Customer Discussions > History forum

Ten Tips to Becoming an Accomplished Conspiracy Cultist


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 254 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 25, 2012 1:19:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2012 6:53:42 AM PDT
Being a confirmed believer in Oswald's sole guilt is not easy. We are constantly asked to explain evidence, reconcile testimonies that seem to contradict one another, and endlessly putting out brushfires started by conspiracy cultists. Whenever we make a claim we are expected to back it up with evidence, testimony, science, or logic. It never ends.

But....

Being a conspiracy cultist is MUCH easier and MUCH less strenuous. Having dealt with conspiracy cultists since about 1980 when I began my career as a professional historian and teacher I have found very similar characteristics common among most (not all) conspiracy cultists. Here is a partial list of requirements in case anyone is interested in joining the conspiracy cult:

1. You must constantly ignore contradictory evidence. When confirmed conspiracy cultist spearman was shown forensic evidence that the limousine windshield contained NO through and through hole he promptly ignored it, waited for a month and then brought up the claim of the hole in the windshield again as if it had nevef been disproven. When David Medearis was shown that his love and support of the HSCA's findings did not actually support any of his wacky beliefs of multiple gunmen and multiple rifles, he simply ignored the HSCA's findings from then on and never brought them up again. When cultist Robert Morrow boasted that LBJ was a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy and had it pointed out to him that LBJ didn't accept the findings of the WC that Oswald acted alone and wanted a reinvestigation of the murder he simply ignored the logical problems of a guilty person being unsatisified when THEY were exonerated for a crime THEY committed and instead wanted the case re-opened possibly leading to THEIR arrest and conviction. Morrow simply ignored the flaw in his theory and marched onward.

2. You MUST repeat the same lies over and over and over until the poorly read believe your claims. In spite of all contradictory evidence that the James Altgens photographs were in his possession from the moment he took them until they were developed and wired around the world, Ralph Cinque and James Fezter continued to propagate the lie that the photo of Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD was stolen, altered, and returned to his possession, all within a twenty minute window and all without his knowledge. Even though spearman and Medearis were shown repeatedly that all photographs taken by Tom Alyea show Oswald's rifle being removed from the building and later tests proved that only one rifle was found in the TSBD, they continue to spout the lie that a Mauser was found in the building. Even though photographs of CE 399 reveal a bullet severely flattened along its horizontal plane, conspiracy cultists still continue to repeat the line that CE 399 was pristine and without blemish. Even though Gary Savage's book 'First Day Evidence' reveals that Oswald's prints were lifted from the rifle BEFORE it was sent to Washington D.C. conspiracy cultists continue to repeat the lie that Oswald's prints were only found on the rifle AFTER Oswald's death. Even though the WC, the HSCA, and the Discovery Channel all hired marksmen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's accuracy within the time frame of the three shots fired that day and even though ALL three groups managed to not only match Oswald's feat but BETTER it by a significant margin. Still the conspiracy cultists continue to repeat the lie that Oswald's marksmanship has never been duplicated.

3. Never site specific sources for any lies you repeat. THIS is a vital step that ALL conspiracy cultists cannot forget. The character limit on Amazon posts don't afford me the necessary length to cite all of the examples of spearman and Medearis and Morrow and Fetzer and Cinque making allegations and then failing completely to back up their claims with any kind of evidence. Just make the unsupported allegation and then expect the lone nut believers to disprove your claim. That way YOU never look bad.

4. Always ignore difficult questions whenever you are cornered. David Medearis and spearman were asked what they thought WAS in the package Oswald brought to work with him on the morning of the assassination. Answer? Silence. Nothing. Clearly they don't know what was in the package and therefore they stand silent hoping beyond hope that the questino will go away and they can start an unrelated line of questioning.

5. Always refer to OTHER conspiracy books and NOT to the actual evidence. In order for conspiracy theories to sound plausible you MUST refer back to other theories and other people's suppositions, NEVER the actual evidence.

Due to the length of this initial post I will continue the list with the ninth post in this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 5:09:37 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
S. V. Anderson says:

[1. You must constantly ignore contradictory evidence.]

As I've told you before in the JFK forum people like you make one major mistake. Everything goes downhill from there.

Your mistake is assuming that any reliable evidence exists. If this was a true conspiracy it went all the way up to Johnson, Hoover in the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. Unfortunately for you those are the very people that provided all of the so called evidence about the Kennedy assassination.

You've spent your entire adult life chasing a ghost Anderson. It was a ghost that you heard about on the evening news from Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America. If Walter Cronkite said it then it must certainly be true for people like you. You've become an expert in understanding an endless sea of lies.

In other countries there are no conspiracy theories because those places didn't have or still don't have any laws to control the greedy. In Stalin's Russia there was no need for conspiracies. Anyone who disagreed with Joe was killed.

In the U.S. they had to be a little more careful because there was the risk that someone might hold them accountable in a court of law. So things had to be done differently. They were successful with gullible people like you who were caught in the web of lies they wove.

Jeff Marzano

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 9:37:52 PM PDT
Thank you Jeff, you just demonstrated number 6.

Boy...can I predict these conspiracy cultists or what?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 10:50:36 PM PDT
jpl says:
Quite the contrary, Jeff. A.V. is chasing no ghosts. You must be projecting. Who chases the specter of conspiracy? THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

Posted on Oct 25, 2012 10:54:37 PM PDT
jpl says:
Ten Tips to Becoming an Accomplished Conspiracy Cultist

Well-done, A.V. I wouldn't have had the time or patience to so eloquently argue against conspiracy theorists. I've never met a conspiracy I believe to this day.

We live in a technologically advanced, but psychologically retarded society.

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 3:34:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2012 3:34:48 AM PDT
Debunker says:
Well done S.V. Anderson. The conspiracy clowns on the 9/11 boards offer further proof that what you post is accurate.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 5:39:11 AM PDT
anne says:
Can you list how they do it using those tips, please?

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 6:03:44 AM PDT
Debunker says:
SV,

It's also important for conspiracy kooks to use exaggerations when they attack the "official explanations". Statements like the world trade towers "were the best engineered buildings in the world", the attacks were carried out by "19 arabs living in a cave", one of the hijackers/pilots was "incompetant" and the Pentagon was "the most heavily defended structure in the world" are all designed to give strength to their attacks on the official explanation of the events. They don't need to support these type of claims, merely stating them causes them to be "facts" in their minds.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 6:25:06 AM PDT
Anne wrote: "Can you list how THEY do IT using those tips, please?"

SVA: I'm not exactly clear on what you want. Who is "they" and what is "it"? I'll be happy to reply once I'm clear what it is you are asking.

Thanks,

SVA

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 6:54:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 27, 2012 11:06:24 AM PDT
as I was saying....

6. Always claim that contradictory evidence has been faked--or if you ARE one of the witnesses and later evidence proves you were lying or mistaken at the time, always claim the "powers that be" changed your testimony--even though you signed the completed testimony when it was typed up. It doesn't matter if there is no scientific proof, it doesn't matter if you can't explain when it took place or who did it, just keep making the claim that the Zapruder film has somehow been altered, the autopsy pictures have somehow been altered, the autopsy x-rays have somehow been altered, the Nix film, the Muchmore film, the Moorman photograph, etc... If these pieces of evidence contradict your claims of conspiracy...easy...claim they have been faked. Jean Hill claimed her testimony was altered when later investigation revealed she was mistaken about some things. Roger Craig claimed his testimony was altered when later investigation revealed he was either lying of mistaken.

Of course this claim is utterly ridiculous and illogical, for IF the Warren Commission were to alter testimony they would have altered testimony to make Oswald look guilty by adding admissions of individuals that could attest to Oswqald's guilt. But as a careful reading of the WC accompanying volumes reveals this never appears anywhere.

7. Anyone within the lone-assassin camp that brings up issues, facts, logic, evidence, or examples you cannot harmonize with your particular theory always be sure to label them as any of the following: disinformationist, CIA operative, government agent, information plant, insane, paid informant, governmetn schill, apologist, suffering from some sort of mental disorder or any of a dozen other epithets designed to deflect attention away from the fact that they stumped you with evidence that disproves your pet theory. This is akin to attempting to avoid paying your power bill by alleging that postman that brings you your bill is cheating on their spouse or that he/she is "gay". It is immaterial, it is unrelated, and it is totally beside the point, but it will cause some readers to miss the point that YOU were unable to address the point the person raised because you called them a name.

8. ALWAYS place most of your trust in the LEAST reliable evidence (eyewitness and earwitness accounts) and ignore the MOST reliable evidence (physical, forensic, scientific evidence). That way you can gleefully cite the claim of Ed Hoffman or Jean Hill that alleged to have seen a right-front rifleman without having to face the hard evidence that no medical evidence supports such a belief. Of course as any conspiracy nut will attest to, you ALWAYS site the eyewitness account and then if the forensic evidence contradicts them, you simply claim the forensic evidence was faked somehow to make the witnesses look bad (see #6 above).

And an important second part to this requirement is to elevate non-experts to level of "expert" so long as they agree with your theory. Two of the conspiracy cult's greatest and most honored "experts" in the field of photography are Jack White and Robert Groden. For decades these two were revered and venerated as photographic analyst gods within the conspiracy community. They found figures in photographs, they found "evidence" of photographic alteration, they boasted of groundbreaking discoveries proving government alteration and destruction of evidence in the Kennedy assassinatioin.

But...

Neither one had ANY formal training in photographic analysis of ANY kind. They were merely charlatans who slipped past security and no one asked for their credentials. When Jack White appeared before the HSCA in 1978 he underwent some embarassing questioning that amounted to a public de-pantsing. You can read the hilarious revelations that came to light during his questioning in this sample from the HSCA's hearings:
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE. No.

<...>

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately----

I withdraw the question.

That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photographs in light of the head size; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

<...>

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

and as for Robert Groden, the other conspiracy cult "expert" here is what we learned about his educational "background" during the O.J. Simpson civil trial:

In the course of his testimony at the O. J. simpson civil trial, Robert Groden was forced to testify that:

-he was a high school dropout who never took or taught a single photographic course;

-he had suffered several strokes and his memory had been impaired because of them;

-nearly all of his professional life has been dedicated to investigating the conspiracy surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy including hawking his theories in Dealey Plaza to tourists, driving tourists along the presidential parade route in Dallas with accompanying sound effects including

-his JFK-related work included narrating a Dallas tourist attraction in which people are driven along the Kennedy motorcade route in a vintage limousine with the added sound effects of six gunshots which Groden recorded himself to be played as the tour car entered Dealey Plaza;

-he doesn't belong to a single professional group dedicated to authenticating photographs - and he doesn't even know the names of any such groups;

-he is being sued by somebody for allegedly using their video footage without permission in a videotape Groden has been selling on the street and internet; and

-he sold Kennedy autopsy pictures to the Globe tabloid, along with his insight, for $50,000.

But the most damaging, startling revelation was Groden's opinion that a photograph of O. J. Simpson wearing those "ugly-ass" shoes was altered - and Groden's obstinance in maintaining that viewpoint even after being shown 30 OTHER photographs of Simpson wearing the same shoes.

And there's more...

Within the conspiracy cult if a person is an expert in ONE area of expertise then they magically become an expert in ANY area if it suits the advancement of the theory of the month. For example, Dr. David Mantik is a cancer specialist from southern California who has become a giant amont conspiracy cultists for his work examining the Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. Mantik claims to have discovered evidence of forgery in all three--even though Mantik's only area of expertise is cancer research and treatment. His background in photographic analysis would be similar to the average layperson on the street, but because he is an expert in oncology he somehow is esteemed within the conspiracy cult as an expert now in the field of photographic analysis.

John Costella, another of the pseudo "experts" within the conspiracy cult is an Australian with a PhD in physics, yet somehow his background in physics has magically qualified him to speak out in the area of photographic analysis. Again the training in one field of study IS impressive and if I ever have a physics question I will contact him. But how this relates to the entirely field of photographic analysis is a puzzling riddle.

James Fetzer has a PhD in philosophy and has taught that topicat the University of Minnesota, but NOW Dr. Fetzer has taken on the mantle of photographic expert as well. And not a single person withint the conspiracy cult finds it necessary to ask what qualifications he has (if any) that should cause others to takes his "findings" seriously in any way.

I could go with numerous examples of pseudo experts within the conspiracy cult but the point is hopefully made.

9. Accept EVERY conspiracy witness's statement even though in most instances they contradict OTHER conspiracy witness statements. For instance, Ed Hoffmann said he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence with one firing at the president. The man firing was in a suit and his helper was dressed in a railroad worker's outfit. After they shot the president they raced behind the TSBD.

But...

Gordon Arnold said that he heard a shot whiz past his ear from the location he claimed to be standing near on the grassy knoll. He then was confronted by one of the gunmen (who apparently climbed OVER the fence and entered Dealey Plaza after shooting the President.) This man was NOT dressed in a suit, but rather as a police officer.

But...

Malcolm Summers claimed that HE saw smoke eminating from beneath a tree on the grassy knoll and NOT from behind the stockade fence as Hoffman and Arnold both claimed.

But...

Gary Mack and Jack White claimed in the mid-1980s that there was a gunman dressed in a Dallas police uniform standing behind the stockade fence and firing at the president at the time of the Moorman photograph (approx. Z-313) but this gunman (who allegedly climbed the fence immediately afterwards) strangely doesn't appear in ANY photographs of the grassy knoll taken within seconds of the assassination.

But...

Lee Bowers (a favorite among conspiracy cultists) told Dallas sheriff's duputies on 11/22/63 that he didn't see ANYONE behind the stockade fence at the time of the assassination--not a railroad worker, not a police officer, not a man in a suit.

Yet as comical as this litany of confusing and contradictory statements are when laid side-by-side, ALL of these pseudo-witnesses appear regularly in conspiracy literature. Therefore the rule is: No matter how wacky, no matter how totally unsupported, no matter how contradictory the conspiracy witness claim is BELIEVE IT if it points suspicion away from Lee Harvey Oswald.

10. Always pick and choose WHICH version or which portion of a person's ever-changing story you want to believe. Ignore the other versions and cling to the most sensational version.

Jean Hill said on 11/22/63 that she did NOT see a shooter, she did NOT see a rifle, she did NOT see any smoke, did NOT see a flash of light, or ANYTHING out of the ordinary on the grassy knoll. This account MUST be expunged, it must be erased, it must be forgotten, because years later (circa 1978) that now she magically DID see a gunman, she DID see a rifle, she DID see a puff of smoke, she DID see a flash of light. THIS is account to always refer NOT her previous account.

Malcolm Summers claimed to see a puff of smoke eminating from beneath a tree on the grassy knoll...BUT...in his origiinal statement to police he said this puff of smoke coincided with the FIRST shot. Since NO conspiracy nut believes the first shot came from the grassy knoll this part of Summer's statement must be ingored at all costs. Because to accept and refer to it would raise question as to his overall credibility. Solution? Ignore this part of what he said.

This list of ten tips to becoming a good conspiracy cultist is, of course, only a partial list. No doubt, readers will be able to add to this list with future posts. But a careful reading of conspiracy cultists posts will reveal that ALL of their posts adhere to one or more of these guidelines.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 7:20:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2012 7:21:45 AM PDT
D. Axelson says:
Mr. Anderson -

Excellent list, and I see that Mr. Marzano has demonstrated its accuracy.

Where do you see the Richard Pryor effect fitting into the list? The "Who you gonna believe? Me or you lyin' eyes?" reaction that occurs when the evidence is open and obvious, and the conspiracy cultist STILL denies it? I've run into this several times with the supposed "Mac Wallace" fingerprint, which anyone can see is not a match, but the dedicated cultist (e.g. Cecil Small, spearman, or Medearis) will continue to claim there's a match. Does this phenomenon fit into one of your established categories?

Regards -

DA

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 7:25:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2012 8:08:12 AM PDT
Debunker says:
Marzano,

For nearly 50 years the conspiracy community has been desperately trying, and utterly failing, to prove someone other than LHO pulled the trigger and murdered JFK. Now tell me again who's "chasing a ghost"?

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 7:36:12 AM PDT
Yo says:
I blame the Jews for conspiracy theories.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 7:59:13 AM PDT
Susanna says:
It's about time.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 8:42:54 AM PDT
anne says:
SVA,

My "Can you list how THEY do IT using those tips, please?" question was directed to Debunker. For you, it becomes "Can you list how 9/11 conspiracy cultists argue using those tips, please?"

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 8:49:44 AM PDT
Debunker says:
How who does what?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 10:25:13 AM PDT
M. Cho says:
Mr. Anderson,
As a gradute of Historical Studies, I commend your efforts to enlighten us all to the dangers of the conspiracy believers. The danger lies not in the individual beliefs, but in what is told to our youth. When the conspiracy theories are taught in the classroom then we all have to worry as a people about what our youth will believe. JFK shooting, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were events in our history that a lot of people still remember. We have to tell the facts, not what is believed.
M. Cho

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 10:26:25 AM PDT
I adopted a policy long ago to never argue with 9/11 truthers because as a general rule they are beyond the pale of rational debate. But many of the points I listed about Kennedy assassination conspiracy cultists apply to the 9/11 truthers as well. For instance (in no particular order):

1. The rational impossibility of a team of demolition experts getting inside the World Trade towers and planting the amount of explosives they believe were used to bring down the towers means nothing to them. They don't know WHEN the explosives were planted; they don't know HOW they were smuggled into the building; they don't know WHO planted them, and they don't know HOW they were hidden from view prior to September 11, 2001. All they repeated proclaim is that it was somehow done and that's is all that matters. Any discussion to the contrary falls on deaf ears.

2. The 9/11 Truthers are very selective in who they cite as an "expert". And in virtually EVERY instance they refer to a very learned person but a person nonetheless trained in the wrong field of expertise. Most 9/11 Truther sites quote extensively from demolition workers who boast a level of expertise that they actually don't possess. These same sites quote physics professors, philosophy professors, theologians, historians, economists, building contractors, but virtually NEVER do they refer to the people that know the most: structural engineers. When structural engineers are asked about the World Trade Center collapsing there is nearly unanimous agreement--it is EXACTLY what WOULD have happened if a raging fire weakened the structural foundation of the building. But when 9/11 Truthers hear this educated opinion they immediately begin to look into the past of each expert to disagree with their theory in hopes of finding a government contract they worked on in 1966 or a government building they helped design in 1981 so that they can then make the accusation that they are "part of the government" and therefore cannot be trusted.

This tactic is used all the time by Kennedy assassination conspiracy cultists. Whenever a medical examiner or a professor specializing in a particular study that disproves a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy cultsts go to work in hopes of finding some connection to the FBI, the CIA, the federal government, the Cuban government, organized crime, organized labor, or any other nefarious organization that allows the conspiracy cultist to then label the expert "part of the conspiracy."

3. The 9/11 Truthers have not been a successful at using the claim that photographs and films have been doctored or altered. This is of course due to the fact that SO MANY photographs and films were taken of the attacks of the second tower and the collapse of both towers. Knowing that they cannot claim with a straight face that ALL films were doctored the 9/11 Truthers opt instead to make the claim that the ordinary person cannot believe what they see or that they are actually seeing something different from what it appears. They repeat over and over the phrase "Controlled demolition!! Controlled demolition!! COntrolled demolition!!" ignoring all the while that no structural engineers agree that the film footage mandates a controlled demolition to accomplish what occurred.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 10:31:23 AM PDT
Debunker says:
What facts are you referring to Cho?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 1:23:13 PM PDT
M. Cho says:
I am refering to the logical scientific facts. Also, general eyewitness accounts of things that happen. Now before you say something about eyewitnesses regarding JFK, let me say that the general conclusion by the eyewitness is the story that most people know. Oswald shot JFK. I don't know why there are so many theories revolving around it being someone else or a large plot to kill him. Frankly, it was just a nut job in the school book depository and that is the end of it. People who like to believe something else are just indulging in a hobby.

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 2:09:42 PM PDT
Debunker says:
Ok. We agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 3:54:30 PM PDT
"For decades these two were revered and venerated as Olympian gods within the photographic analysis field."

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're not saying it. You mean, I think, "For decades these two were revered and venerated by conspiracy believers as Olympian gods within the photographic analysis field."

Leaving it as you wrote it makes it sound like actual photographic experts thought highly of them, which certainly isn't the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 4:28:21 PM PDT
11. Differing standards -- accept anything uncritically if it points to a conspiracy, question it unrelentingly if it points to Oswald. For example, spearman cited the evidence of a woman who apparently called a woman in another state to say that Oswald's father was a Hungarian Communist living in New York City in the 1950's in an attempt to prove there were two Oswalds, but Oswald's father died before Oswald was born of a heart attack. Photos and film show the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano, but spearman ugnores that and focuses instead on the statements of Roger Craig, who claimed he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" on the weapon in the 1970s. If conspiracy believers have an FBI memo that says something that suggests conspiracy, it is believable and gospel. If an FBI memo says anything that conflicts with a conspiracy bellief, claim the FBI memo isn't believable because the FBI wasn't trustworthy because they were party to the frame up of Oswald and involved in the coverup.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 5:04:30 PM PDT
You are correct, I omitted the caveat "in the eyes of conspiracy cultists".

Your point 11 is a good one. I stopped at ten simply because I ran out of steam and had to call it a day, this list could go on ad naseum.

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 9:31:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 27, 2012 10:42:04 AM PDT
Juggernaut says:
Conspiracy theories are favorite subjects for book selling authors, television/film producers because there is always receptive consumers for them.And they all earn good money for their disinformation.
Consumers of this kind of stuff always find new layers of conspiracy to support their per-established beliefs, no matter how irrational they are.
Conspiracies become the main explanation for any given event.It's like religion.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  254
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions