Labels

[Albert Rossi]

I am writing about McAdams right now. I am doing a two parter for CTKA. I wish I could be in his office with a camera as he reads it.

Is this a review of his book? I was waiting for you to take him apart like you did Bugliosi (though the reviews of Mantik, Speer, Aguilar and Cassano on CTKA are good, too).

I've had to warn off several uninformed friends from his site. It seems he has managed to get it to come up at the top of the list on Google searches. Just recently one of them said to me, "you know, there were Secret Service in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting; they were part of LBJ's protection". I had to explain that the one SS agent in question ran briefly up the knoll and back, and could not have been encountered in the position that others who said they were shown badges encountered them. This is the kind of crap I told them they would find on McAdam's site.

[Magda Hassan]

And Hanks used it too when he was on TV and said the film would make a lot of conspiracy theorists angry.

Yeah, people who value truth and honesty do get upset when presented with lies and impossible bull shit and told it is the truth.

I am writing about McAdams right now. I am doing a two parter for CTKA. I wish I could be in his office with a camera as he reads it.

I'm sure DAARPA has some thing like a miniature drone fly on the walls that could beam video images back to base. But they are concerned for McAdam's privacy.

[Albert Rossi]

I'm sure DAARPA has some thing like a miniature drone fly on the walls that could beam video images back to base. But they are concerned for McAdam's privacy.

:rofl:

[Magda Hassan]

I've had to warn off several uninformed friends from his site. It seems he has managed to get it to come up at the top of the list on Google searches. Just recently one of them said to me, "you know, there were Secret Service in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting; they were part of LBJ's protection". I had to explain that the one SS agent in question ran briefly up the knoll and back, and could not have been encountered in the position that others who said they were shown badges encountered them. This is the kind of crap I told them they would find on McAdam's site.

Good work Albert. I believe it is a cesspit and like a paid honey trap to lure the curious and unsuspecting in to dead ends. I believe that like Randii's cult they manipulate the search engines.

[Jim DiEugenio]

No this is more about his career and life.

Let me give you a preview. I did not believe this but its true. He was born in a town called Kennedy and went to Kennedy High School.

But I do have the book. But I have so much material on the guy that I don't think I need to refer to the book.

THat is a good one ALbert about the LBj stuff. But see, the guy lies all the time. Sometimes they are whoppers, and sometimes they are half truths. Be can't help himself.

[Dawn Meredith]

No this is more about his career and life.

Let me give you a preview. I did not believe this but its true. He was born in a town called Kennedy and went to Kennedy High School.

But I do have the book. But I have so much material on the guy that I don't think I need to refer to the book.

THat is a good one ALbert about the LBj stuff. But see, the guy lies all the time. Sometimes they are whoppers, and sometimes they are half truths. Be can't help himself.

Curious as to what you think his "career" is, aside from "teaching". Do you out him as a paid disinfo artist? (I guess this would require proof and the CIA is not in the habit of that sort of paper trail, such as check stubs)

I have always hated the term "conspiracy buff". For one thing it sounds like some passing fancy. Hardly. I too favor John Judge's terms. Sad that one has to resort to terms but the stark reality is that most are unaware that the media is controlled. I find it an interesting paradox that most Americans believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy but when I talk to people, in particular my peers at work, they have never read a thing about this case. So is this belief that they were lied to based on instinct? I think that might make an interesting book, or study. Just questioning a ton of people who don't study this stuff, never read a book, etc as to just why they do not believe the official story. But then mention to people that the brilliant Rachel Maddow LIES one is is met with a look that lets me know the listener believes me quite mad.
Since 1973 I have tried to educate my best friend from college about the assassination. He adored JFK. He's very political, via MSM. When some new issue is proven, like Vietnam and JFK and I tell him his reply is this is MY view. That the author is merely writing what I believe. He is the best example of Dr Marty Schotz' "denial" that I know. And therein lies the problem. For people to accept truth they must totally readjust all that they think they know.
Then we get PBS pushing the lie. But try telling people we lack a free press. I do and have forever. Guess what I hear back? "What about Woodward and Bernstein?" Ye gads.

Dawn

[Albert Rossi]

I have always hated the term "conspiracy buff". For one thing it sounds like some passing fancy. Hardly. I too favor John Judge's terms. Sad that one has to resort to terms but the stark reality is that most are unaware that the media is controlled. I find it an interesting paradox that most Americans believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy but when I talk to people, in particular my peers at work, they have never read a thing about this case. So is this belief that they were lied to based on instinct? I think that might make an interesting book, or study. Just questioning a ton of people who don't study this stuff, never read a book, etc as to just why they do not believe the official story. But then mention to people that the brilliant Rachel Maddow LIES one is is met with a look that let's me know the listener believes me quite mad.
Since 1973 I have tried to educate my best friend from college about the assassination. He adored JFK. He's very political, via MSM. When some new issue is proven, like Vietnam and JFK and I tell him his reply is this is MY view. That the author is merely writing what I believe. He is the best example of Dr Marty Schotz' "denial" that I know. And therein lies the problem. For people to accept truth they must totally readjust all that they think they know.
Then we get PBS pushing the lie. But try telling people we lack a free press. I do and have forever. Guess what I hear back? "What about Woodward and Bernstein?" Ye gads.
Dawn

Dawn, I feel your pain. There has always been something curious about all of this business concerning how Americans don't believe the WR. For instance, I had occasion to watch the 1992 Garrison interviews a few weeks back, which were introduced by the statistic that more than half of those polled believed the CIA was involved in the assassination. But in my personal experience, I have yet to meet anyone who has said this to me. I'm usually the nut who believes in conjectural fantasies. I don't trust opinion polls, especially those used by MSM (it's like that statistic TV and Hollywood has repeatedly mouthed concerning how 95% of humanity believes in "God"; where in tarnation did they ever get that figure?). So when I hear these statistics, 85%, 80%, etc., I tend to ignore them. Besides, merely asking if someone believes there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK is pretty meaningless, other than they don't think "Oswald did it alone". What is the significance of this conspiracy to them? That's the question they are never asked. Very few people, in my opinion, see the assassination "conspiracy" in larger structural or institutional terms; it's still a blip on the radar screen for them, like some UFO sighting.

[Tracy Riddle]

I hate the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "buff" too, but the Establishment has been using them for at least 50 years, and they're not going to stop just because we don't like it. They've used every personal attack in the book - we're paranoid, deranged, kooky, only interested in getting rich (like who has ever gotten rich from criticizing the WC?)...

When I first got on the internet c1994 or 1995, Google didn't exist; I think I used Hotbot or something, and when I searched for "JFK assassination," the first site that came up was McAdams'. It was big and filled with photos and info, and though I could tell the site owner was defending the official story, I still thought it was pretty cool. So I sent him an e-mail, to which he replied very politely and invited me to join alt.conspiracy.jfk. Back then, I still thought that defenders of the WC were just misinformed and could be reasoned with. I quickly found out how wrong I was. McAdams played "good cop" to the other LNers' "bad cop" - they were dismissive and insulting.

Pretty soon I could see that McAdams would wiggle out of any corner you backed him into, and avoid talking about the real issues. McAdams, Von Pein and others like them are what I call "professional lone nutters." They know the subject very well, they know the problems with the official story, but they spend vast amounts of time defending it. What is the motivation to do so, unless they're being paid?

[Charles Drago]

We could call ourselves "Warren Commission critics" or "assassination researchers" and the other side "Warren Commission supporters," but in the heat of internet battle it's easier to have Team CTer vs. Team LNer. No, I don't like it, but if I were to list all the things homo sapiens do that I don't approve of, this would be a very long post.

I understand that shorthand is sometimes necessary, and that abstraction (using a group concept to capture common characteristics) in one sense actually underlies thought. But I think Jim gets it right when he notes the rhetorical strategy involved: "sorry, conspiracy theorists" immediately conveys the most important part of the message: disparagement of anyone who would think the opposite; or to borrow from speech act theory, the illocutionary is more significant than what the apparent subject of the sentence is.

Yes, there are many, many things worse. But little concessions can also add up.

But wait!

Why label ourselves at all?

By now, most are familiar with my version of a concise, encompassing expression of JFK assassination fact:

"Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

In other words: If a person who allegedly has given thoughtful consideration to the critical established evidentiary facts in their entirety continues to ask the "single gunman acting alone or conspiracy" question OR argues the former position, then there are four, and only four conclusions to be drawn:

1. He/she in fact does not enjoy reasonable access to the evidence.

2. He/she is suffering from physical and/or emotional maladies sufficient to impair cognitive function.

3. He/she is wittingly supporting efforts to obstruct justice and thus is an accessory-after-the-fact to homicide.

3. Some/all of the above.

THAT is how strong the evidence for conspiracy is in this closed case.

Next, understand that we will be pressed for facts. This is only fair.

Our first response: Don't expect two- or three-word explanations of one of history's most complex criminal cases.

So render your best detailed paraphrase of my original construction, but understand that your statement must reflect and be empowered by metaphysical certitude: infallible assent of the mind to a proposition; necessary truth demonstrated from self-evident truth; unwavering assent of the mind to what things necessarily are in their essences and natures; admitting of no exceptions.

We must be prepared to stipulate that certain important questions regarding the "who" and "why" of the assassination remain unanswered. But we must never forget that it is our responsibility to direct attention to the primary, long-answered question:

"Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or by conspirators?"

Next we must indicate that through the application of numerous investigative techniques, including the reverse-engineering of the operational realities of the shooting and the process of elimination (who could or could not have done it as it was done), we have narrowed down our lists of suspects.

Then comes one of the most important elements of our presentation: acknowledgment that no investigative progress whatsoever can be made absent the utilization of a viable conspiracy model (no, not Jada).

I would humbly suggest that you consider the Evica-Drago model. But I won't hold it against you if you don't.

Of course, you'll have to come up with a better version ...

Through it all, we must make it clear that we are NOT debating what is a long-settled issue. Nor would we participate in, say, a heliocentric v. geocentric universe debate. In both instances, it is the application of the scientific method that brings us with metaphysical certitude to our conclusions.

So ... No more labels.

Just the facts.

Just the truth.

[Jan Klimkowski]

But wait!

Why label ourselves at all?

I have a threefold strategy.

If a person calls me a "conspiracy theorist", I refuse to accept the description or be labelled by the term.

If that person then asks "what do you call yourself then?", I reply simply that I am a researcher, or an investigative researcher.

If a person does not label me nor ask me to define my world view, then I am perfectly happy to have no label at all.

Now, researcher or investigative researcher are perfectly respectable vocations, which highlights why TPTB and MSM are so keen to avoid these phrases and instead use labels such as "conspiracy theorist" or "truther".

As I wrote in the dedicated Conspiracy Theory thread, there is a strange schizoid framework to this.

Fundamentally, the term "conspiracy theorist" is designed to delegitimize and marginalise genuine investigative research. However, if it gets too hot in the kitchen, the very same politicians and paid pundits who label any dangerous theories as a "conspiracy theory" then start talking about "international conspiracies" and expect both MSM and the public to take them seriously.

There's an example of this schizophrenic nonsense in my comment below:

The term "conspiracy theory" is itself a psyop, designed to delegitimize and marginalise genuine investigative research into the deep politics of historical and current events.

When a politician calls an interpretation of events a "conspiracy theory", 99 times out of 100 it is a signal for MSM henceforth to report that interpretation as "ridiculous", "nonsensical" or even "dangerous".

A classic example is Prime Minister Tony Blair declaring, prior to the second invasion of Iraq, that anyone who believed the imminent war was about "oil interests" was peddling a "conspiracy theory". This completely shut down debate of this interpretation in British MSM. Meanwhile, Blair's ridiculous claim that Saddam had WMD which could strike the West was communicated in hushed and reverent tones.

Of course, if any "conspiracy theory" was dangerous nonsense, it was Blair's WMD claim.

However, every now and then a politician in trouble declares an event to be an "international criminal conspiracy" and expects MSM to take him seriously. Of course such a "conspiracy" must have its bogeymen and be inherently evil.

In Britain, we currently have a meat scandal, where burgers and mince based ready meals, labelled as containing pure beef, have been found on occasion to contain pure horse.

So, with huge commercial interests at risk of consumer indignation and horror, a few days ago our Environment Secretary declared that the Brtish public were victims of an "international criminal conspiracy".

09 February 2013

The Environment Secretary warned of an "international criminal conspiracy" today as food bosses met in central London to discuss the escalating horse meat crisis.

Owen Paterson said that there would be investigations to establish whether "either gross incompetence or criminal acts" were at fault.

He was speaking as leading food producers, supermarkets and health officials met at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs headquarters in central London for talks on the crisis.

It was obvious he would need EVIL BOGEYMEN to pull this off.

Initially, Romania was blamed. This charge had grave racist undertones, as Romanians are about to have freedom of movement across the European Union, and have effectively been described as dirty thieves and criminals by politicians of the right. The fact that many Roma (Travellers, Gypsies) live in Romania and have a cultural associations with horses, was part of the cheap slur.

Unfortunately for the politicians, this claim of an international Roma conspiracy failed when the police raided British meat packaging plants on suspicion of involvement in the horse for beef scandal.

A new BOGEYMAN was needed.

And has now been identified.

The evil slav arms dealer, VIKTOR BOUT. And, hey presto, the "international criminal conspiracy" now involves an evil foreign criminal empire and Romania.....

Of course we at DPF know that Viktor Bout is not a freelancer.

Rather, as our dedicated Bout thread demonstrates, he is owned by intelligence agencies.