bouncer.
He appoints RFK as US Attorney General and RFK proceeds to go full throttle and brings the entire Federal DOJ to go after the mob in an effort to extinguish the mob. So the mob, instead of reaping benefits from JFKs election, wind up being totally screwed over by JFK. Mobsters do not like getting screwed over. So who had a reason to knock off JFK? The mob.
The series of administrations in office from 1969 to 1990 were a great deal more effective contra the Sicilianate mob than was Bobby Kennedy. Five presidents and nine attorneys-general, all of whom died in bed or are still walking the streets. Ditto Rudy Giuliani.
Let’s be consistent here. Oswald was nuts enough to shoot Kennedy. Why do we impute far more logical and self-interested motives to Ruby?
I never understood why people think the military/industrial complex would kill Kennedy. He was a hawk.
“JFK assassination theories”
BOTH JFK and RFK were killed by Jackie O.
John Tyler:
You have demonstrated what I mean. You seem to know very little of the actual facts about Ruby’s life and the mountain of evidence about him (some of which has to do with how incredibly upset he was about JFK’s assassination). Read Bugliosi’s book, if you want to do yourself a favor, at least the first 500 pages of it.
Part of the problem is that people have a mental paradigm which they can’t leave behind, despite evidence to the contrary. They need some explanation for something which seems pointless to them. Kennedy killed by a single-actor Communist? Somebody that important and one person removes him? That’s what happened, but it was hard to accept.
I can think of another example around here: the father of the two young women who, along with the husband of one of them, were shot dead by a man in their apartment complex who was angry about a parking spot he considered “his.” This father still believes, and gives interviews saying so, that his girls were murdered because they were Muslims (hijab-wearing). No evidence indicates that, but it gives him some meaning to hang onto. Shot over a parking spot? Horrifying, and to him, inconceivable.
We see something like this in the argument about whether Trump condemned white supremacists at Charlottesville. He did, clearly. However, true believers who are sure Trump is a racist simply cannot accept the video or transcript showing what Trump actually said. It conflicts with their paradigm and is rejected.
Conspiracies dont sell
MYSTERIES sell
and the kind of conspiracy theorist Neo has detailed becomes Poirot, Agatha Christie, or Ellery Queen, who sees the real answer among fools!
Even worse if they are the kind to believe many upon many of them…
how foolish must the world around them be to miss so many!
[for the record, Epstein killed himself, he had a lot of humiliation and dog and pony shows coming, and no real way not to be (an earned) example]
Neo said: “Yet another reason for the prevalence of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists is that the sort of logical thinking that makes for the evaluation of a good legal case is not necessarily common among humanity. Critical thinking is difficult, and understanding a huge and unwieldy body of evidence is time-consuming and somewhat boring.”
I certainly agree with this (having just gotten home from my legal job, where I spent a long, dull day trying to understand a huge, unwieldy and distinctly boring body of evidence). But I think there’s another, related characteristic that contributes to the willingness of many people to believe conspiracy theories and ideas like the claim that vaccines cause autism, regardless of the proof. That’s the none-too-common ability to separate what we want to believe — what our guts tell us, what we want the outcome of a situation that arouses our sympathies to be — from what rationality and the evidence actually support. This is what the first year of law school consists of (or, at least, did when I was there a number of decades ago — quite possibly, it doesn’t any more): a stubborn, relentless insistence on learning to set aside one’s emotional response to a situation and, instead, to analyze it rationally, based on the actual facts and applicable rules and principles, regardless of the outcome one might prefer. I found this process quite painful at first, as did many of my classmates, and I deeply resented it. I thought the professors were trying to separate me from my soul, and to some degree, they were. But I gradually came to realize that it was more of a disentanglement of the soul from the brain than the destruction that I thought at first, leaving both aspects of a person’s humanity still present and the person more free, capable and honest than before.
Not that I could always accept it. In my first-semester Criminal Law seminar, we read People v Garrow, the notorious “buried bodies” case in which a defendant told his lawyers that he had killed two missing young women and drew maps for them of where he had buried their bodies. The lawyers kept the information confidential for months, even after confirming the defendant’s story by digging up the bodies themselves, in the belief that they were ethically obliged by attorney/client confidentiality to do so. Meanwhile, the women’s grieving families — who didn’t even know whether their daughters were dead — searched desperately for them and pleaded for information. In the end, the bodies were discovered by accident, and the defendant was convicted of a different murder (and, by the way, later escaped from prison, when his lawyers — whose names were on a “hit list” found in the defendant’s cell — turned the tables on him by telling authorities, correctly, where they were likely to find him.) The case remains controversial and turns on the central importance in an adversary system of protecting the confidentiality of a client’s communications to his or her attorney — importance I have no difficulty understanding in the abstract, but could not quite bring myself to accept in the circumstances of that particular case. I struggled and struggled with the problem, trying to come up with some way that the lawyers could have communicated what they knew to the families while also honoring their ethical obligations to their client. I couldn’t find one, but couldn’t bear the idea of letting the families go on suffering, either. The only way I was able to make peace with the Garrow case, in the end, was to promise myself that I, personally, would never practice criminal law — and I never did.
But not all of the problems were that hard, and as time went on, I began to recognize the enormous power and freedom of being able to think rather than feel my way through a situation. It became clear that thinking this way didn’t actually require giving up my heart, but only to recognize that what my heart wanted and what objective reality required were not always going to be one and the same. What’s more, since reality is what it is whether I wish it to be or not, or not, any actual hope of making things turn out in the way my heart prefers — not necessarily in the law, but in life — depends on my ability to recognize and grapple honestly with reality.
Without that painful mental training, I don’t think I would have successfully negotiated the unexpected change from mostly liberal to mostly conservative views that came later in my life, and that necessarily entailed giving up a great many beliefs that I really, really wanted to keep on believing. But not that many people go to law school or anything like that, and few people have any desire at all to separate their minds from their gut feelings. It is so much more comfortable and satisfying to go with that emotional response — say, the deep wish for some pattern, some larger explanation that would explain the random, unfathomable things that keep on happening to human beings, like assassinations of young Presidents by insignificant men for insignificant reasons, or the gradual retreat of a beloved toddler into the distance of autism. If you want badly enough to believe that Michael Brown was murdered and that “hands up, don’t shoot” was real, you can feel so good and virtuous and superior while believing it and, without much difficulty at all, completely disregard a mountain of evidence and an entire DOJ report proving to the contrary. It’s easy. And the other way is hard.
Neo has detailed becomes Poirot, Agatha Christie, or Ellery Queen,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggnr2x2-3is
Jim Hutton and John Hillerman. That generation showed us how it was done. They shan’t be equaled.
Re: Richard Aubrey, TWA 800
About 100 witnesses, located miles apart from each other – along both the north shore and south shore of Long Island Sound – , observing the plane from different places and perspectives, all agreed that they saw some sort of missile shoot down that plane.
Think about that for a moment.
If all witnesses are located in the same place and believe they saw something – but were wrong – it would be plausible because they are all subjected to the same conditions (angle of the sun, path of plane, viewing from the same perspective, etc), and they can all talk to each other and “affirm” to each other what they saw (even if it’s wrong).
In fact, it’s well known that eyewitness testimony in court can be fallible. Witnesses believe they saw something that either did not occur or occurred entirely different than what actually happened.
But what if the witnesses are scattered miles apart from each other, viewing an event from totally different angles, perspectives and conditions and unable to communicate with each other?
Can one say they were all “seeing” things? That they observed what was really not there? That what they all said was a missile was simply wrong?
Recall that the FBI/NTSB (and DOD? NSA?) created a computer simulation of burning fuel being ejected from the plane as it broke up. They claimed that it was the burning fuel ejected from the plane that led all those witnesses to believe they saw a missile of sorts.
Basically, the investigators postulated the decisive event (an ignition source within the fuel tanks) and working BACKWARDS, “proved” via computer simulation that witnesses observed the ejection of burning fuel that witnesses – all 100 or so – believed was a missile.
They developed an explanation, and then worked to prove it.
IOW, EVERY witness was wrong.
And by the way, since when does the FBI or non-NTSB/FAA federal agency get involved in investigating a plane crash?
Since 1963 there have been only 5 instances of commercial airplane fuel tanks exploding; 2 were due to lightning strikes in flight, 2 occurred on the ground at the gate with an empty fuel tank and 1, only 1 occurred in flight – with an empty center fuel tank – TWA 800.
In fact, TWA 800 was the only time a 747 – or any other commercial type of plane – experienced this sort of event in flight that was caused by an “unknown” ignition event (i.e, not lightening).
So, over a 38 year time period, only 1 plane while in flight had an empty fuel tank explode due to an unknown ignition event; TWA 800.
And about 100 witnesses were all wrong; they were seeing things that were not there.
Jeez, I wonder why some folks distrust the official explanation.
Mrs Whatsit on August 13, 2019 at 8:04 pm said:
* * *
Excellent explanation of the phenomenon, and of the difficulty of differentiating the “truth” as we want it to be from the “facts” as they are.
(Back from vacation — this retrospective is a good place to note that, in catching up after no internet for some time, I realized that news is like history: it doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes — slanted and discordantly, however, because the current events look depressingly similar to the ones hitting the headlines 2 weeks ago without being quite identical.)
Think about that for a moment.
I’m thinking the National Transportation Safety Board spent four years investigating that accident and likely know what they are talking about; there was a parallel investigation by the FBI looking for criminal activity.
John Tyler–I’ll add another odd fact.
If I remember correctly, there were several hundred of this exact same model of 747 being used as passenger aircraft at the time of TWA 800 supposedly blew up as a result of this internal tank exploding yet, after the government fingered this tank as responsible for this catastrophe, according to a lecture by a TWA pilot who had flown TWA 800 just a few days before it blew up, and was a long term and extremely knowledgeable veteran of TWA and the aircraft industry, not one of those hundreds of 747s was taken out of service to inspect or to replace this tank.
This brought up memories. I was Senior in HS when Kennedy was shot. No one believed it at first. Principal set up TV’s and we watched the news. The school closed, I went home and watched TV at home. Later when Ruby shot Oswald I was watching. I will forget that.
I have always believed that Oswald shot Kennedy, and only Oswald did the shooting.
Conspiracies are the disinformation layers created to cover up one of truth’s hidden layers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwxsL6msdwE
So even if there is something true there, the pony is still in a pile of sh and you have to dig through it. And people don’t like to do that, so they get covered in sh. That’s how disinformation works. It floods people with all kinds of plausible and implausible things, to cover up the crime. You don’t need a conspiracy to prove a crime. Prove the crime, and the conspiracy is a natural charge added on if needed. But even if you cannot prove the conspiracy, the crime is still there is it not.
Art Deco. Missed the point. The NTSB might know what it’s talking about. No issue. The question is whether, if they do, are they telling us the truth. I have no idea, although Jack Cashill has written extensively on the matter and thinks there was more than a fuel sensor arcing.
My point is that the NTSB stepped on its necktie in unnecessary ways which would raise suspicion.
Example: The explosive residue. First explanation was that it was left over from when they ferried guys to and from the Gulf War five years earlier. So, maybe that stuff coming off guys’ boots or luggage lasted five years against normal dissipation, cleaning, being taken off by other contacts with clothing and luggage. And some days’ submersion in the North Atlantic. Okay. You say so. Then some clown figured he’d do it better and said it was the residue from training bomb sniffing dogs. Couple of pounds of tightly wrapped Semtex hidden aboard, presumably while the aircraft is down for maintenance. So…the tiniest, vaguest vapor from a tightly wrapped bundle of high explosive…lasted from the previous test, survived ventilation and the submersion. Hey, dummy. RESIDUE is the combustion product. This is the unexploded thing. Okay, they’re trying to…fool us? Let the high school chem guy doing intern come up with something? Can’t figure out how to tell a straight story? Then they said it came from the boots of the various Coasties and sailors involved in hauling up the pieces of the aircraft. One or more of these may be plausible to the professional in the field. But…not to laymen, and not to anybody contemplating three contradictory attempts, one self-refuting on its face.
Worse, they insisted that, since nobody had shrapnel wounds, it wasn’t a missile. Sheesh. A MANPAD like our Stinger has a warhead of about six and a half pounds which anybody knows is a third less than even the 81mm mortar. So if it hit the wing root, fuel tank, wheel well, luggage compartment, unlikely any of the passengers would be hit by frags. So what they’re saying is, “Since a missile didn’t explode in the passenger compartment, the aircraft wasn’t hit by a missile. “and tell me it’s raining”.
Either they’re lying or they’re incomprehensibly stupid about how to relate findings, and seem as if they’re trying to head off information yet to come. Not a good look for someone wanting to be taken seriously.
As I keep saying, I take no sides, except to say if you wanted to build a conspiracy theory, the statements of the NTSB are great building blocks, even if it was a defective sensor.
Too bad that no one here says boo about the elephant in the room, the brutal performance of the Secret Svc.
For starters, if you’re really trying to understand why so many smart folks suspect the Warren Report, see http://vincePalamara.blogspot.com/ , https://vincepalamara.com/page/1/ , and esp. https://vincepalamara.com/2019/01/06/there-are-REASONS-presidents-survived-BEFORE-dallas-11-22-63/ .
Or is it more fun, to sneer at “conspiracy theorists”?
Vince P. has written *4* books about the Sec. Svc.
Or is it more fun, to sneer at “conspiracy theorists”?
If you don’t wish to be ‘sneered’ at, try building your case on a foundation of discrete and verifiable bits of information. Josiah Thompson has tried to do that. I’m not sure he’s been particularly successful, but most of the Warren Reports detractors find the issue of their imagination more entertaining.
Art Deco. Missed the point. The NTSB might know what it’s talking about. No issue. The question is whether, if they do, are they telling us the truth. I have no idea, although Jack Cashill has written extensively on the matter and thinks there was more than a fuel sensor arcing.
I take it you’re not an engineer in any relevant discipline, and I’m quite sure Jack Cashill is not. So, MEGO.
It appears that the institutional corruption that the attempted coup d’etat against President Trump has revealed is not new, but that it has been present in parts of our government for a very long time.
I think the bottom line here is that, given what has been revealed over the last couple of years about the behavior of the top leadership levels of the FBI, DOJ, and other Federal government Departments and Agencies, it is hard to believe that anything that many of these people say—particularly about some very controversial issue—is actually what really happened, otherwise known as the the “truth.”
Hard to believe, as well, that they are acting in the best interests of the country, rather than in the interests of their usually leftist ideology, or their own personal advancement.
In this pernicious mix, “truth” comes in a distant second.
A common component of conspiracy theory arguments is “the chances” of some event occurring. But, it is irrelevant to discuss the chances of an event occurring AFTER it has already happened.
For example: Today is August 14th. What were the chances of that? Well, one in 365.25. But, so what? But if I ask you what are the chances that you and I share the same birthday, then it becomes relevant.
So, when the conspiracy theorist asks what are the chances that so and so just happened to be someplace, it is irrelevant. But, for them it constitutes a “proof”.
Art Deco. Missed again. Engineers–I know you know this but I want to make sure you don’t claim this is news–can’t work without data. The question wrt TWA 800 is whether the correct data was released by the government and they were just too incompetent to keep from looking like they’re trying to hide something. Or whether they’re trying to hide something.
For example, one need not be an engineer to wonder why the FBI took away some parts. Is there an explanation? Maybe. Haven’t heard it. If there is one, is it plausible?
One need not be an engineer to notice three lame and contradictory attempts to explain explosive residue. Is this a matter of misrepresenting something, or are they too stupid to explain the thing logically?
If this were an attack by a state actor, a non-state actor associated with a state, would it be a casus belli? If so, against whom? And Clinton didn’t want to act in Rwanda so it would follow he wouldn’t want to start something against…who knows whom. There’d be pressure to do something and likely no idea who is the culprit. Who needs the grief?
As I say, I take no side here, but I do point out that conspiracy theorists hardly have to get out of bed to come up with a theory that seems to hold more water than the official explanation.
“it is hard to believe that anything that many of these people say—particularly about some very controversial issue—is actually what really happened, otherwise known as the the “truth.” “– Snow
Maybe they just prefer their own truth over facts.
Art Deco. Missed again. Engineers–I know you know this but I want to make sure you don’t claim this is news–can’t work without data. The question wrt TWA 800 is whether the correct data was released by the government and they were just too incompetent to keep from looking like they’re trying to hide something. Or whether they’re trying to hide something.
You’re essentially accusing the NTSB of perpetrating a fraud. It’s not a agency with a large census, so your accusation extends to the bulk of its employees.
“Actually the same applies to the Rosenberg defenders.”
It’s hard to believe people are still defending the Rosenberg’s. When Khrushchev died his memoirs were smuggled out of the USSR and published. Khrushchev praised the Rosenberg’s and said the information they provided greatly helped the Russian atomic bomb program.
Art. I am not so accusing. I’m saying that if they wanted to perpetrate a fraud and they all had the cognitive abilities of eight graders, this would be what it would look like. IOW, it looks like a fraud, whatever the reality. It provides endless fodder for the theorists. They didn’t have to do it that badly, did they?
The issue of explosive residue so poorly explained is likely a matter of too many people knowing about it and they figured addressing it now instead of later when it “came out” would be a better tactic. Because another reason for explosive residue is a warhead hit. So, we talk about bomb sniffing dogs. Hoping nobody’s smart enough to pick up on it. And, if they do, what’s next? “That’s our conclusion.” IOW, what are you going to do about it?
The issue of fragmentation wounds in the passengers, or the lack, is an own-goal. They could have said nothing. Instead, they looked like they’re trying to fool us, even if it’s true.
Deco: “try building your case on a foundation of discrete and verifiable bits of information.”
I tried such building, by citing, NOT Thompson, but Palamara.
Alas, I was met with a reference to, NOT Palamara, but Thompson.
If any of you ever get in the MOOD to address Palamara’s arguments, I’ll be happy to address your concerns.
Until then, I must fear, that reference to Thompson’s views is aimed to deflect from attention to Palamara’s, so as to try to continue justifying this oh-so suspect campaign of sneers.
It’s quite sad, how so many folks nowadays can’t, for the life of them, bear to address an actual argument, but must instead resort to IRRELEVANT straw men.
‘Til now, I’d found most of Deco’s posts to be of much value.
WRT Epstein: Current reports are the guards slept through the event and falsified reports to cover for their lapse.
I said earlier that when you’ve got a big deal like EPSTEIN, guys, maybe somebody involved in supervision might make a trip to that part of the facility to remind the boys that this is not the night to do as they almost certainly do every other night.
What’s to keep the two guards from saying everybody in supervision knew about it?
So, did Epstein detect a pattern and take advantage of it? If so, it would have had to be SOP to spend two or three hours in dreamland every single night. Or did he or somebody suggest that might be the most anodyne excuse for deliberately looking the other way?
These two guards didn’t conclude that, one way or another, this guy could get us into a lot of trouble. Let’s make sure we cover by actually doing our jobs. Because they’re in a lot of trouble. Even if the government decides it’s all a big bunch of nobodyknowsanything, throwing a couple of minor characters under the bus for public relations reasons is cheap and easy. That didn’t occur to them?
Either we have a couple of absolute morons, or we have a couple of guys who know, absolutely, that there’s absolutely no way they could get into trouble no matter what.
Or something else.
I was an aeronautical engineer before medical school and I think the TWA 800 official story is suspect. The real conspiracy theories that I give some credence to are about Oswalds’s motivation, Edward Jay Epstein has written some interesting books on this.
Re: JFK’s assassination:
Long before Bugliosi’s elephantine tome was published, concrete facts were established that Oswald brought a rifle to the TBD, multiple shots were fired at JFK’s motorcade, Oswald immediately left the building after encountering a Dallas cop and a warehouse supervisor, Oswald then took a bus to his apartment, shot Officer Tippet, and was arrested in a movie theater shortly thereafter. Two days later Ruby shoots Oswald. Following the publication of the much criticized Warren Report, The House of Representatives conducted an inquiry into the events and came very close to concluding there were multiple shooters. It took decades to digest all the available information. Prior to Bugliosi’s analysis, Gerald Posner published a book coming to the same conclusion as Bugliosi. In addition to Oswald, the Kennedys were despised by Cosa Nostra and the right-wing groups prevalent in the Western states at the time. Add to that Castro’s Cuba and the Bay of Pigs participants who were betrayed by Kennedy’s denial of air cover for the invasion. Oswald may well have been a lone assassin or the cut-out man in a wider conspiracy. Speculation about one of the most fateful days in American history seems to me entirely understandable and necessary. Pace Bugliosi, intelligent citizens should exercise their own critical judgment and draw their own conclusions. Thinking about the murder of JFK is not all “Black Helicopters”.
Richard, indeed, they knew, absolutely, that there was absolutely no way they could get into trouble, no matter what.
Or, they were put there, because the brass KNEW them to be morons.
All this, rather like Oswald in ’63, who was (the Epstein of his day, i.e.), the Suspect of the Century.
Like the brass at the NY jail, J. Edgar etc. knew that countless folks wanted Oswald dead, and could’ve lifted a few fingers to protect the Suspect of the Century.
Alas, in both cases, the brass just so conveniently left the barn door super-wide open.
If any of you ever get in the MOOD to address Palamara’s arguments, I’ll be happy to address your concerns.
Palamara’s argument is a set of complaints about the Secret Service. Not interested.
Art. I am not so accusing. I’m saying that if they wanted to perpetrate a fraud and they all had the cognitive abilities of eight graders, this would be what it would look like. IOW, it looks like a fraud, whatever the reality. It provides endless fodder for the theorists. They didn’t have to do it that badly, did they?
Here we have scores of people trained in esoteric engineering disciplines and you’re talking like this. Can’t help ya.
I would closely monitor the bank accounts and lifestyles of everyone involved here for the next couple of years.
I would closely monitor the bank accounts and lifestyles of everyone involved here for the next couple of years.
Probably more important to watch behavior, if possible. It has been suggested that any bribes were paid in bitcoins or diamonds. If the shift supervisor at MCC or the guards move to Tahiti or the Caribbean, for example.
Deco: “Not interested” in Palamara’s beefs vs. the Sec. Svc.
Suit yourself, but Neo etc. should understand, that these beefs pertain to huge public MISTRUST, of an Establishment which has been covering for the Sec. Svc. for over 50 years, and which now faces another sceptical Basket of Deplorables, which so much suspects similar deceit on this Epstein case.
Recall, Trump referred to this mistrust, by talking about Cruz’s papa and Oswald.
When she writes “belief in conspiracies undermine faith in our government as a whole”, she might consider, that the Establishment’s DECEITFUL SPINNING , to diss even the soundest “conspiracy theories”, also undermines faith in our government (and MSM) as a whole.
All caps makes an argument stronger? 🙂
No, OM, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, the few caps I’ve added are meant to emphasize the most crucial concepts.
However, Neo’s beefs vs. most Conspiracy Theorists (about JFK) may be well founded, esp. if these folks are distracting from attn. to the studies (of folks like Palamara) vs. the Sec. Svc.
May Thompson etc. have actually been B.S.ing for the Establishment, to steer us away from scrutiny of the Sec. Svc.?
Neo:
I think one big reason for the popularity of conspiracy theories is that they allow the adherents to think of themselves as member of an elite group that knows the score, whereas the rest of us are just naive fools.
Neo’s description of adherents of conspiracy theories also fits what I have seen of Sociology professors, who also view themselves as “knowing the score,” in contrast to the naive fools who don’t buy into whatever narrative the Sociology prof is pushing.
aNanyMouse:
Readers here can comprehend an argument without billboards; most are not your average bears.
Yeah, they can usually comprehend an argument, unless they’re rushing to read an I-phone, while doing other things.
So very many Americans aim to multi-task, with mixed results.
I think my personal favorite among the JFK conspiracies is that the fatal shot was fired accidentally by a Secret Service agent in the car behind JFK. Thus, Oswald did shoot the president (initial, less serious hits) and the conspiracy was actually one to cover up an accident, rather than one to plot the assassination.
It’s had some air play but doesn’t get much mileage, probably at least in part because conspiracy people are highly motivated to look for nefarious intent, not a$$-covering after an accident.
Ray:
It’s hard to believe people are still defending the Rosenberg’s..
Those that do usually have Commie backgrounds. In 2009, Margaret Randall publishedTo Change the World: My Years in Cuba. She spent about a decade in Cuba, but left after internal political intrigues caused her to lose her job. (A much more benign version of 1938: losing her job but still being paid for it). She then moved moved on in 1980 to the next lefty hope, Sandinista Nicaragua, but eventually returned to the Belly of the Beast,los Estados Unidos Imperialistas. Here is what Margaret Randall wrote about the Rosenbergs in 2009.
She is a little confused about Fidel- considering him the greatest thing since sliced bread but thinking he stayed on too long.
At the same time, she had a crystal-clear view of what Fidel’s aims were- aims which she approved of.
Say what you will about Margaret Randall,here she is crystal clear.
The Chilean author Ariel Dorfman fled Pinochet for the US, and only returned to Chile for visits after democracy returned to Chile. For the last four decades, Ariel Dorfman has been a bulwark in the Op-ed pages, informing the world how evil Pinochet was. At times, reality has impinged on Dorfman. In Heading South, Looking North: A Bilingual Journey, he admitted that had Allende been able to win the support of the majority of the Chilean people, he wouldn’t have lost power in a coup.(The Chamber of Deputies, by a 63% majority, passed a resolution three weeks before the coup that, in Allende’s view, promoted a coup.)
In the same book, Dorfman writes about the Rosenbergs. At the time of the arrest and execution of the Rosenbergs, the Dorfman family was living in New York. Ariel Dorfman’s father was working for the UN. His father- ironically named Adolfo- was a Commie. (Ariel’s parents named him Vladimiro – a perfect red diaper baby name.) As such, the Rosenbergs were constant,invisible companions at the Dorfman family’s table-here is what could happen to the Commie Dorfman family. Eventually, Adolfo and his family got deported for harboring a Commie on the run for a night (Maurice Halperin), and they moved to Chile, where the UN had an office.
I don’t see much change in Dorfman’s opinion about the Rosenbergs since 1953, though his proclaiming Ethel “innocent” implies he admits that Julius was not. According to Ariel, the “murder” of the Rosenbergs remains precisely that. Passing atomic secrets to Stalin merited only a $10 fine, apparently. 🙂
Art Deco. None of the issues I mention have to do with engineering. Try something else.
Gringo on August 14, 2019 at 2:19 pm said:
Neo:
I think one big reason for the popularity of conspiracy theories is that they allow the adherents to think of themselves as member of an elite group that knows the score, whereas the rest of us are just naive fools.
Neo’s description of adherents of conspiracy theories also fits what I have seen of Sociology professors, who also view themselves as “knowing the score,” in contrast to the naive fools who don’t buy into whatever narrative the Sociology prof is pushing.
* * *
It’s gnostics all the way down.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gnostic
A real conspiracy may be on the verge of disclosure.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/08/14/turmoil-at-mega-bank-hsbc-tracks-with-cresting-of-hong-kong-uk-brexit-and-epstein-dramas/
Too long to excerpt, but lots and lots of dots are getting connected.
Dyer quoted her prior 2018 article about HSBC’s involvement in a complex money laundering scheme, and mentions this rather curious (in re Russiagate’s disclosures) fact, although she didn’t draw attention to its possible dot-ness:
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/08/27/curious-case-obamas-national-security-action-alumni-and-the-shipping-news/
In light of some internet articles about the way in which Comey and Mueller cooperated in some lucrative contract-awarding situations via the Government-Business Revolving-Door-Complex, added to his now-widely-known character as an integrity-challenged weasel, there may be lots of dot-connecting lines going in his direction.
BTW, there seems to be a solid pattern of “no prosecution” in the top LEOs of the USA.
ANanyMouse:
You write, “When [Neo] writes ‘belief in conspiracies undermine faith in our government as a whole’, she might consider, that the Establishment’s DECEITFUL SPINNING to diss even the soundest ‘conspiracy theories’, also undermines faith in our government (and MSM) as a whole.”
But if you read my post carefully, you will find the following paragraph:
You may not have seen that, and if that’s the case then you need to read the posts more carefully.
A follow-up to the dot-connecting those “no pros” agreements that the big prosecutors like to make, as with Epstein’s infamous Florida deal.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2017/03/14/big-bank-shakedowns-little-guy-intimidation-dont-cry-preet-bharara/
There are additional dots, but those are the major ones.
It almost begins to look like there really may be a Deep State.
LeClerc
I don’t think that anyone said the JFK assassination shouldn’t be thought about, even pondered. It has, quite thoroughly. It’s probably one of the most thought about, pondered, written about, speculated about, events in the history of the world.
But this thinking and pondering needs to acknowledge the known facts, and not selectively ignore all the ones (or lie about them) that don’t fit into pet theories.
A person can hope, anyway.
This is a grab from the LU sidebar.
It isn’t really a “conspiracy theory” per se, but does illustrate nicely why so many people are willing to entertain the idea that the Left aka Democratic Party aka MSM are engaged in multifarious malfeasances.
(**doffs tin-foil-hat**)
Trending Politics: [sad to say, I was at one time supportive of MR*]
Mitt Romney forms alliance with top Dem to go after Trump
Paul Bois, Daily Wire: [toxic stupidity in action]
Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom: Mass shootings caused by toxic masculinity
Micaiah Bilger, Life News: [I can’t even]
Harvard Law Prof Laurence Tribe likens pro-life position to white supremacy
Tiana Lowe, Wash. Examiner: [“Don’t stoop to their level.”]
Don’t heckle people in their private lives, not even Chris Cuomo
[Actually, I think she is correct, but the long list she gives of the occasions when the Left thought it was not only okay but obligatory to heckle conservatives and /or Republicans in their private lives leads directly this post:]
John Binder, Breitbart: [doxxing is only OK if the Left does it]
Florida: Anti-ICE protesters threaten ICE contractor, shout locations where official’s kids live
*The Top Dem is Harry Reid. I guess Mitt forgave him for arguably costing him the presidency by lying in Congress about his taxes.
https://trendingpolitics.com/mitt-romney-forms-alliance-with-top-dem-to-go-after-trump/#.XVQVkKFlCVU.twitter
Neo:
Back in the days of David Brinkley’s Sunday morning show which featured commentary by Sam Donaldson, George Will and Cokie Roberts – Roberts related a conversation she had years before with her father Hale Boggs (one of the three signatories to the Warren Report). Boggs told his daughter that he never bought into the “single gunman” theory. Nevertheless, he agreed with LBJ that the nation needed closure regarding the assassination – and therefore signed off on the conclusions of the report. As I mentioned in my previous post, the House Select committee of the early ’70s also expressed doubt that Oswald acted alone. Oswald had remarkable life experience, much of which is discussed in Edward Jay Epstein’s book “Legend”. Bugliosi’s book turns over every stone – most of them requiring no turning in the first place. I don’t cling to “pet theories” – Critical analysis can be performed by any responsible thinking person – not just an arrogant LA prosecutor who churned out best-sellers about sensational crimes.
@ New Neo, at 4:10 pm:
I did read your post, and my comment (from which you quote) was about the Establishment’s outright dissing of even the soundest ‘conspiracy theories’, well before the RussiaGate mess, which your post addressed at length.
Various aspects of the Warren Rept.’s pitch were, from the start, tough to swallow, e.g. on Oswald’s convenient death, and the single bullet theory. And, I might’ve added, the Establishment’s slobbering all over the Danforth Rept. has inspired similar suspicions, of it showing the Establishment to care more about whitewashing, than about fair consideration of doubts about official versions of major events.
So, my reference, to public suspicion of Establishment sneering at ‘conspiracy theories’, was not at all meant to diss your points about RussiaGate etc.
Indeed, the Russia hoax only strengthens the trend, toward dismissing the Dem’s/ MSM’s preferences, for certain government conspiracies on conspiracies on conspiracies.
Meanwhile, it’s standard fare for the Dems/ MSM, to diss Barr’s suspicions about the “predicate” of the Russia probe, as just another Conspiracy Theory.
LeClerc:
I found Bugliosi’s book (which I read; did you?) 100% convincing.
His personality is irrelevant to that fact, and his other books are irrelevant as well.
However, in one of my older posts (from 2011) that I combined and changed somewhat to create this new post, I wrote in a NOTE at the end:
More importantly for the purposes of the present discussion, his book on JFK’s assassination in an incredibly thorough and convincing work.
My point was, and is, that the propensity of the Establishment to unfairly diss reasonable doubts (e.g. of the Warren Rept.) does much to spur credence toward all ‘conspiracy theories’, and suspicion of all dissings of such theories.
The Establishment has been making a helluva bed for itself, all the more so, when it disses the Deplorables for their Conspiracy Theories, about the Russia probe’s Predicate.
ANanyMouse:
I didn’t mean to imply that Russiagate and the Russia Hoax were the only things of that nature. But they are the most recent and most blatant, in my opinion.
One cannot cover every single point in a post. Posts would all be the length of books.
However, the tone of your comment went this way:
“She might consider”? I had clearly “considered” it already, and had even referenced it in my paragraph about Russiagate and the Russia Hoax. No, I hadn’t written an exhaustive history of it. But you appear to have been accusing me of not considering it at all.
Sorry to come off as accusing you, of not considering it at all.
It didn’t occur to me, to read your prior words about this as meaning, that you’d considered (my point about) the unmistakable SNEERing of the Establishment’s deceitful spinning (to diss even the soundest ‘conspiracy theories’).
As you inferred above, one cannot think of every single possible point in a short post.
Keep up the good work.
Before folks here take Bugliosi’s book as definitive, they should read some reviews, e.g. at https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/product-reviews/0393045250/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar , which lists almost 100 “0ne-star” reviews, many of these quite detailed.
By contrast, V. Palamara’s main book, Survivors’ Guilt, gets 10 “one-star” reviews.
Of course, such numbers don’t as such PROVE anything, but they do quite suggest that there’s not much substitute, for major scrutiny of such detailed books.
And, Palamara’s book gets c. 140 5-star reviews, see https://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Guilt-Service-Failure-President/dp/1937584607/ref=sr_1_1?crid=A8NBTOVLZISQ&keywords=vince+palamara&qid=1565824032&s=gateway&sprefix=palamara%2Caps%2C182&sr=8-1 .
aNanyMouse:
If you haven’t noticed, Neo has some credibility in these parts. Regarding Amazon reviews, and what they suggest, meh.
It was only a matter of time.
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/13/great-news-people-brought-russia-collusion-want-investigate-epsteins-suicide/
Great News: The People Who Brought You Russia-Collusion Want To Stop Epstein Conspiracy Theories
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 5:01 pm on August 13, 2019
Om, I’ll be delighted to entertain any of Neo’s thoughts, on why Bugliosi’s book is so much better than the others.
I hope that telling folks about Palamara’s work (with which Neo may not’ve been familiar) isn’t too Politically Incorrect for these parts.
https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2019/08/14/why-we-embrace-conspiracy-theories-n2551652
The Left Side, of course.
And Ben channels Neo:
Actually, stupid is probably less easily handled, because there is no moral way to eradicate stupid people, whereas there is some justification for targeting evil ones (of course, the definition of who is and is not “evil” appears to be problematic).
Neo:
One more try: JFK’s killing inspired a gazillion “black helicopter” theories. They don’t have to be debunked, just politely ignored. More to the point – the assassination changed American history for the worse. LBJ, Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, Carter, Iran Hostage Crisis, and so on. It’s natural and appropriate that serious people have given much thought about the event. Yes, I’ve read Bugliosi’s book. It does not “reclaim history” nor does it change it. The aftershocks of the event moved everyone of my generation. Hale Boggs was not a “conspiracy theorist” nor were the members of the House Select committee. Skepticism is the bedrock of critical analysis. For an understanding of history, I’ll take Thucydides over Bugliosi any day. The Athenian didn’t take a cavalier attitude towards national tragedy – nor was he out to make a buck for this thoughts.
More to the point – the assassination changed American history for the worse. LBJ, Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, Carter, Iran Hostage Crisis, and so on. I
The only one of these which was an ineluctable consequence of Kennedy’s death was Johnson’s inauguration. It’s a very strange historiography that sees Nixon’s election, Watergate, Carter‘s election, and Iran’s political breakdown as contingent upon it in any way.
Arthur Schlesinger and other press agents for the Democratic Party promoted the idea ca. 1971 that VietNam was Lyndon Johnson’s tar baby and JFK would have avoided it. The rest of us aren’t compelled to take it seriously. Combat forces were introduced into VietNam on a small scale in the Fall of 1961 by guess who and Kennedy would have faced the same dilemmas that Johnson faced. Some of those dilemmas were generated by his own dance moves – specifically the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in the fall of 1963. Kennedy and Johnson were both men of the Democratic Party’s post-1947 mainstream with the difference between them being Johnson was crooked in ways Kennedy was not, had more populist and social-democratic sympathies, and wasn’t as salable to the major media and the Ivy League brain trust.
And, Palamara’s book gets c. 140 5-star reviews, see
Drawn from a sample of people willing to invest money in it. Not exactly a random cross section of humanity, much less a cross section of people with an informed opinion.
Boggs told his daughter that he never bought into the “single gunman” theory. Nevertheless, he agreed with LBJ that the nation needed closure regarding the assassination – and therefore signed off on the conclusions of the report.
See Gerald Ford’s discussions with Ron Nessen on this point. He takes out a copy of the report and shows Nessen the concluding paragraph, saying the Commission was careful to say that it had found not evidence of a conspiracy, not that there was no conspiracy.
That aside, what we know is that there were three shots, and those shots came from behind the limousine (Dr. Cyril Wecht, who has maintained for over 50 years that Arlen Spector’s single-bullet model was wrong, will aver that the Governor and the President were shot from behind), so your candidate for a collaborator would have to have sniped from the School Book Depository or one of the other buildings near it in Dealy Plaza.
==
Oswald had remarkable life experience,
The only remarkable component was his sojourn in Russia. Otherwise, just the meanderings of an unstable man born of an unstable woman. The Marxism is strange, but recall that radical politics can be an effort on the part of people who are nothing much to establish themselves as Special. (See Stanley Ann Dunham for a more benign example). What’s remarkable is that his brothers emerged from Marguerite Clavier [fill in the name of this year’s husband]’s household and led normal lives. An acidulous observer offered as an explanation that they’d spent more time in foster care away from their mother.
Art Deco. None of the issues I mention have to do with engineering. Try something else.
“Example: The explosive residue. ”
Look, either you have knowledge of these fields, or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re not in a position to say other people aren’t doing their jobs properly. This isn’t that difficult.
Jeez Art Mssed again. Do you have a dog in this scrap?
Trying again The NTSB may know what they’re talking about. They may not. The point is whether they’re telling the truth about what they know or think they know.
WRT the explosive residue. It wasn’t my idea to give three contradictory explanations. It wasn’t my idea they should get vapors from unexploded HE mixed up with explosive residue. They didn’t have to do these things. Maybe they had three separate non-engineers seeking to endear themselves to their bosses by explaining that which could be embarrassing to the no-missile position and all three were wrong. Or maybe two were wrong. If they’d stuck with one, it would have been unassailable because they’d just do the bureaucratic sniff, insist that was their conclusion and what are you going to do about it. And quote Art Deco about who’s an engineer.
That’d fix it. Maybe I forgot to mention that civilian airliners aren’t supposed to have explosive residue on them. Discovering it must have been a shock What to do? Get stupid about it?
Same in insisting we believe that no frags in the passenger meant no missile hit anywhere else. They’d have done better to say nothing rather than to require us to believe their obviously bogus conclusion.
Optical illusions of missiles going up when aircraft are going down? Leave the missile reports alone. Don’t make up stuff which nobody is going to believe. “Unknown” is better than obvious BS.
My point is that, for some reason including bureaucratic clumsiness, they’ve given conspiracy theorists endless fodder and they didn’t have to do it.
Well, well. Back to the conspiracy theory du jour. The cause of death for Epstein is “pending” following discovery of broken bones in his neck, most often found in strangulation deaths:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/experts-broken-bones-in-jeffrey-epsteins-neck-are-common-in-victims-of-homicide-by-strangulation/
Conspiracy theorists don’t need “reasons” or “fodder” to pursue their obsession and push their compulsions; it is a perpetual mental motion machine.
1. Jonah Goldberg’s column on conspiracies in NR is worse than worthless.
2. Re: JFK — I’ve never known anyone who didn’t think Oswald was involved. That’s a straw man. The reasonable questions are about another shooter — a) Oswald fired 3 shots in 6 seconds at a moving vehicle that was obscured by a tree during part of that time. And he used a bolt action rifle. Serious reason to doubt that kind of incredible shooting ability. b) JFK’s head explodes backward — entirely consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll. c) Multiple witnesses identify a shot coming from the knoll. d) one of the witnesses was recently returned from serving in Vietnam and had experience being shot at. He was convinced the shot came from behind him (the knoll). e) the magic bullet found at the hospital f) the arguments about the path of a shot that supposedly hit both Connally and Kennedy.
re: TWA flight 800 — Jack Cashill has a lot of quality material http://www.cashill.com/twa800/
The argument that the NTSB wouldn’t be involved in a coverup conspiracy is a bit strange when we now know that the FBI, CIA and Justice Dept were involved in a conspiracy to bring down a president.
When we know that the Commerce Dept was caught making up jobs numbers to help Obama.
When we know the IRS was involved in a conspiracy coordinated by the White House to deny civil rights to tea party organizations.
When we know that Justice Dept coordinated a campaign with other agencies, Operation Chokepoint, to put legal businesses out of business.
When we know that the Justice Dept conspired to coverup Fast and Furious.
When we have copious amounts of evidence that show that the official story re: Vince Foster’s death is a lie (carpet fibers all over body found in park, body found in unnatural pose for a suicide by gunshot to head, see all of appendix info found credible by Federal Court of Appeals attached to opinion).
When we have all of Jayna Davis story to show that the Clinton version of Ok City bombing is a lie.
A final comment re Bugliosi:
He claimed he put in the leg-work on “Reclaiming History” to “restore faith in our institutions”.
Thanks Vince ! Outside of the DOJ, FBI, MSM, and a “bi-partisan congress” what institutions was he talking about ?
stan brown:
Read Bugliosi’s book.
But just quickly, regarding the last point you attempted to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ERXm9OwuE
I don’t expect you to change your mind, because in my experience the majority of those who believe in JFK assassination conspiracies do not change their minds no matter how much evidence confronts them. But if anything can change your mind it will be the Bugliosi book, in which just about every single argument is thoroughly dealt with.
om./
No, they don’t NEED fodder. But when it’s provided in car load lots, it helps immensely. And it means those of us on the outside have a harder time sneering.
To a conspiracy theorist all is grist for the mill that can never stop turning. A sad affliction.
om. What do you call a real conspiracy? Is it no longer real if somebody has suspicions about it?