View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby really? » 05 Jul 2013, 21:00

Misha wrote:Really, you should heed your own words. As for me I try to follow this tenet by John Stuart Mill:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
-John Stuart Mill


This should be clear on my state of mind regarding openness.


The over arching position you present on conspiracies is that you could not be wrong. That is how you present yourself.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 06 Jul 2013, 00:01

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Really, you should heed your own words. As for me I try to follow this tenet by John Stuart Mill:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
-John Stuart Mill


This should be clear on my state of mind regarding openness.


The over arching position you present on conspiracies is that you could not be wrong. That is how you present yourself.


Keep projecting, Really. You're quite good at framing a question which has no bearing on the research at hand. Instead, you only wish to psychoanalyze people which comports to a very limited perspective on conspiracies themselves. Tell me, Really. Are you a "conspiracy theorist?"
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Arouet » 06 Jul 2013, 01:47

But let's get to the heart of it Misha, let's skip ahead. Assume for the sake of the argument that it was as you say - where do we go from there? What should we take from it?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby really? » 06 Jul 2013, 02:14

Misha wrote:Really, you should heed your own words. As for me I try to follow this tenet by John Stuart Mill:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
-John Stuart Mill


This should be clear on my state of mind regarding openness.


really? wrote:The over arching position you present on conspiracies is that you could not be wrong. That is how you present yourself.


Misha wrote:Keep projecting, Really. You're quite good at framing a question which has no bearing on the research at hand. Instead, you only wish to psychoanalyze people which comports to a very limited perspective on conspiracies themselves. Tell me, Really. Are you a "conspiracy theorist?"


I'm not projecting I clearly see this occur in many other people. *I'm not psycho analyzing you but others with credentials have [ to be clear not you specifically]. I do know it's important too understand why someone believes In opposition to only knowing what they profess to know as truth. It's important because we can see if someone is presenting their point in a scholarly way [ just the facts] or in a way that supports their beliefs [with allegations].

Misha wrote:Tell me, Really. Are you a "conspiracy theorist?

Now why on earth would you ask me this? You know I'm not.

* Here's one such article
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2268782
1
Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions

Joseph E. Uscinski
University of Miami
Matthew Atkinson
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract: Conspiratorial beliefs are currently salient in both the media and among scholarly
researchers. Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? This note addresses three major
explanations of conspiratorial belief: informational cues, political ideology, and predispositions
toward conspiratorial views. Using a national survey experiment, we test the effect of an
informational cue on belief in a conspiracy theory impugning the media while accounting for
partisanship and conspiratorial predispositions. Our results suggest the conditions under which
conspiratorial beliefs can flourish, and provide an explanation for individual heterogeneity in the
holding of conspiratorial beliefs.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2268782
2
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Recent polls show that more than sixty
percent of Americans believe in one political conspiracy theory or another (Cassino and Jenkins
2013). For example, about thirty percent believe in some form of the “Birther” theory that
President Obama is hiding his true place of origin, and about twenty-five percent believe the
“Truther” theory that President Bush orchestrated or knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks
(Cassino and Jenkins 2013, see also Berinsky 2012a). Because of their salience and resiliency,
researchers across fields have expended much effort to understand conspiratorial beliefs.
To begin, many authors cite individual psychological factors (e.g. alienation, paranoia,
anxiety, loss of control) in explaining conspiratorial beliefs (e.g. Wulff 1988, Crocker, et al.
1999, Swami, et al. 2011, Knight 2002, Whitson and Galinsky 2008). Such explanations are
valuable, but in addressing who believes in any particular conspiracy theory, these explanations
fail on their own to account for the conditionality of the political world (the political nature of
the conspiracy theory vis-à-vis the individual’s political predispositions, the communication of
information suggesting a conspiracy, and the individual’s willingness to engage in conspiratorial
thinking). With this said, and congruent with other studies (e.g. Goertzel 1994, 6, Oliver and
Wood 2012, Wood, Douglas and Sutton 2012, Berinsky 2012c, 8-10), we argue that one
psychological factor – an individual’s predisposition towards viewing the world in conspiratorial
terms – is an important part of a larger story.
Some scholars argue that conspiracy theories gain traction because informational cues
lead people believe a conspiracy is afoot. Bost and Prunier (2013) investigate the role
informational cues play in propagating belief in conspiracy theories and find that ostensibly
credible evidence indicating a conspiracy increases people’s propensity to believe it. However,
the effects are not uniform; some people respond to informational cues, while others do not.
3
Informational cues also have limited effects on those who already believe in conspiracy theories:
many people are unwilling to disavow their conspiratorial beliefs when presented with
authoritative disconfirming evidence (Kata 2010, Nyhan, Reifler and Ubel 2013, Berinsky
2012b). While information does matter, it provides an insufficient explanation on its own. The
solution is perhaps to draw on traditional theories of public opinion which incorporate political
predispositions into explanations of information reception (e.g. Zaller 1992, Berinsky 2007).
Noting the inability of information to alter conspiratorial beliefs in many people, some
political scientists argue that conspiratorial beliefs stem from partisan attachment. Because
partisan attachments shape which messages citizens receive as well as which messages citizens
are inclined to accept (Zaller 1992), partisanship can explain both the propensity of partisans to
accuse opposing partisans of conspiracy and the propensity of partisans to resist theories
accusing co-partisans of conspiracy (Uscinski, Parent and Torres 2011, McClosky and Chong
1985). For example, those believing Obama was born in Kenya are far more likely to be
Republican than Democrat, and those believing Bush was behind 9/11 are more likely to be
Democrat than Republican (Berinsky 2012c). But, while partisanship provides leverage to
explain which individuals will believe in particular conspiracy theories, not all partisans
subscribe equally to conspiratorial thinking. While two-thirds of Republicans believe President
Obama is hiding information about his background, one third of Republicans do not (Cassino
and Jenkins 2013). Partisanship also does not explain the propensity of independents to believe
in conspiracy theories. Therefore, a more nuanced explanation is needed.
The preceding explanations are important, but individually fail to account for why some
people subscribe to conspiracy theories, while others do not. Therefore, we examine how
predispositions, informational cues, and political ideology affect conspiratorial thinking.
4
A Predisposition towards Conspiratorial Explanations
In writing about information, predispositions, and opinion, Zaller (1992, 6) argues:
“Every opinion is a marriage of information and predisposition: information to form a mental
picture of the given issue, and predisposition to motivate some conclusion about it.” He goes on
to state that “[Citizens] possess a variety of interests, values, and experiences that may greatly
affect their willingness to accept – or alternatively, their resolve to resist – persuasive influence”
(22). In this research note, we test the idea that belief in conspiratorial explanations depends not
only on the ideological cues associated with those explanations, but also on each individual’s
predisposition towards conspiratorial logic. In short, we account for partisan and conspiratorial
predispositions in the reception of an informational cue.
To provide a robust explanation for conspiratorial beliefs, several scholars suggest (1)
that conspiratorial thinking is most likely to occur in people with underlying predispositions to
view events and circumstances as the product of human collusion, and (2) that this predisposition
is consequential and exists on its own dimension (Oliver and Wood 2012, Goertzel 1994, 6,
Wood, et al. 2012, Berinsky 2012c, 8). Just as individuals are conceived of as falling along a leftright
ideological continuum, individuals are distributed along a continuum in regard to their
predispositions toward conspiratorial thinking. All else equal, the more predisposed a person is
to think in conspiratorial terms, the more likely they will be to accept messages entailing
conspiratorial logic when they recognize that logic as conspiratorial (either as the result of their
political awareness or as a result of such logic being made explicit through an informational cue).
Conspiratorial views have been found to occur evenly across partisanship and ideology, and thus
the predisposition toward conspiratorial logic appears to be orthogonal to these opinions
(Cassino and Jenkins 2013, McClosky and Chong 1985, Uscinski, et al. 2011).
5
A unique predisposition toward conspiratorial beliefs would explain many observed
facets of conspiratorial belief. First, it would explain why most people believing in one
conspiracy theory believe in others (e.g. Goertzel 1994, Berinsky 2012c, 15), and why people
believe in conspiracy theories that logically contradict each other (Wood, et al. 2012). Second, it
would explain why some people believe in few or no conspiracy theories while others believe in
several. Third, it would explain why information only affects conspiratorial thinking for some
people (e.g. Bost and Prunier 2013, Nyhan, et al. 2013).
It is beyond this paper’s scope to determine the factors that drive the predisposition
toward conspiratorial logic. But, we suggest that political socialization is likely the most
important influence. It is worth noting that elite political thought in the US is generally skeptical
of conspiratorial logic (Bratich 2004), and there appears to exist a mainstream norm of anticonspiracy
thinking. This being the case, well-socialized citizens in America should generally be
resistant to conspiratorial logic. Nevertheless, many citizens are not socialized to mainstream
political norms, either belonging to communities with alternative norms (e.g. Thomas and Quinn
1991) or having a psychological predisposition toward thinking conspiratorially (e.g. Douglas
and Sutton 2011) that overwhelms mainstream norms.
Design and Hypotheses
We embedded a survey experiment in a national poll. To incorporate an overtly partisan
element into the design, we focus the experiment on perceptions of media bias. Republican elites
have long complained about liberal media bias (Watts, et al. 1999), and recent surveys show that
during the 2012 presidential election cycle, twice as many Republicans as Democrats said the
media was unfair in its coverage of the candidates (Pew 2012, see also Morales 2011).
6
This experiment first asked “The media coverage in the lead up to the election was the
subject of much discussion. Many believed that the media was biased due to [‘treatment.’] Do
you believe the media was biased in favor of one of the presidential candidates?” The randomly
assigned treatment was a cue signaling the existence of a conspiracy, [“a conspiracy,”] or a
control cue not indicating a conspiracy, [“poor journalism.”] Respondents could answer yes, no,
or don’t know. If the respondent chose yes, they were asked a follow-up question, “What factor
do you think most likely caused biased media coverage?” Respondents could choose “conspiracy
liver and Wood (2012) find that four of their
To better understand how a partisan conspiracy theory might prosper in the face of
individual conspiratorial predispositions, informational cues suggesting conspiracy, and partisan
attachments, we derive four hypotheses. First, we expect that Republicans, because they tend to
perceive the media as liberal, will be more likely to perceive a conspiracy behind biased media
coverage than Democrats. Second, we expect that within partisan groups, perception of a media
conspiracy will increase with heightening predispositions toward conspiratorial logic. Third, we
expect that this relationship should be strongest among Democrats and Independents because
they do not already tend to see the media as biased. Fourth and finally, we expect that political
independents (those lacking partisan motives for perceiving or not perceiving a media
conspiracy) should be the most responsive to the informational cue suggesting conspiracy.
Data
A survey experiment was embedded in the national two-wave 2012 Cooperative
Congressional Election Study (CCES) and was administered online to 1230 respondents. The
first wave was administered prior to the 2012 election and the second wave in the weeks
7
following the election. The first wave asked questions regarding general conspiratorial
predispositions and partisanship, while the second wave contained the survey experiment.
While scholars suggest the existence of an underlying conspiratorial disposition, there is
yet to be consensus on how to measure this emerging concept. Goertzel (1994) develops a
summary measure of responses to questions tapping belief in individual conspiracy theories.1
Berinsky (2012c, 8-10, see also footnote 11) develops scales measuring authoritarianism,
dogmatism, and political disengagement. Oliver and Wood (2012) tap underlying predispositions
toward conspiratorial thinking by measuring belief in supernatural phenomena, paranormal
phenomena, Biblical End Times prophecies, Manichean struggles, and beliefs that secret cabals
control world events.2 In deference to these approaches, which are perhaps more concerned with
identifying the antecedents of conspiratorial predispositions, we attempt to move the literature
forward by employing questions, similar to Oliver and Wood’s question about secret cabals,
which intend to measure general conspiratorial predispositions directly.
To measure respondents’ predispositions towards conspiratorial thinking, four statements
adapted from McClosky and Chong (1985) were provided. Agreement with each statement was
measured on a five point scale, strongly agree to strongly disagree. We create a summary
1 While belief in multiple conspiracy theories is likely to be positively correlated with underlying conspiratorial
predispositions, the specifics of the conspiracy theories asked about, particularly if they invoke a partisan element,
may frustrate the resultant measure. Oliver and Wood (2012) note this and suggest developing separate measures of
belief in conspiracy theories – one measuring belief in “general” conspiracy theories (e.g. Wall Street bankers
caused the financial crisis), and another measuring belief in “ideological” conspiracy theories (e.g. Birther/Truther
theories). But, even with this method, the researchers have to make strong assumptions about how political ideology
might play into each individual conspiracy theory.
2 In comparing his measures of authoritarianism, dogmatism, and political disengagement to conspiratorial beliefs,
Berinsky (2012c) finds meaningful correlations. Likewise, Oliver and Wood (2012) find that four of their measures,
excepting supernatural beliefs, predict belief in specific conspiracy theories as well. With this said, the theoretical
link between authoritarianism, dogmatism, disengagement, beliefs in the paranormal, End Times prophesies, and
good vs. evil narratives are not yet established at this stage in the literature. For example, it may require a similar
leap of faith in the face of lacking evidence to believe in both End Times prophecies and conspiracy theories, but
these beliefs address very different things: the former speaks to biblical prophecy and celestial forces while the latter
speaks to the organization of power on Earth. For our purposes, which are to establish the existence and
meaningfulness of conspiratorial predispositions, direct measures are more appropriate.
8
measure of each respondent’s disposition toward conspiratorial thinking using factor analysis to
extract a single dimension based on agreement with the following statements (factor loadings in
parentheses): “Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places”(.800),
“Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway” (.658), “The
people who really 'run' the country, are not known to the voters” (.770), and “Big events like
wars, the current recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of
people who are working in secret against the rest of us” (.642). Partisan attitudes were measured
on a standard seven-point scale; we include those identifying as “Strong Democrat,” “Strong
Republican,” and non-leaning independents (336, 207, and 122 respectively).3
Results
We begin evaluating our expectations with a multinomial probit model. The nominal
categories of our dependent variable are the four possible outcomes to the two questions: “yes,
the media is biased due to a conspiracy,” “yes, the media is biased due to poor journalism,” “no,
the media is not biased,” and “don’t know if the media is biased or not.” The left three panels of
Figure 1 plot the predicted probability of a respondent falling into the “yes, the media is biased
due to a conspiracy” category based on partisanship, level of conspiratorial predisposition, and
exposure to the conspiratorial cue. Analogous to these plots, the right three panels of Figure 1
plot the predicted probability of a respondent falling into the “yes the media is biased due to a
conspiracy” category when including only respondents who responded in the affirmative (yes,
the media is biased) to the first question. The vertical axes are the probability a respondent
3 We perform a separate analysis employing weak and leaning partisans and leaning independents. Those findings
buttress the findings described in text; these are available upon request.
9
answered that the media was biased due to a conspiracy. The horizontal axes measure the
respondents’ predisposition towards conspiratorial thinking based on our summary measure.
Dashed lines provide estimates for the treatment group (media was biased due to a
conspiracy), while solid lines provide estimates for respondents not given the conspiratorial
treatment in the first question (media was biased due to poor journalism).
[Insert Figure 1 about here]
The findings strongly support our first expectation that Republicans are more likely to
perceive a conspiracy than Democrats. Lacking conspiratorial predispositions, Democrats have
about 5 percent probability of perceiving media bias as due to a conspiracy (upper left panel);
Republicans lacking conspiratorial predispositions have a 43 and 50 percent probability
(conspiracy cue and non-conspiracy cue, respectively) of seeing media bias as due to a
conspiracy (middle left panel). For those with the strongest conspiratorial predispositions,
Republicans are still more likely to see a conspiracy behind biased coverage: 55 and 76 percent
probabilities for Republicans and 23 and 41 percent probabilities for Democrats (treated and
untreated groups respectively).
We also find strong support for our second expectation that within partisan groups,
perception of a media conspiracy will increase with heightening predispositions toward
conspiratorial logic. For all three sets of partisans, both the treated and untreated groups increase
over the range of conspiratorial predispositions: for Democrats, from 5 percent probability to 23
and 41 percent, respectively; for Republicans from 43 and 50 to 55 and 76, respectively; and for
independents, from 0 and 2 percent to 71 and 7 percent, respectively. These relationships appear
10
starker (see right hand panels) when only examining those who responded yes to the first
question, that the media was biased: for Democrats, from 22 and 16 percent probability to 89 and
86 percent, respectively; for Republicans from 46 and 71 to 75 and 77 percent, respectively; and
for independents, from 0 and 4 percent to 100 and 88 percent, respectively. These findings (1)
indicate support for the existence of a unique predisposition towards conspiratorial thinking, and
(2) strongly buttress arguments made by Berinsky (2012c), Goertzel (1994), Oliver and Wood
(2012), and Wood et al. (2012).
The results also support our third expectation that the relationship between perception of
a media conspiracy and conspiratorial predispositions will be strongest among Democrats and
Independents. (See left hand panels.) For the treated and untreated Republicans, the difference
between those not predisposed to conspiratorial thinking and those highly predisposed to
conspiratorial thinking is 12 and 26 percentage points, respectively. For the other groups, the
differences are 18 and 36 percentage points for the treated and untreated Democrats and 71 and 5
percentage points for the treated and untreated independents, respectively. These differences are
larger than those for Republicans, as expected, with the exception of the untreated independents
who increase their propensity to believe the media conspiracy only slightly over the range of
conspiratorial beliefs. This does, however, comport with our first expectation – because
independents don’t have a partisan stake in seeing or denying media bias, without a cue they will
not be much more likely to see a media conspiracy behind media bias even with strong
conspiratorial predispositions. However, when we analyze only those who answered yes to the
first questions indicating that there is media bias, we observe stronger relationships between
viewing a media conspiracy and conspiratorial predispositions for Democrats and independents
than for Republicans (right hand panels). The differences between those not predisposed to
11
conspiratorial thinking and those highly predisposed are, treated and untreated respectively, 29
and 6 percentage points for Republicans, 67 and 70 percentage points for Democrats, and 100
and 84 percentage points for independents. This indicates that for those Democrats and
independents who see media bias, the propensity to see a conspiracy behind that bias increases
dramatically as predispositions toward conspiratorial thinking increase.
Finally, we find support for our fourth expectation, that political independents will be the
most responsive to the informational cue suggesting conspiracy. Referring to the left bottom
panel of Figure 1, treated independents increase their propensity to see a media conspiracy 71
percentage points over the range of conspiratorial predispositions. When only considering those
independents responding that there is media bias to the first question, the propensity increases a
full 100 percentage points over the range of conspiratorial predispositions. Across the range of
conspiratorial predispositions, the effect of the conspiratorial cue is greatest among independents
when compared to Republicans and Democrats. This suggests that groups lacking partisan
motives for perceiving a conspiracy will be responsive to informational cues suggesting
conspiracy as their predispositions to view conspiracies increases.
Conclusion and Discussion
Conspiratorial beliefs have been investigated for years (e.g. Hofstadter 1964), and
recently scholars have invested renewed effort across disciplines. This short note is an attempt to
address three major explanations for conspiratorial beliefs – information, partisanship, and
predispositions towards conspiratorial thinking – and preliminarily connect these perspectives.
As this note addresses only one conspiracy theory, more research is needed. But with this said,
the results shed light on three important questions: Is there a disposition towards seeing or not
12
seeing conspiracies behind events and circumstances? What is the possibility for conspiratorial
information to affect conspiratorial beliefs? What is the role of partisanship in shaping
conspiratorial beliefs?
Is there a predisposition towards seeing conspiracies behind events and circumstances?
Our results say yes, there is a predisposition towards conspiratorial thinking, independent of
partisanship, that makes one more likely to see specific conspiracy theories given certain
circumstances. This predisposition, therefore, goes a long way toward addressing the individual
heterogeneity in the holding of conspiratorial beliefs. Those predisposed towards conspiratorial
thinking are likely to believe in many conspiracy theories, even on short evidence. But equally
important, those lacking this predisposition are just as likely to reject conspiratorial thinking all
else equal. This explains why popular partisan conspiracy theories and even popular non-partisan
conspiracy theories are limited in who they can convince. Recent partisan conspiracy theories,
i.e. Birther and Truther theories, have only been able to garner acceptance from 25-30 percent of
the public. Non-partisan conspiracy theories such as those addressing the J.F.K assassination,
despite their longevity and significance in our popular culture, still only garner acceptance from
about two-thirds of the public. In short, despite media commentary suggesting that the US is
being overwhelmed by conspiratorial beliefs, our findings here suggest there is a limit on how far
conspiracy theories can go.
Second, what is the role of partisanship in shaping conspiratorial beliefs? Our results
buttress recent survey results and previous research (Uscinski, et al. 2011, Cassino and Jenkins
2013). Partisanship strongly impacts the propensity to see a conspiracy when the conspiracy
theory has a partisan element. In this experiment, Republicans are more likely to see a
conspiracy behind media coverage than either independents or Democrats because suspicion of
13
liberal media bias has been mainstream belief of Republican elites for many years (Watts, et al.
1999). While it is potentially unhealthy that partisans view the opposing side with such
suspicion, the upside is that partisanship also limits the possibilities for conspiratorial thinking to
overtake public opinion and/or policy. Partisans are unwilling to buy into conspiracy theories
accusing co-partisans, and as such, conspiracy theories are often concentrated largely on one side
or the other.
Finally, what is the possibility for conspiratorial information to affect belief in
conspiratorial explanations? Our results suggest that information indicating a conspiracy can
affect those receiving that information – but that the effects will be most noticeable among those
without strong political predispositions about the particular conspiracy – in this case,
independents. In addition to independents, we suspect that information may also exhibit strong
effects on low-information partisans when new conspiracy theories come to the fore (e.g. Zaller
1992). For example, when a new partisan conspiracy theory impugning Democrats becomes
more salient in the media, we would expect that low-information Republicans would respond to
the increased information flow by becoming more likely to see a conspiracy. In short, while there
is great concern that heightened discussion of conspiracy theories in the media and on the
internet may drive the public to become more conspiratorial, such informational cues are likely
to have large effects only with (1) those who do not have strong a priori feelings about the
conspiracy theory one way or the other, and (2) low-information opposing partisans. Thus, our
findings shed light on why information appears to only have limited success both generating and
reversing conspiratorial beliefs. For many people it’s not information that drives conspiratorial
beliefs; rather it’s their predisposition to see conspiracies and their partisanship.
14
References
Berinsky, Adam. 2012a. "The Birthers Are (Still) Back." YouGov: What the World Thinks.
———. 2012b. "The Birthers Are Back." YouGov: What the World Thinks.
———. 2012c. "Rumors, Truths, and Reality: A Study of Political Misinformation." In
http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/rumor.pdf. MIT.
Berinsky, Adam J. 2007. "Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public
Support for Military Conflict." The Journal of Politics 69: 975-97.
Bost, Preston R., and Stephen G. Prunier. 2013. "Rationality in Conspiracy Beliefs: The Role of
Perceived Motive." unpublished paper.
Bratich, Jack Zeljko. 2004. "Trust No One (on the Internet): The Cia-Crack-Contra Conspiracy
Theory and Professional Journalism." Television & New Media 5: 109-39.
Cassino, Dan, and Krista Jenkins. 2013. "Conspiracy Theories Prosper: 25% of Americans Are
'Truthers'." press release.
Crocker, Jennifer, Riia Luhtanen, Stephanie Broadnax, and Bruce Evan Blaine. 1999. "Belief in
U.S. Government Conspiracies against Blacks among Black and White College Students:
Powerlessness or System Blame?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 941-
53.
Douglas, Karen M., and Robbie M. Sutton. 2011. "Does It Take One to Know One?
Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories Is Influenced by Personal Willingness to Conspire."
British Journal of Social Psychology 50: 544-52.
Goertzel, Ted. 1994. "Belief in Conspiracy Theories." Political Psychology 15: 733-44.
Hofstadter, Richard. 1964. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kata, Anna. 2010. "A Postmodern Pandora's Box: Anti-Vaccination Misinformation on the
Internet." Vaccine 28: 1709-16.
Knight, Peter, ed. 2002. Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America. New
York: New York University Press.
McClosky, Herbert, and Dennis Chong. 1985. "Similarities and Differences between Left-Wing
and Right-Wing Radicals." British Journal of Political Science 15: 329-63.
Morales, Lyman. 2011. "Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias."
Gallop Politics.
15
Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, and Peter Ubel. 2013. "The Hazards of Correcting Myths About
Health Care Reform." Medical Care 51: 127-32.
Oliver, J. Eric, and Thomas J. Wood. 2012. "Conspiracy Theories, Magical Thinking, and the
Paranoid Style(S) of Mass Opinion." The Univeristy of Chicago Working Paper Series.
Pew. 2012. "Pluralities Say Press Is Fair to Romney, Obama: Republicans Again See Pro-Obama
Bias." Pew Research: Center for the People and the Press.
Swami, Viren, Rebecca Coles, Stefan Stieger, Jakob Pietschnig, Adrian Furnham, Sherry Rehim,
and Martin Voracek. 2011. "Conspiracist Ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a
Monological Belief System and Associations between Individual Psychological
Differences and Real-World and Fictitious Conspiracy Theories." British Journal of
Psychology 102: 443-63.
Thomas, S. B., and S. C. Quinn. 1991. "The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972:
Implications for Hiv Education and Aids Risk Education Programs in the Black
Community." American Journal of Public Health 81: 1498-505.
Uscinski, Joseph E., Joseph Parent, and Bethany Torres. 2011. "Conspiracy Theories Are for
Losers." SSRN eLibrary.
Watts, Mark D., David Domke, Dhavan V. Shah, and David P. Fan. 1999. "Elite Cues and Media
Bias in Presidential Campaigns: Explaining Public Perceptions of a Liberal Press."
Communication Research 26: 144-75.
Whitson, Jennifer A., and Adam D. Galinsky. 2008. "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern
Perception." Science 322: 115-17.
Wood, Michael J., Karen M. Douglas, and Robbie M. Sutton. 2012. "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in
Contradictory Conspiracy Theories." Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Wulff, Erich. 1988. "Paranoic Conspiracy Delusion " In Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy,
eds. C. F. Graumann and S. Moscovici. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Democrat
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Republican
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Independent
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Democrat
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy | Media Bias)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Republican
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy | Media Bias)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Independent
Conspiratioral Thinking Score
Prob(Media Bias Conspiracy | Media Bias)
Table 1: Perceptions of Conspiratorial Explanation for Bias in the Media
Media Is Biased Due to Conspiracy vs. Media Is Not Biased
Multinomial Probit Coefficients
All Democratic Republican Independent
Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents
Intercept -0.910 -3.23 0.582 -0.350
( .320) ( 0.708) ( 0.648) (0.604)
Conspiracy Cue -0.707 0.382 1.494 -2.050
( 0.490) ( 1.025) ( 1.339) (0.934)
Conspiratorial Thought 1.437 3.880 1.670 0.059
( 1.437) ( 1.085) ( 1.160) (0.970)
Conspiracy Cue 1.159 -1.112 -1.391 3.850
X Conspiratorial Thought ( 0.791) ( 1.620) ( 2.275) (1.434)
N 961 357 260 344
AIC 2631.152 882.989 555.130 1024.336
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 06 Jul 2013, 06:03

Why Really and I can never have a dialog. We both draw water from very different wells. Yes, this concerns 9/11 but the message is applicable to all conspiracies, especially the JFK assassnation

Misha wrote:Tell me, Really. Are you a "conspiracy theorist?


Really wrote: "Now why on earth would you ask me this? You know I'm not."

From David Ray Griffin's book - 9/11, Ten years later. Page 52 and 53:

Conspiracy Theories and the the Official Account of 9/11:


I realize, of course, that most of you do not like to acknowledge that the official account of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, given the one-sided, propagandistic meaning with which this term is now commonly employed. As New Zealand philosopher Charles Pigden has now pointed out in a superb essay entitled "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom":

[T]o call someone 'a conspiracy theorist' is to suggest that he is irrational, paranoid or perverse. Often the suggestion seems to be that conspiracy theories are not just suspect, but utterly unbelievable, too silly to deserve the effort of a serious refutation.

However, Pigden continues, using the term in this way is intellectually dishonest, because "a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy---a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means." And, given this neutral, dictionary meaning of the term:

[E]very politically and historical literate person is a big-time conspiracy theorist, since every such person subscribes to a vast range of conspiracy theories.... [T]here are many facts that admit of no non-conspiratorial explanation and many conspiracy theories that are sufficiently well-established to qualify as knowledge. It is difficult...to mount a coup [or an assassination] without conspiring.... Thus anyone who knows anything about the Ides of March or the assassinations of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the Tsar Alexander II is bound to subscribe to a conspiracy theory, and hence to be a conspiracy theorist.


In light of the neutral meaning of the term provided by Pigden, everyone is a conspiracy theorist about 9/11, not only people who believe that the U.S. government was complicit. According to the government's theory, the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden, other al-Qaeda leaders (such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and 19 young members of al-Qaeda who agreed to hijack airliners. Failure to recognize this point can lead to absurd consequences. For example, after an article about 9/11 by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, which had been posted at the Huffington Post, was quickly taken down, the HP editor gave this explanation:

The Huffington Post's editorial policy...prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories---including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.


In response, I pointed out that this policy entails that the Huffington Post "cannot accept any posts that state, or imply, that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, for this is a conspiracy theory." This fact has been acknowledged, I added, by former Harvard law professor and current Obama administration member Cass Sunstein---who referred to the above-quoted article by Charles Pigden. I pointed out that this fact combined with the Huffington Post's policy would lead to a strange implication:

[The Huffington Post] cannot allow President Obama to say that we are in Afghanistan to 'get the people who attacked us on 9/11,' because he's already thereby endorsing the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory about 9/11.


But the Huffinton Post, evidently not bothered by logical inconsistency, has not changed its policy. In any case, once it is acknowledged that both of the major theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories, the 9/11 Truth movement's theory cannot rationally be rejected on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory, Making a rational judgement requires comparing the two conspiracy theories to see which one is more plausible. And when the issue is posed this way, the official theory does not fare well, whether viewed from a scientific or merely prima facie perspective.

So, Really. You are not a conspiracy theorist? What are you then?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Arouet » 06 Jul 2013, 07:05

Honestly - do these labels really matter? They're greatest use is in shortening conversations - ie: subscribing to a label lets someone relatively quickly have a general idea as to one's general position - beyond that people actually have to ask each other questions about what they believe.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby really? » 06 Jul 2013, 11:37

Misha wrote:Why Really and I can never have a dialog. We both draw water from very different wells. Yes, this concerns 9/11 but the message is applicable to all conspiracies, especially the JFK *assassnation


Misha wrote:Misha wrote:Tell me, Really. Are you a "conspiracy theorist?


Really wrote: "Now why on earth would you ask me this? You know I'm not."

From David Ray Griffin's book - 9/11, Ten years later. Page 52 and 53:

Conspiracy Theories and the the Official Account of 9/11:


Misha wrote:I realize, of course, that most of you do not like to acknowledge that the official account of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, given the one-sided, propagandistic meaning with which this term is now commonly employed. As New Zealand philosopher Charles Pigden has now pointed out in a superb essay entitled "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom":


Misha wrote:[T]o call someone 'a conspiracy theorist' is to suggest that he is irrational, paranoid or perverse. Often the suggestion seems to be that conspiracy theories are not just suspect, but utterly unbelievable, too silly to deserve the effort of a serious refutation.

Sometimes they are.

Misha wrote:However, Pigden continues, using the term in this way is intellectually dishonest, because "a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy---a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means." And, given this neutral, dictionary meaning of the term:

A dictionary defines words not how they are used to promote ideas.

Misha wrote:[E]very politically and historical literate person is a big-time conspiracy theorist, since every such person subscribes to a vast range of conspiracy theories.... [T]here are many facts that admit of no non-conspiratorial explanation and many conspiracy theories that are sufficiently well-established to qualify as knowledge. It is difficult...to mount a coup [or an assassination] without conspiring.... Thus anyone who knows anything about the Ides of March or the assassinations of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the Tsar Alexander II is bound to subscribe to a conspiracy theory, and hence to be a conspiracy theorist.

Let's be clear on this. I have no concerns over conspiracies in general. My only concerns are how certain conspiracies are presented. Are the presentations, explanations reasonable?

Misha wrote:In light of the neutral meaning of the term provided by Pigden, everyone is a conspiracy theorist about 9/11, not only people who believe that the U.S. government was complicit. According to the government's theory, the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden, other al-Qaeda leaders (such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and 19 young members of al-Qaeda who agreed to hijack airliners. Failure to recognize this point can lead to absurd consequences. For example, after an article about 9/11 by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, which had been posted at the Huffington Post, was quickly taken down, the HP editor gave this explanation:

I would disagree with Pidgen's conclusion. A CT'ist takes an active role in promoting a conspiracy. It's beyond me what expertise Jesse has. Let's not forget Osama and Khalid both admit to the planning.

Misha wrote:The Huffington Post's editorial policy...prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories---including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.

Opinion

Misha wrote:In response, I pointed out that this policy entails that the Huffington Post "cannot accept any posts that state, or imply, that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, for this is a conspiracy theory." This fact has been acknowledged, I added, by former Harvard law professor and current Obama administration member Cass Sunstein---who referred to the above-quoted article by Charles Pigden. I pointed out that this fact combined with the Huffington Post's policy would lead to a strange implication:


Misha wrote:[The Huffington Post] cannot allow President Obama to say that we are in Afghanistan to 'get the people who attacked us on 9/11,' because he's already thereby endorsing the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory about 9/11.

More opinion.

Misha wrote:But the Huffinton Post, evidently not bothered by logical inconsistency, has not changed its policy. In any case, once it is acknowledged that both of the major theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories, the 9/11 Truth movement's theory cannot rationally be rejected on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory, Making a rational judgement requires comparing the two conspiracy theories to see which one is more plausible. And when the issue is posed this way, the official theory does not fare well, whether viewed from a scientific or merely prima facie perspective.

More opinion

Misha wrote:So, Really. You are not a conspiracy theorist?

Misha wrote:
Misha wrote:What are you then?

Trying to help the lurkers from going down a dark and pessimistic path.


You have failed to see the point. Did you even read the article?
This isn't about any one particular conspiracy. It is how persons who don't have the expertise in dissecting information for it's legitimacy, accuracy, approach, analyze and reach conclusions, often times it seems the conclusions only affirm what they already suspect.
It is much more plausible a bunch of middle eastern men conspired than it is to believe a president and vice-president conspired. I am not sympathetic to Bush, I didn't vote for him.

Something to think about.
How many people know about this conspiracy?:
It’s very difficult to keep any sort of newsworthy conspiracy that hundreds or thousands of people are supposedly involved in out of the mainstream press. Keep in mind that we live in a world where the President can’t even get a BJ from an intern without it becoming public knowledge. Even things as sensitive as battle plans for upcoming invasions get into the papers. That’s why you should certainly be skeptical of any sort of vast conspiracy that requires people keeping quiet about it indefinitely.

If you want to read more: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/t ... mselves-2/

*You didn't remember well enough what I said. The conclusion by the HSCA is there was a conspiracy, but that commission was unable to find collusion between Oswald and other parties or other parties in collusion. Furthermore, they agreed with the Warren commission report that Oswald fired all three shots except the forth which came from another gunmen they claim, an unproven allegation. The only thing known with certainty is Oswald fired three shots.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Aug 2013, 10:00

really? wrote:Let's not forget Osama and Khalid both admit to the planning.

No they didn't. OBL denied it in an early video that appears to be a genuine one, in which he mentions a 'government within the government' controlling things in the US.

A much later video that appears to be a fake has muddy audio that we are told translates to the character playing OBL saying he was involved. This is widely held to be a fake video produced for US propaganda purposes. OBL is held by many in the face of strong evidence to have died in around 2001 anyhow.

Wasn't Khalid tortured for a 'confession'? Clearly inadmissible. KGB style tactics right there.

Lest we forget the strong financial Bush-bin Laden family connections:



The conclusion by the HSCA is there was a conspiracy, but that commission was unable to find collusion between Oswald and other parties or other parties in collusion. Furthermore, they agreed with the Warren commission report that Oswald fired all three shots except the forth which came from another gunmen they claim, an unproven allegation. The only thing known with certainty is Oswald fired three shots.

Why is it known with certainty? Given there is evidence the rifle was planted there unfired. Also given that any re-enactment of the event using the same rifle type shows it is pretty well impossible to get any 3 shots off in the timeframe, especially not accurate ones. This is a single shot rifle. Even a good shot can't load a new round and get their eye back on the sight in time to get an accurate shot off 3 times. (And 5 shots were fired, unless Profwag subscribes to the 'magic bullet theory'.) Further the sights were found to be out of alignment. Has all the hallmarks of a weapon drop and a patsy to me. That's just on the strength of the evidence, one has to wonder about the motivations of the Warren commission and the authors of the HSCA report.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby bill anderson » 08 Sep 2014, 00:27

Scepcop wrote:The driver of JFK's limo, William Greer, appears to be involved. Why did he slow down after the first shot was fired? You'd think he would have speeded up and tried to get away wouldn't you? Instead, he slowed to 10 mph and waited until the fatal head shot before taking off. Isn't that way too suspicious and convenient? If he wasn't trying to get JFK killed, then what was he trying to do?

See episode 7 of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" on YouTube. It implicates the Secret Service.



Also see episode 9, where LBJ is implicated. In fact, his mistress and one of his attorneys say they have evidence that he was in on the assassination plot. Plus he had a criminal history where he murdered many people including his own sister. It's a very damning and shocking episode. Here it is.



Polls show that over 90 percent of Americans do believe it was a conspiracy. The evidence all points to one, and plus the deliberate overt cover up attempt by the government is clear and unambiguous to all. Even a child can see that there was a big coverup.

How do TPTB get the media and police department in on it though? Doesn't anyone have morals?

That's pretty scary. It means they can take out any one of us, make it look like a suicide, and the police and media won't look into it if they are ordered to stand down.

How did they get the police to help in the cover up and framing of Oswald? How did they get the secret service to stand down? How did they get the driver, William Greer, to agree to slow the limo down to 10 mph until the fatal shot to JFK's head? How did they know that they would all cooperate? It can't just be that they were paid can it?



Greer started braking during his second turn and right before the fatal shot. Notice the motorcycles and follow-up car suddenly stop. THE NIX FILM BELOW.

Image

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/59_1.html
1) Houston Chronicle Reporter Bo Byers (rode in White House Press Bus)---twice stated that the Presidential Limousine "almost came to a stop, a dead stop"; in fact, he has had nightmares about this. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car)---Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

3) UPI White House Reporter Merriman Smith (rode in the same car as Clark, above)---"The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly" [UPI story, 11/23/63, as reported in "Four Days", UPI, p. 32];

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles)--"The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles)---"After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 134];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

10) DPD Earle Brown---" The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." [6 H 233];

Greer pressed on the brakes in the Muchmore film. The brake light illuminates.

Image
The Muchmore film suggests frames were removed from the Zapruder film - YouTube
User avatar
bill anderson
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 07 Sep 2014, 01:51

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Oct 2014, 19:44

This just in.

The Astounding Conspiracy Theories of Wall Street Genius Mark Gorton

This week, we were forwarded documents that Gorton was sending out to employees at Tower Research. These documents—embedded at the bottom of this post—are essays by Mark Gorton, laying out his theories on the secret high-level murderous criminal "Cabal" that is responsible for, among other things, the JFK and RFK assassinations, the presidential careers of the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 plot, and the murder of countless witnesses, politicians, and journalists who sought to expose them, including Sen. Paul Wellstone and even Hunter S. Thompson. Everything, according to Gorton, has been an inside job.


All 3 of Gorton's documents can be downloaded.

During the 1960’s, the overwhelming mass of news information reaching the eyes and ears of Americans came from 15 organizations: NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, UPI, Time-Life, McGraw Hill, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, NY Times, Washington Post, Metromedia, Westinghouse, Capital Cities, the North American Newspaper Alliance, and the Saturday Evening Post. The Cabal was successful in co-opting the top management at each of these organizations and enlisting them into active involvement in the cover-up of the Coup of ’63.
During the period 1964-68, internal research teams in several of these organizations reached the conclusion that the Kennedy Assassination had been a result of a conspiracy. In each and every case, management at the highest editorial and corporate level took actions to overrule, suppress, lock up, edit or otherwise alter these internal findings to back up the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Project Mockingbird was a CIA program to control the US press. The exact size of Project Mockingbird remains classified, but bits of information have slipped out over time that allow for budgetary estimates to be computed. In 1978, the CIA propaganda budget was estimated to be $265 million and involved 2,000 personnel making it larger than the combined budgets of Reuters, the Associated Press and United Press International. In 1977, Carl Bernstein reported that the CIA had over 400 reporters and editors at major US media outlets on its payroll. Decedents of this program continue up until the present day.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 12 Oct 2014, 22:07, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2014, 21:17

SydneyPSIder wrote:This just in.

The Astounding Conspiracy Theories of Wall Street Genius Mark Gorton

This week, we were forwarded documents that Gorton was sending out to employees at Tower Research. These documents—embedded at the bottom of this post—are essays by Mark Gorton, laying out his theories on the secret high-level murderous criminal "Cabal" that is responsible for, among other things, the JFK and RFK assassinations, the presidential careers of the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 plot, and the murder of countless witnesses, politicians, and journalists who sought to expose them, including Sen. Paul Wellstone and even Hunter S. Thompson. Everything, according to Gorton, has been an inside job.


All 3 of Gorton's documents can be downloaded.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all the theories in the world don't mean anything without facts.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Oct 2014, 22:09

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:This just in.

The Astounding Conspiracy Theories of Wall Street Genius Mark Gorton

This week, we were forwarded documents that Gorton was sending out to employees at Tower Research. These documents—embedded at the bottom of this post—are essays by Mark Gorton, laying out his theories on the secret high-level murderous criminal "Cabal" that is responsible for, among other things, the JFK and RFK assassinations, the presidential careers of the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 plot, and the murder of countless witnesses, politicians, and journalists who sought to expose them, including Sen. Paul Wellstone and even Hunter S. Thompson. Everything, according to Gorton, has been an inside job.


All 3 of Gorton's documents can be downloaded.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all the theories in the world don't mean anything without facts.

You know that conclusive facts have been provided here over and over again, and you just gloss over them. Probabilities, facts, inconsistencies, the works. Your version of 'the facts' has been shown to be decisively wrong and deliberately misleading over and over again. The 'conspiracy theorists' version of events fits ALL of the known evidence, the Warren Commission Report and your odd account fits little of it, by design. You're part of the disinfo machine, pretty obviously:

During the 1960’s, the overwhelming mass of news information reaching the eyes and ears of Americans came from 15 organizations: NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, UPI, Time-Life, McGraw Hill, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, NY Times, Washington Post, Metromedia, Westinghouse, Capital Cities, the North American Newspaper Alliance, and the Saturday Evening Post. The Cabal was successful in co-opting the top management at each of these organizations and enlisting them into active involvement in the cover-up of the Coup of ’63.

During the period 1964-68, internal research teams in several of these organizations reached the conclusion that the Kennedy Assassination had been a result of a conspiracy. In each and every case, management at the highest editorial and corporate level took actions to overrule, suppress, lock up, edit or otherwise alter these internal findings to back up the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Project Mockingbird was a CIA program to control the US press. The exact size of Project Mockingbird remains classified, but bits of information have slipped out over time that allow for budgetary estimates to be computed. In 1978, the CIA propaganda budget was estimated to be $265 million and involved 2,000 personnel making it larger than the combined budgets of Reuters, the Associated Press and United Press International. In 1977, Carl Bernstein reported that the CIA had over 400 reporters and editors at major US media outlets on its payroll. Decedents of this program continue up until the present day.

Interesting that you popped up so quickly after a single post after all this time of silence. Worried that the cabal is going to lose its grip if this sort of assessment becomes widely known?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Oct 2014, 22:33

During the Carter administration, the Cabal spent much effort on a series of rear guard actions to keep the truth about their domestic assassinations from being recognized. Forces battling for justice against the Cabal were able to launch the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) which operated from 1976 – 78. Despite fairly effective efforts within Congress to sabotage the HSCA, the HSCA posed large problems for the Cabal.

Honest investigators within the HSCA were more or less on the trail of the conspirators in JFK’s killing. Many individuals involved in the Coup of ’63 were scheduled to testify before the HSCA. In order to prevent these actors from testifying, the death squads operated by the Cabal worked overtime. 21 people involved in the Coup who were subpoenaed to testify before the committee died under mysterious circumstances. Many died just before their scheduled testimony. For example, in 1977 seven senior FBI officials called to testify at the HSCA died within a six month period.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Oct 2014, 22:41

And what a surprise about the real events in the October Surprise that lost Carter his presidency and returned Reagan. Fits ALL the evidence. And to think the American sheeple worshipped Reagan for securing the release of American hostages when in fact the cabal had just offered the Iranians a better deal than Carter.

This account also fits all the evidence around GHW Bush's involvement in the assassination of JFK, his hidden involvement with the CIA prior to taking on its lead from nowhere under the cabal associate President Gerald Ford.

Licking their wounds and biding the time, the Power Control Group now under the direction of George H.W. Bush worked to retake control of the presidency. George H.W. Bush was such a pivotal figure because he bridged two separate worlds. He was a deep CIA insider, a lifelong intelligence operative, and he also came from an elite family and was intimately tied to the East Coast business elite. His father, Prescott, had been managing partner at the Wall Street investment bank Brown, Brothers, Harriman and also a US Senator. The Bush and Rockefeller families were very close. George H.W.’s grandfather Samuel had been business partners with John D. Rockefeller’s brother, and over the generation the Bush and Rockefeller clans had remained close. Empowered with these dual networks, George H.W. Bush could work within the dark nether-realms of the intelligence community, as well as the Republican power elite.

After Ronald Reagan defeated Bush in the Republican primary, Bush’s powerful allies worked to get him chosen for the as Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Reagan did not like Bush and did not want him as his Vice President, but David Rockefeller and the Republican establishment made it clear to Reagan that their backing for him depended upon him accepting Bush as his running mate. [Note: other sources have indicated Reagan received a number of phone calls over 2 days which he called 'the worst 2 days of his life' in which he was pressured to add GHWB as his running mate to the ticket. Some said this was effectively putting the CIA in charge of the US.]

As the 1980 presidential election rolled around, the now Bush led Cabal worked to prevent Carter’s reelection. During 1980, the 52 Americans held hostage by Iran hung like a dark cloud over the Carter administration. Carter was working desperately to have the hostages returned. The Republicans feared a pre-election release of the hostages would give Carter a huge popularity boast and lead to his reelection. A last minute event of significance before an election is known as an October Surprise.

In order to prevent this October Surprise, the CIA old boy network associated with the Cabal sabotaged Carter’s attempts to rescue the hostages and also sabotaged Carter’s secret negotiations with the Iranians and offered the Iranians an even better deal. Old school CIA operative Bill Casey led negotiations with the Iranians in which the Cabal agreed to pay the Iranians $40 million and to ship billions of dollars of weapons stolen from US military stock piles in Europe to the Iranians in exchange for the Iranians holding the hostages until Reagan became president.

The Republican Counter-surprise operation demonstrated the capabilities of the forces of the secret government to operate counter to the legal chain of command. The secret network of individuals within the CIA and military who were loyal to a parallel reporting hierarchy created logistical supply chains from Europe to Iran and looted billions of dollars of weapons from the NATO weapons stores under orders of people who were nominally just civilians.

The Iranians were not content to accept Bill Casey as a high enough authority to seal this deal. They demanded to meet with either Reagan or Bush. So George HW Bush flew to Paris for face to face meetings with the Iranians to close the deal. Pressed for time because of a speaking engagement back in Washington, DC, Bush returned from Paris in the world's fastest plane, an SR-71, which refueled over the Atlantic and got him home in time for his talk. The Republican Counter-surprise came very close to being exposed and once again the hit squads were active killing many operatives who had the misfortune of being involved in this latest act of treason on Bush’s part.

In addition to assuring that the Republicans would occupy the White House, the Republican Counter-surprise served another very important purpose. By agreeing to go along with the Counter-surprise operation, Reagan compromised himself. Reagan had now acquiesced to committing an act of treason. By committing this crime, Reagan was now in no position to push back against other crimes by members of the Cabal because now he risked exposure himself if the mechanisms of the secret government were disclosed.

Within an hour of Reagan being sworn in as President, the Iranians released the hostages.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 15 Oct 2014, 08:03

SydneyPSIder wrote:Interesting that you popped up so quickly after a single post after all this time of silence. Worried that the cabal is going to lose its grip if this sort of assessment becomes widely known?

Worried? What is there to worry about? Personally, I judge evidence by what's in front of me. If solid evidence should ever come out that points to something different that LHO was the only person who shot at JFK, I would be thrilled to learn the actual truth. Until that time, the evidence you've presented does nothing to point to anyone other than LHO. This isn't a competition Syd, it should be a discussion what the events were surrounding the assassination of an American President. If that evidence is ever presented, all I'll do is go "hmfp, well I'll be damned. That's great news to finally learn the truth."
As to why I haven't been posting here? The theories you've been presenting are getting more and more outlandish and, quite frankly, boring. There simply hasn't been anything new presented in quite some time. Sorry.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron