So-called “Conspiracy Theories” in Perspective

[Time for change]

This is a partial re-post of something I posted on DU last December, which ran for a few hours in the middle of the night before it was locked, on the basis that it mentioned a forbidden subject. I feel that the locking of the post was due to a misunderstanding, either on my part or on the part of the moderator who locked it, since I didn’t espouse the forbidden subject, but merely mentioned it as an example. Anyhow, this post makes no mention of the forbidden subject, so it should be good to go.


I have long been fascinated by so-called “conspiracy theories”, and have subsequently posted about them on DU on a number of occasions. Vigorous controversy over this issue on DU last December caused me to think about it some more, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts about it.

I believe that in the United States in general, and even among some DUers, there is an excessive prejudice against so-called “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists”. I further believe that that prejudice is very unhealthy to our country, especially in an age when the absence of sufficient healthy skepticism against the “official” story line touted by our government and amplified by our so-called “mainstream” national news media, has (as one example) gotten us into one disastrous war and threatens to get us into another one in the near future. So, in the remainder of this post I will address what I consider to be a very unhealthy prejudice against so-called “conspiracy theorists” in our country.


Today’s accepted history is often yesterday’s “Conspiracy Theory”

The formal definition of a conspiracy is two or more people getting together to plan a crime. Not only does that happen all the time, but history if full of examples of large conspiracies involving national governments, with monumental consequences. And our country is no exception to that. Moreover, many of those conspiracies, which are today well accepted as historical fact, were at the time of their occurrence and for many years or decades afterwards, considered to be in the realm of so-called “conspiracy theories”, with a pejorative connotation that would invite ridicule of those who voiced them. Here are five brief examples from American history:

The violent disenfranchisement of Blacks in the 19th Century American South
From the end of the American Civil War in 1865, through 1875, three Constitutional amendments and Reconstruction had operated to provide former slaves with voting and other rights, which they used to elect numerous Black men to high public office. As this state of affairs was intolerable to many southern Whites, several White racist organizations were formed, which coordinated efforts with the Democratic Party (Yes, in those days the Democratic Party was the racist Party, and Republicans were considerably less racist) to intimidate and murder politically active Black men and their families, with the main goal of disenfranchising them and regaining political power in the South. The plan was highly successful, and southern Blacks in the United remained mostly disenfranchised for about 90 years, until voting rights legislation in 1965 did much to address the problem. Nicholas Lemann, in “Redemption – The Last Battle of the Civil War”, discusses this issue in great detail.

The CIA overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953
In 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles convinced President Eisenhower to accede to a CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohmmad Mosaddeq. Reasons included Mosaddeq’s recent nationalization of Iran’s oil industry and fear that his leftist leanings would make him susceptible to Communist influence. The CIA-led coup was successful, and Mosaddeq was replaced by the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist for the next 26 years, to the great detriment of the Iranian people. That coup has been a major factor in anti-American feeling in Iran and in the Middle East in general, ever since.

Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the American military, led by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemnitzer, to incite a war against Cuba. It involved various false flag actions, including such terrorist activities as the shooting down of an American passenger plane by the U.S. military, which would be blamed on Cuba. Fortunately, the American Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, vetoed the plan. The documentation of this plan was first published in 1998. Prior to public publishing of Operation Northwoods, you can be sure that anyone proclaiming knowledge of it would have been excoriated as a “conspiracy theorist”.

The American invasion of Iraq
It is now fairly well known that the Bush administration, in an effort to drum up public and Congressional support for an invasion of Iraq, concocted a bunch of lies, based on “evidence” that was vigorously contradicted by knowledgeable high level officials. However, prior to the start of the war, Americans who contradicted the Bush administration’s excuses for war were excoriated as unpatriotic or “conspiracy theorists”.

Torture at Guantanamo Bay
It is also now fairly well known that torture of detained prisoners by American military or contracting personnel has been a regular occurrence at Guantanamo Bay and other American detention facilities since the onset of our “War on Terror”. But when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) gave a straight forward accounting on the Senate floor of eye-witness testimony of such torture, which he had heard from an FBI agent, he was excoriated by the Republican attack machine for doing so. Purportedly, the vicious criticism directed against him was incited by his comparing our torture of Muslims with Nazi torture during World War II. But his description of the torture was accurate, and the comparison that he made was appropriate (He did not say or imply that American and Nazi torture were equivalent in scope). The concentrated attacks against Senator Durbin were due to a fundamental abhorrence that too many Americans have towards hearing their country severely criticized, even when actions by their government warrant severe criticism.


The denigration and marginalization of so-called “conspiracy theorists”

Needless to say, when a national government gets involved in a major conspiracy to commit a serious crime, very powerful interests are often involved. Therefore, it is in their interest to make “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theorist” into pejorative terms and terms of abuse – just as has been done with the word “liberal”.

And not only do they seek to belittle “conspiracy theories” that involve them directly. The wealthy and the powerful have an interest in maintaining the status quo. To the extent that citizens develop an awareness of nefarious acts conducted by their government and other powerful individuals, the status quo is threatened. And with our country’s national news media now being largely in the hands of wealthy and powerful corporations, that means that much of our news media has a vested interest in avoiding issues that shed a bad light on our government. Hence the avoidance of such crucial issues as the Bush lies that led us into war and the objections to the 2004 Presidential election Ohio vote count.

When I see someone like Tucker Carlson talking about “grassy knoll conspiracy theorists” with that contemptuous, snotty attitude of his, I just want to scream. The irony of that is that the medical evidence that JFK’s assassination was planned by a conspiracy (i.e., he was shot twice from the front, in the direction of the grassy knoll, whereas the book depository where Lee Harvey Oswald was allegedly present at the time of the shooting was in back of Kennedy) is overwhelming, and 70% of Americans believe it was a conspiracy. No matter. Anyone who believes that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy is a “conspiracy theorist”.


The importance of “conspiracy theorists”

Given the tendency of government to participate in grave conspiracies, especially with regard to attempts to increase its own power, our country and the world need people who have the capability of being suspicious of government actions. Indeed, that is the main reason why our Founding Fathers created the First Amendment to our Constitution. We need a free and independent press who refuse to take government at its word, but rather who will routinely take what government says with a grain of salt. In short, we need conspiracy theorists in our national press corps. For the first step towards investigation of government malfeasance is to develop an evidence based theory as to what might have occurred. No conspiracy theory, no well guided investigation.

William Rivers Pitt made a similar point in his book, “The Greatest Sedition Is Silence”. In that book he discusses a grave conspiracy theory (not to be discussed in this post) that involves the U.S. government. He notes that people who voice conspiracy theories like that tend to be excoriated as unpatriotic, but in reality it is those who are willing to question our government when it is wrong who are the real patriots. Real patriots want to improve their country when they see their government doing bad things. False patriots would rather sit by silently and maintain the pretense that their country is infallible, rather than challenge it or even admit when it is wrong.

A similar principle applies to police investigations. To investigate a serious crime, police detectives must first look at the evidence available to them and follow certain standard policies. But often, further investigation must be guided by evidence based theories in order to stand the best chance of solving the crime. Without a well developed theory as to why and how the crime was committed, an investigation of the crime has little to guide it.


Motive and capacity

It is a well known principle of police investigative work that “means, motive, and opportunity” are and should be prominently considered in attempts to identify suspects for a crime. That is a major reason why spouses are so frequently considered to be suspects in murder cases; they often have ample opportunity and motive for the murder.

“Capacity” is another important issue to consider. We must ask who has the psychological capacity to have committed a crime. For example, if a person or group of persons who have the motive and opportunity to have committed a crime also have demonstrated serious anti-social behavior in the past (such as rape or lying to Congress to justify a war), then that should justify added suspicion of that person or group of persons.


A final word on “kooky” conspiracy theories

I put “kooky” in quotes because often, what is widely denigrated as a “kooky” conspiracy theory is in fact both true and very important for people to know about. That is not to say that many conspiracy theories aren’t kooky. Of course some of them are, and sometimes kooky conspiracy theories are espoused on DU, just as they are on virtually every other web site, and in our “mainstream” news media as well. And when such speculation turns to unfounded assertions, it can be downright irresponsible.

But let’s put this in perspective. We know for a fact that there are many powerful people in our country, including many who currently run our government, who are neither honest nor well intentioned. We have very good reason to believe that some of them would be willing to do very bad things in order to increase their power and their wealth. History is full of such examples, some which I mentioned above. Furthermore, we also have reason to believe that our corporate news media is likely to withhold from us evidence of these kinds of things. After all, much of our corporate news media had evidence of Bush administration lies in leading us into our war in Iraq, and yet they failed to report on those lies for a very long time.

Consequently, I understand why people speculate about dark and high level conspiracies when bad things happen and when powerful people stand to gain from those bad things. I believe that that kind of speculation is usually neither ill intentioned nor stupid. Rather, I consider it to be a perfectly normal and even admirable reaction to terrible and scary events of potentially monumental importance, taking place in a nation where the news we get from our national press corps is rightfully considered to be highly suspect.

[Ezlivin]

1. Question Authority

That was our credo in the 70's.

K&R

[bmcatt]

7. I like the credo

I posted something in a similar vein a while back in the (unnamed) dungeon. I continue to be astonished by the extent to which people are disturbed by someone merely asking questions.

I'll provide the same link I did previously, to Paul Graham's essay, What you can't say, which discusses, to a certain extent, the way people react to ridiculous statements.

In short (and I do no justice to Mr. Graham's presentation), the extremes of "everyone knows it" and "that's so stupid that we don't even need to talk about it" have no outpouring of support or detractors. Things that are truly accepted as given need no defense and tend to suffer no attack. It's the things in the middle... those ideas which are held up solely by force of will or faith (and where such will or faith is tenuous) that are so staunchly defended by the faithful.

Applying that lens to examine the things which are un-say-able these days provides very interesting insight into what people are afraid *may* be false.

[catnhatnh]

12. VERY provocative link...

...Thanks.

[Land Shark]

81. A simple proof that "conspiracy theory" attacks directly PROTECT SECRECY

Let's use vote counting as an example:

1. Vote counting was once the most public of all possible governmental functions, indeed only the public can check and balance on elections since the government itself gets its money and power from those elections and can not, therefore, watchdog itself, audit itself, etc. (yet that's often claimed adequate anyway).

2. Altering these public vote counts, electronic voting comes along and sets up a wall of secrecy such that the public can no longer view nor obtain information about vote counting.

3. Concerned citizens, necessarily lacking all information but having pieced together some, use the available information on vote counting to make hypotheses about what's happening in the vote counting behind the wall of secrecy.

4. Because a hypothesis is essentially the same as a theory, these concerned citizens can now be denounced as "conspiracy theorists" to the extent they suggest that anything might be amiss with all the vote counting secrecy.

5. Thus, attacks as "conspiracy theorists" in the context of elections at least have the direct effect of PROTECTING INAPPROPRIATE SECRECY. that new thread is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x110354

And yet secrecy has long been anathema to the true spirit of America. And, all conspiracy theories are ventures into the unknown. Unlike say national security matters where some secrecy is justifiable, there's no justification for secrecy in elections. But that doesn't stop people from (in effect) protecting secrecy and calling people conspiracy theorists instead of asking the question:

WHY does this person have to resort to a THEORY, can't we instead just GET ALL THE INFORMATION and confirm, one way or another?

Indeed, with each charge of "conspiracy theorist" we could profitably ask the above question. WIth election vote counting in the example above, there's simply no justification for withholding the information from the public. This helps us to focus on the REAL ISSUE.

“Power corrupts, and there is nothing more corrupting than power exercised in secret.” Daniel Schorr, newsman.

I'm going to post this as its own thread to keep Time for Change's excellent discussion on the functions of conspiracy theory attacks going....

[file83]

18. Or as I like to say: "Authority questions you. Return the favor."

Same idea I guess :)

[zenturtle]

69. Very well put!

Excellent bumper sticker potential there....

[file83]

105. Thanks ZenTurtle!

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I wish people would apply it to conspiracy theories.

The problem is that most people are far more willing to believe something if it sounds "conspiratorial" than if it sounds "official" or "esablishment".

Occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to be accurate. But they're in a small minority.

[John Q. Citizen]

91. Official information is more suspect by definition. Was there a conspiracy to

cover-up the toxicity of Love Canal?

Was there a conspiracy to cover up the harmful effects of tobacco?

Was there a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King?

Was there a conspiracy by James Polk to drag the US into the Mexican-American war?

Was there a conspiracy to dis-enfranchise African American voters in Florida in 2000?


Juries often believe and convict based on "official" conspiracy theories brought by government prosecutors.

The problem isn't that conspiracy theories are true or false. The problem is that the term, "conspiracy theory" has been employed, usually by governments and their proxies, to denigrate someone making a charge. So the charge brought isn't considered on the merits, instead, it is dismissed out of hand.

Now, it's true, the government doesn't get convictions on 100% of tired "conspiracy theories," but my bet is they get convictions the overwhelming amount of the time.

Everyone who has been around the block knows that governments conspire to lie to their people and to cover up lies. This is widely believed. And for good reason. Is that a "conspiracy theory?"

Well yes, it is. That doesn't make it suspect because of that though, does it?

[Philosoraptor]

2. Good luck with this

[rinsd]

3. I knew Hicks was right about our reptillian overlords!

Shall I now list the hundreds of silly conspiracy theories?

No planes on 9/11.
Mossad did 9/11.
The Holocaust never happened.
An underwater nuke caused the tsunami.
Chemtrails.
FDR purposefully allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.
Skull & Bones.

Also only those espousing 1 out of your 5 would have likely been called conspiracy theorists(Northwoods).

"Consequently, I understand why people speculate about dark and high level conspiracies when bad things happen and when powerful people stand to gain from those bad things. I believe that that kind of speculation is usually neither ill intentioned nor stupid. Rather, I consider it to be a perfectly normal and even admirable reaction to terrible and scary events of potentially monumental importance"

I consider it akin to when people created myths to explain natural phenomenon they could not explain.

[bigmonkey]

5. Your reply to the OP is mainly an attempt to ridicule.

Acceptance that it's worth discussing a theory is not the same as acceptance of the theory. I don't know why this is so hard to get across. Perhaps it's because ridicule can be both appropriate in some circumstances and politically motivated in others.

One of my favorite "ridicule-based" statements that proved entirely wrong is the old dismissal of the possibility of meteors being rocks falling to earth, viz:

"Look up in the sky. Do you see any rocks? If there are no rocks in the sky, then no rocks can fall out of the sky."

This must have been nearly impossible to refute, and anyone maintaining that "rocks fall out of the sky" would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, they were correct. But, to reiterate, the fact that some poor hypothetical fellow in the past was attacked for his beliefs didn't make him right, but refusing to discuss what he had to say was still wrong.

As I see it, the OP is pointing out that some issues are so important that the ridicule must be suspended, if there is a logical possibility of the truth being excluded by "common sense." Logic and common sense don't always line up

[JackRiddler]

17. Doctors should wash their hands to prevent purple fever.

Continents move. Blood circulates.

[truth2power]

23. Did you mean puerperal (childbed) fever? Just asking..n/t

[JackRiddler]

47. Ran into a nice write-up right after your comment...

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

(Though I'm down with most everything in that essay, not with where he's heading.)

[TheWraith]

20. The defense of conspiracy theories is a thing worth ridicule.

Despite what the OP tries to imply, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are complete fantasy--and the vast majority of the things listed were never conspiracy theories. Yes, there's a divergence between logic and simple observables, but conspiracy theories ignore both of those things.

[Octafish]

31. That's exactly what the traitors want you to believe.

CIA Instructions to "Media Assets," shutting up conspiracy talk re: Assassination of President Kennedy:

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:


a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)


5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE

Silencing people who question the government's POV is work for professionals, don't you think?

[Mr Rabble]

34. You're good. You.

Question EVERYTHING.

[Octafish]

35. You!

I'll never forget that morale booster you gave me the other day. Infinite thanks, emperor72!

For those interested in what Allen Dulles called the Mighty Wurlitzer, but Karl Rove and Jeff Gannon have reduced further to Mighty Whorelitzer:

Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer

by Daniel Brandt
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997

Alongside those Greek morality plays and Biblical injunctions, we are also reminded by history itself that the use of unethical means to achieve a worthy end can be self-destructive. Power, by definition, is isolated from the correcting signals of external criticism. Or perhaps the feeling of fighting evil fits so comfortably, that it's difficult to shed even after objective circumstances change.

The history of U.S. intelligence since World War II follows both patterns. The Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's predecessor, had jurisdiction over wartime covert operations and propaganda in the fight against fascism. OSS chief William Donovan recruited heavily among social and academic elites. When the CIA was launched in 1947 at the beginning of the Cold War, these pioneers felt that they had both the right and the duty to secretly manipulate the masses for the greater good.

OSS veteran Frank Wisner ran most of the early peacetime covert operations as head of the Office of Policy Coordination. Although funded by the CIA, OPC wasn't integrated into the CIA's Directorate of Plans until 1952, under OSS veteran Allen Dulles. Both Wisner and Dulles were enthusiastic about covert operations. By mid-1953 the department was operating with 7,200 personnel and 74 percent of the CIA's total budget.

Wisner created the first "information superhighway." But this was the age of vacuum tubes, not computers, so he called it his "Mighty Wurlitzer." The CIA's global network funded the Italian elections in 1948, sent paramilitary teams into Albania, trained Nationalist Chinese on Taiwan, and pumped money into the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the National Student Association, and the Center for International Studies at MIT. Key leaders and labor unions in western Europe received subsidies, and Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were launched. The Wurlitzer, an organ designed for film productions, could imitate sounds such as rain, thunder, or an auto horn. Wisner and Dulles were at the keyboard, directing history.

The ethos of the fight against fascism carried over into the fight against godless communism; for these warriors, the Cold War was still a war. OSS highbrows had already embraced psychological warfare as a new social science: propaganda, for example, was divided into "black" propaganda (stories that are unattributed, or attributed to nonexistent sources, or false stories attributed to a real source), "gray" propaganda (stories from the government where the source is attributed to others), and "white" propaganda (stories from the government where the source is acknowledged as such).<1>

After World War II, these psywar techniques continued. C.D. Jackson, a major figure in U.S. psywar efforts before and after the war, was simultaneously a top executive at Time-Life. Psywar was also used with success during the 1950s by Edward Lansdale, first in the Philippines and then in South Vietnam. In Guatemala, the Dulles brothers worked with their friends at United Fruit, in particular the "father of public relations," Edward Bernays, who for years had been lobbying the press on behalf of United. When CIA puppets finally took over in 1954, only applause was heard from the media, commencing forty years of CIA-approved horrors in that unlucky country.<2> Bernays' achievement apparently impressed Allen Dulles, who immediately began using U.S. public relations experts and front groups to promote the image of Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's savior.<3>

CONTINUED...

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

Infinite thanks, my Friend.

[TheWatcher]

125. Once Again Octafish, right on the money

Wonderful Posts, good information, and no surprise that the one's beating their chests the loudest in ridicule in this thread have absolutely nothing to offer to the contrary.

They never do.

No facts.

No rebuttal.

Only insults, nonsense, and strawmen built out of the most extreme and ridiculous theories that are already widely unaccepted by those who are truly seeking the truth and asking questions that those who ridicule seem to shit their pants at the thought of asking, and get angry and combative when they are asked with logic and reason.

I am sick and tired of those who are so afraid of ANYTHING that falls outside of the paradigm they so desperately must be able to live in to function, that they will defend any lie, any atrocity, and shout down and denigrate any questioning of ANYTHING, no matter how logical, reasonable, or with good intent, just so they can maintain their Matrix.

My message to them is simple:

You can't shut us up. You can't stop the truth, or those who seek it.

Deal with it.

[Nostradammit]

44. That's dynamite, Octafish - Thanks!!!

I've never seen this before.



"A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions."

Oh, could they, now? But they did just fine as it was.

And how come we are just now seeing that footage of the agent being called off Kennedy's car?

[eridani]

51. The problem is actually lying and withholding information

This causes real problems for people who are trying to make sense of their information surround.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/98

[Time for change]

57. That's very interesting

I have always wondered exactly why it has been so important for our government to cover up the truth of the JFK assassination so many years after the fact. Even the Warren Commission itself -- it's hard for me to understand why that whole group would be involved in something like that -- especially Earl Warren himself, who led the USSC to some of its most liberal decisions in the history of our country.

The memo in your post sheds some light on this -- not a whole lot, but more than I've seen to date. It's very interesting to read the CIA talk about that. It's not clear, though, what they're thinking. No clue as to what they know about the assassination or what they really think about it -- though that's not surprising, is it?

The really ludicrous part is where they recommend referring people to the Warren Commission Report itself. Yeah, right!! How about the part where Arlen Spector badgers one of the doctors who steadfastly maintains that the throat wound came from the front. Finally Spector asks something to the effect "Presume that the bullet entered the throat from the front, then ... blah blah blah yada yada yada .... In that case, would you say that this was an exit wound or an entrance wound?" And the doctor replies that in that case he would say that it was an exit wound. And the Commission actually used that testimony as evidence!

[blm]

70. Don't forget, Clinton had another commission review the evidence and

pretty much had it confirm the original lie, but with a few points tweaked. Clinton is Poppy's close pal now. I don't believe that is just 'coincidence' at all.

[jaksavage]

89. You just made my brain explode

thanks

[Time for change]

103. Really?

Clinton had a commission review the JFK assassination evidence? I don't recall that. Of course, just because they didn't change anything doesn't mean that Clinton arranged it that way. I have a hard time believing really bad things about Clinton -- but I should keep an open mind about it.

[blm]

117. I do, it wasn't a formal one but was headed by Stokes from Cleveland who

had been part of congress's investigation.

Clinton extended the Review Board in 97, but it seems though it stayed open, there is just no one willing to go all the way and get ALL the books opened on this. I think it HAS to come from the oval office.

OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 9, 1997

CONTACT: EILEEN SULLIVAN
[phone], ext. 253


PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS LAW EXTENDING JFK ARRB
FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR
President Clinton has signed a bill extending the Assassination Records Review Board for one additional year. The Review Board is the independent federal agency overseeing the identification, review, and release of records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The bill, H.R. 1553, was signed into law by the President on July 3, 1997. It amends the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until September 30, 1998, and authorizes $1.6 million for the Board to complete its work. The bill was introduced by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) and cosponsored by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Louis Stokes (D-OH). Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) had introduced a companion bill, S. 844, in the Senate.

"The members of the Review Board are pleased to have this additional time to complete our work. We will be able to complete the review and release of thousands of critical FBI and CIA records, submit a comprehensive final report to the Congress and the President, and make available to the American public as much information as possible on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy," said Judge John R. Tunheim, chair of the Review Board. "We appreciate that the Congress and the President moved quickly and decisively on our extension."

The Assassination Records Review Board was established by the JFK Act, which was signed into law by President George Bush. The five members of the Board were appointed by President Clinton, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and sworn in on April 11, 1994. The law gives the Review Board the mandate and the authority to identify, secure, and make available all records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. It is the responsibility of the Board to determine which records are to be made public immediately and which ones will have postponed release dates.


-30-

[Joe Chi Minh]

113. Are you reading these, TheWraith? If schooling could do you any

good I'd recommend you went back to school, but I bet you had the best private education.

[rinsd]

79. Paranoia runs deep...

LOL.

Classic foiler.

Tease about their rdiculousness and you work for the conspiracy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. And the people out to get you run deeper...

[blueDachi]

60. No it isn't

One man's conspiracy theory is another man's truth. In many cases when I see people ridicule others, I believe it's because they can't argue the facts. I most often see ridicule and scorn used as a tool to marginalize someone else's viewpoint and not as a way to further debate. In some cases it appears to be a cheap intellectual way for some people to salve their extreme cognitive dissonance.

[glitch]

72. Well said and welcome to DU! nt

[LosinIt]

6. Conspiracy Theorist here, calling you on the FDR/Pearl Harbor

I believe there is some evidence that is may have been a LIHOP.

Where can I get my sweatshirt?

[bmcatt]

8. Agreed

I've got a book (The Pacific War, by John Costello, ISBN 0-688-01620-0, published in 1981) that at the very least speculates that the timing of events in Washington was highly suspicious and pointed towards documents that were sealed *by FDR* that very probably indicated that Pearl Harbor was known about and was probably preventable. The author went on to speculate that it was why the carrier groups were ordered to sea while the battleships were left at Pearl. FDR and his top brass understood that carriers were going to be the way the war in the Pacific was fought and were willing to sacrifice the battleships towards that end.

So... I'm with you on this one. FDR/Pearl Harbor LIHOP - yup.

[rinsd]

13. I take issue with this statement

"FDR and his top brass understood that carriers were going to be the way the war in the Pacific was fought and were willing to sacrifice the battleships towards that end."

Can you back this up?

Because the use of carriers as a battle doctrine was slow to advance until the destruction of the Italian navy and the sinking of the Bismark which showed how effective an air arm could be to a fleet.

[bmcatt]

27. Read the book I pointed to?

I don't recall the exact page number. Heck, it's been a lot of years since I read it. The only reason I was able to point to the book is because I've finally got enough bookshelf space that I was able to unpack all of my books. When I read it, those many years ago, I was stunned and shocked by it because it definitely went against the (at the time) conventional wisdom that the attack was a complete surprise.

Or maybe we can just wait another 9 years. I believe the mention was made that the relevant documents were put under 75-year seal, so they'd be coming out of seal in 2016 or so.

[NoPasaran]

64. While I don't subscribe to the Pearl Harbor LIHOP theory

The Bismark had been sunk in May, 1941 and the Italian fleet crippled by the British attack at Taranto in November, 1940. I recall reading somewhere that Taranto was especially interesting to the Japanese since it demonstrated that aircraft-launched torpedoes could be used successfully in the shallow waters of a harbor.

[rinsd]

76. Yes, the Japanese were hip to carrier based operations.

The US? Not so much.

Consider that the US had 7 carriers and most of those were escort type carriers.

[sofa king]

111. Yeah, they sent observers to Taranto and everything.

They had a keen interest in the results of the Taranto attack. Despite the title, this thin book devotes about one chapter to the idea but it convincingly suggests that the Japanese actually sent Naval representatives who drew the proper conclusions about how the attack succeeded: modified torpedoes dropped from low altitude, which is exactly the tactic that the Japanese used at Pearl.

Nevertheless, I've always wondered exactly how well Yamamoto Isoroku learned the "lessons" of Taranto. Specifically, his famous statement, "I shall run wild for six months, but..." may well have been a reference to the time it took the Italians to refloat and repair their stricken battleships at Taranto. Yamamoto himself may still have been a closet battleship guy, even though he was the ultimate architect of the Pearl Harbor operation.

[rinsd]

9. The FDR stuff is dubious

Could warnings to be on super alert be passed to every commander in the Pacific?

Would they have made a difference? I'm not sure. After all wasn't a Japanese sub sunk hours before the attack and the base commander wasn't told until it was too late?

Also the Japanese technological and pilot experience advantages were quite significant in '41.

But if FDR wanted us to enter the war, he presumebly wanted us to win.

Exposing our entire Pacific fleet to a massive surprise attack does not seem the way to acommplish those goals.

If would be as if Hitler allowed the Luftwaffe to be wiped out to justify his invasion of France.

One of the things that has always struck me about WW2 is that for all the talk of inevitability that now accompanies this history, the year by year slow slog showed how often the Allies were precariously on the edge of defeat.

BTW, if you are interested in the times and especially the spycraft, I found this book to be very good.

http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelts-Secret-War-World-Espionage/dp/0375502467

[JackRiddler]

21. You know, you're right...

FDR if he knew in advance would have intercepted the Japanese fleet and sunk it on the high seas -- and go down in history as the aggressor, no matter what explanation he tried.

Um, maybe not?

The truth is, the only correct reaction to foreknowledge in this case would be to allow the attack to proceed, and leave no doubt about who started it. A dispassionate analysis available to any thinking person at the time would leave little doubt as to the ultimate outcome, given the relative populations, resources and industrial base of the two nation-empires.

One can also imagine such a rationalization being applied to foreknowledge of 9/11 (assuming the hijackers were "real") - although there would be no justification in that case.

[rinsd]

77. And here's where tinfoilers go wrong

"The truth is, the only correct reaction to foreknowledge in this case would be to allow the attack to proceed, and leave no doubt about who started it. A dispassionate analysis available to any thinking person at the time would leave little doubt as to the ultimate outcome, given the relative populations, resources and industrial base of the two nation-empires."

This ignores isolationist sentiment in the US which even after Pearl was quite strong especially in wake of our defeats at various bases in the Pacific. It also ignores that at this point the Japanese were already allies with the Nazis and Fascist. That the Soviets had a non-agression pact with the Germans. Actually it ignores so many things I won't bother listing them all.

Are you arguing the conclusion of World War 2 was inevitable?

[petgoat]

92. How come only two options?

LIHOP or pre-emptive strike?

Why not fly out there and tell the Japanese they're busted, turn back?

LIHOP is preferable only if you want a war and you know that only Pearl
Harbor will get you one.

Or if you prefer to sacrifice sailors and aging battleships rather than
risk fliers and aircraft in a fair fight.

[EVDebs]

30. Day of Deceit by Bush friend Robert Stinnett says it was allowed...

to happen. I imagine Churchill was relieved.

[rinsd]

78. A RWer tries to sully the greatest liberal President?

Shocking.

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

16. Skull and Bones doesn't exist?

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

[blm]

71. It exists but those involves are in separate cliques, too. Cheney and Clinton aren't S&B

and who has covered up for BushInc more than those two have?

[rinsd]

80. Of course it exists

Its just not the cabal many make it out to be.

[TheWatcher]

126. And of course you have all the facts and documented information to back this up.

:eyes:

Oh that's right. you only do insults and strawmen.

A thousand pardons, good shill.

[Time for change]

54. I'm sure that there are at least hundreds of conspiracy theories that

are silly and/or based on little or no evidence.

That doesn't refute the point I was was trying to make.

My point is that too many people in this country are too quick to dismiss alternate hypotheses of events based on nothing more than that the "official" story says to dismiss them.

The Kennedy assassination is a good case in point. Every doctor who saw Kennedy at the hospital agreed that one or two of the wounds (whichever was how many they saw) came from the front. Yet the official explanation dismisses that evidence and much more to arrive at the wrong conclusion (See my link to this case in the OP).

Why make a general statement that conspiracy theories are akin to myths, rather than agreeing that they should be evaluated individually on their individual merits?

And do you really think that someone espousing that the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 prior to its being publicly documented would not have been dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist"?

[Wednesdays]

63. The "official" story of the sinking of the Titanic

was that it went down in one piece. This was shown again and again in movies made about the disaster prior to the 1980s. All in spite of witnesses clearly explaining how the ship broke in two.

Well, we all know now the "official" story was BS and was a 70-year coverup of faulty steel used in the construction of the ship.

[Chemical Bill]

56. Silly conspiracy theories?

>The Holocaust never happened.

IIRC, before and even during WWII, attempts to discuss the mistreatment and murder of Jews in Germany were often met with scorn and ridicule.

Bill

[yardwork]

95. Often, reasonable questions get labeled "conspiracy theories"

and lumped with ridiculous theories. Just because "some people" label something a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it is absurd or unlikely.

When I was young, people dismissed the suggestion that the CIA was behind the coup in Chile that deposed the democratically elected Allende and put the brutal dictator Pinochet in power. Colin Powell himself acknowledged the truth of this. It is true.

Likewise, people ridiculed the suggestion that the CIA was trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, but declassified documents prove that it was true.

People did not want to believe that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI had dossiers on a lot of politicians and private citizens, but again, declassified information proved that this was true. And who would have believed in the 1960s that Hoover himself was a closeted homosexual who had been photographed wearing a tutu?

A whole lot of people didn't want to believe that the Bush White House outed an undercover CIA agent - until Karl Rove admitted it under oath.

Anytime the mainstream media tells me that something is a "conspiracy theory" I take a closer look.

[glitch]

4. My favorite was Tony Blair calling PNAC an internet conspiracy theory

when asked about it. This was only a few years ago but before it started receiving even the tiniest bit of corporate media mention.

[bleever]

90. The whole PNAC story is highly implausible.

Too bad it's all true.

I couldn't even get people in my own family to believe me, until it all happened.

[glitch]

107. It's bizarre to publicize your conspiracy on your own damn website and

people still call anybody who mentions it a conspiracy "theorist". Behold the power of brainwashing!

[Igel]

10. The problem with conspiracy theories isn't that they're

always false. They're not. One example would have sufficed to show that "conspiracy theories are always false" is a false statement.

The problem is that they're not always true. You can list 500 examples, and all that's needed is one conspiracy theory that's palpably false--whether it qualifies as 'kooky' or not, all that matters is that it be a conspiracy theory. Unless you or somebody can produce a principled and logically valid distinction between kooky ones and plausible ones. I can't think of any (an irrelevant datum, to be sure). They all seem to rely on gaps in knowledge, supported by a few facts that may or may not support the theory itself, but which don't entail the theory's truth.

Conspiracy theories that prove true are true. Those that aren't proven true simply aren't proven true. It doesn't mean they're false. Sometimes they're provably false, but often they shift the rules to become again unfalsifiable (the 'hollow earth' theory is a good one, or the 'men never walked on the moon'--photos are doctored, experts lie, etc., etc.).

However, there are a few things that deny credibility to most conspiracy theories, their status as true or false being rendered unimportant. All too often their supporters use various kinds of fallacies and pass them off as supporting argumentation. Too frequently questions or doubts masquerade as facts. rhetoric as logic--questions have no truth value, and the response 'I don't know' by a doubter is taken as implying that the conspiracy aficionado's view is correct. And if you don't accept the theory, then vituperation often follows--you're assumed to not be able to think critically , since you think critically at precisely the wrong moment. *That* is, to my mind, the real issue with most conspiracy theories, plausible or not.


If somebody has motive, means, and opportunity, all it does is make them a potential initial suspect. One problem is that the 'motive, means, and opportunity' are simply those known to the investigators--and the investigators may be wrong, the guilty person with actual means, motive, and opportunity yet unknown. Another is that a given person with the '3 Ms' may simply be innocent: motive, means, and opportunity by themselves prove nothing. It's simply a situational paraphrase "cui bono?"

[Time for change]

36. Yes, many are valid and many aren't

My point was that in this country there is a very powerful and disconcerting tendency for people who don't accept the "official" view to be ridiculed and marginalized, and therefore there is insufficient tendency in this country to be willing to think for one's self on many of these issues, rather than merely accept the "official" view.

The Iraq War is a perfect example. It's ok to say that Bush made a mistake or that he didn't handle the war correctly. What's not ok is to tell it like it is -- what ought to be obvious to anyone who is willing to put the time into the matter, think about it and come up with an independent opinion.

The truth of the matter is that the Iraq war wasn't just a mistake. Bush and Cheney lied to the American people and to Congress repeatedly. They were intent on war with Iraq from the beginning, though they repeatedly said otherwise. There were numerous ulterior motives involved, and the business about WMD and spreading democracy was just a smoke screen.

But our country, or at least too many people in our country, aren't ready to hear that, or haven't put enough thought into it. If they did, what possible reason would we have for not moving ahead immediately to remove Bush and Cheney from office?

Regarding means, motive, and opportunity, of course they don't "prove" anything by themselves, and that wasn't my point. But what they definitely should do is to provide a reason to investigate the matter further. And too often, when powerful people are involved, those needed investigations just aren't conducted.

[porphyrian]

11. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Karenina]

14. Me too!

[PreacherCasey]

15. There is no merit in being immediately dismissive of

any theory. This kind of thinking does a disservice to everyone. The truth is what it is. The arguments espoused in these theories can be verified or discredited.

Immediate dismissal is just as stupid as blind allegiance. Thanks for the post.
Kick and Recommend.

[truth2power]

19. Hmm...

You're to be commended for posting this, Time for change. I agree tht there seems to be an unhealthy prejudice in this country against espousing anything other than the "official" party line, when it comes to explaining the daily atrocities inflicted on us since our "Honorable" Supreme Court installed the Boy King in OUR House.

Nevertheless, I'll continue to be undeterred by those whose only purpose is to muddy the waters and keep the truth from being known, no matter what the issue.

[Time for change]

108. Yes, we should all be undeterred by that

The corporate news media is the main culprit, but you'll find that everywhere, even on DU. That's why I didn't like the blocking function. I know of at least one (unnamed) person who used it to block people from questioning the highly questionable material in his posts. He blocked 25 people, including me. It backfired on him because some started new posts calling him out on it. I felt much better about it after DU changed the rules to allow people to see who was blocked.

[NoSheep]

24. I'm sorry to say all that I have theorized about has been revealed to be true in spades.

Thank you for this wonderful, thoughtful piece.I will pass it along to many deserving people I know and love. :kick: :yourock:

[file83]

25. It makes some people feel good to feel like they are a part of "the group". Group think.

Independent thought threatens that comfort, so they must ridicule it.

Other times it's a result of their failure to process vast amounts of information. Some ideas are in fact absurd, but instead of isolating those absurd ideas from legitimate ones, they categorize EVERYTHING outside of mainstream thought as "absurd". Then we are back to the "discomfort" issue above.

If I disagree with someone else's thoughts or ideas in the area of conspiracy theories, its better to just not respond.

I go with the "sink or swim" philosophy: If their idea has no merit, it'll sink, no matter how hard they thrash their arms.

If it has some merit, it'll "swim" regardless of their neglect to defend it.

p.s. I remember this post from before. I was upset when it got locked before.

[AZCat]

29. I disagree.

Ideas lacking merit have been able to find wide acceptance before - remember the whole "Saddam did 9/11" bit that some 70% of the American public believed?

[file83]

33. True, but it's different if it comes from "authority", same issue, different result:

That whole section of America that believed the "Saddam and 9/11" falls under the category of people who don't know how to sort absurdity vs. legitimate ideas (in the vast amount of information available to them). So, they fell on the side of absurdity because they went with the "mainstream" (aka "authority") story.

So really, I believe we agree on this matter - the two scenarios function the same way.

[AZCat]

61. Yes - I think we agree about that.

I was just pointing out that it is sometimes important to abandon the "sink or swim" approach to the ideas of others. I spent a lot of time talking with people in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq, trying to correct misperceptions (mostly spawned by the authorities). I agree that they are believed for similar reasons - the legitimacy of the idea is secondary to the perceived value of the source (and "authority" has a high value for most people).

[rman]

62. Indeed: people tend to believe what authories tell them:

Anything from 'Oswald killed JFK' to 'Saddam threw babies out of incubators'.

And anyone who goes against that is labeled a conspiracy nut first and foremost by the same media that are owned by the corporations that staff the executive branch. Just coincidence of course.

[Time for change]

104. Absolutely

There are many factors that determine whether a conspiracy theory (or any theory) sinks or swims, other than its merits. One very important factor is how much effort is put into discrediting it. Also very important is the fact that many people are very resistant against believing that their own government is capable of evil.

[conscious evolution]

26. Great post but

you left out a point.
These days conspirators hire people to put 'kooky' theories out there in order to cast asparagus at legitimate theories.
The unmentionable theory subject is excellant proof-Some theories make a little sense and should be followed up on while other theories are so batshit crazy that someone must have got a nice bonus from the conspirators for coming up with it.

[Time for change]

106. Yes, I believe you're right about it

Even in my conversations with otherwise intelligent liberals it sometimes amazes me, and frustrates me terribly as well, that in knocking down a "conspiracy theory" they will point to some other kooky conspiracy theory, or even a different version of the same one, to argue against it. For example, with regard to the possibility of LIHOP or MIHOP (for 9-11), they will point to people who say it was done by the Zionists as evidence against LIHOP or MIHOP.

[Ignacio Upton]

28. That doesn't mean that...

The Moon landing was faked, or that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolition by Larry Silverstein. Each incident is different.

[omega minimo]

32. K&R Another brilliant gem from Time for change

[mod mom]

38. One of many, to be sure!

[nam78_two]

37. K&R.nt

[FourScore]

39. During WWII, most germans beleived

that the whispered rumors of concentration camps were utterly impossible. People simply refused to believe that their own government could be capable of such atrocities. All the hundreds or thousands of people who would have to carry out the atrocities...it seemed impossible to them. After the germans capitulated, the American military forced nearby villagers to tour the camps so that they could see the horrors for themselves. Documentary footage shows their shock at what they saw. To think of the holocaust as a conspiracy theory today is ludicrous to us, but at the time, people insisted it just wasn't feasible, and that their government would never do such a thing.

Conspiracies happen every day. Governments are fallible. Americans are not immune to this fact.

Great post. and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Time for change]

82. I think that point is very relevant to what's going on here today

When Dick Durbin compared our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to the Nazi concentration camps, he got pounded on by the Republican attack machine and parts of the corporate news media. Why? For the same reasons that the Germans didn't want to hear about what was going on in their country during the Nazi era.

Durbin didn't say that the magnitude of the problem was comparable between Gitmo and the Nazi concentration camps. He merely pointed out that if someone were to observe some of what was going on at Gitmo they might not be able to ascertain much difference between that and a Nazi camp. What he was saying should have been taken as a wake up call for our country. Instead, we (the U.S. as a whole) kind of exhibited the ostrich syndrome.

This is very unhealthy for our country, and I hope we get over it soon, before we descend into the Dark Ages.

[Nothing Without Hope]

40. Superb post on a major problem that concerns me very much too.

The label "conspiracy theory" has been turned into a perjorative implying unfounded, irrational fearmongering. And that is true even at Democratic Underground, where certain "forbidden" topics are locked, disappeared, or transferred into closets, i.e., obscure forums in which threads cannot be voted onto the Greatest Page and into the light of day.

The overwhelming bias against "conspiracy theories" in a time when our very EXISTENCE is threatened by conspiracies within our own government, in corporate directorates, and around the world, is way, way beyond a rational level. I conclude that this hyper-attack mode is partly due to the collusion of the corporate media with the conspirators and partly due to the populace being so terrified of the world as it is now that they run away from reality, holding their ears and covering their eyes. Back to their entertainment program and their talking heads that tell them it's all okay, we've got it under control.

But how can we even begin to unravel and fight the real conspiracies when questioning them is essentially outlawed on the basis that that they are not yet proven? Questions need to be asked with OPEN minds, not dismissed out of hand and buried without examination. Yes, some "conspiracy theories" really are bogus or internet myths. We hear about those all the time because they are used to brand ALL suspicions of true conspiracies as irrational. This policy only serves to undermine investigation; it does not make the true conspiracies any less threatening.

I consider censorship the single biggest problem at DU. I am relieved that the "block" feature is off the table, but I still deplore the whole idea of "forbidden topics" in what is supposed to be an open forum for getting at the truth.

K & R with enthusiasm and thanks for saying something that needs to be emphasized repeatedly until more people open their eyes.

[Egalitarian]

45. I've noticed this too and I'm ummmmm

Nothing Without Hope wrote, "And that is true even at Democratic Underground, where certain "forbidden" topics are locked, disappeared, or transferred into closets, i.e., obscure forums in which threads cannot be voted onto the Greatest Page and into the light of day."

How did this come to pass?

What is/was the logic behind it/ what was the threat?

I joined DU back in the day when we had great lively discussions about the not to be named topic amongst others. NOw I notice that threads get pulled by mods and dumped into their own neat little categories, or locked, disappeared etc. Why?

Connect the dots. The more dots you acquire, the clearer the picture. The solution to every problem lies within the problem itself. When we see a problem clearly (ie. the roots, the origins of it) can we solve it.

[arikara]

100. You said it...

If something is brought up that goes against the mainstream conventional "wisdom" the debunker pack arrives in full force. The thread is either tossed in the basement or deleted. And its becoming more frequent that the thinking posters are tombstoned for bogus reasons, anti-semetic being a favourite even if the poster is not and has never been any such thing.

I frequent a board that is censored from being mentioned here, but more and more of the old DU'ers are arriving all the time that have been deleted for speaking their mind about something. This site is losing out because of it. The threads left here are the I hate Hillary, Obama is cute, Wes Clark is God.

[Time for change]

75. I think you hit the nail on the head Hope

The combination of our corporate media (with more interest in preserving the status quo than in giving us the news) and a gullible and terrified public is a large part of the reason for the status of so-called "conspiracy theories" in our country. We must take the news media back.

The only thing I would disagree with you on is your characterization as DU as part of the problem. I think that they are walking a fine line between trying to maintain credibility with the general public (which is important to all of our goals) and allowing uninhibited discussion. So sometimes they censor stuff that shouldn't be censored, but there's a trade-off there IMO.

I certainly agree with you about the blocking function -- I was very glad to see that gone.

[Norrin Radd]

41. Kick + Recommend

[Egalitarian]

42. But I've got a such a vested interest in the past.

I mean get real. I was raised saying the pledge every morning at school for 12 years. I also had 10 years of history which largely neglected or positively spun any nefarious acts of my government. When George W says that "The American way of life is not negotiable" he speaks for me too; my life is who I've been in the past and it's just not negotiable now or in the future. My mind is closed; my government looks out for my well being-I am just soo certain. It's their job gosh darn it. So please stop making my head hurt with this talk of conspiracy theories. Well, gotta run now, mommy is calling me to bed and sweet dreams await...

:sarcasm:

[AikidoSoul]

43. AND the voting machine "conspiracy theorists"! If it wasn't for us, nothing would have been done

and we put up with a lot of flak between then and now.

Kick!

[Time for change]

86. That's a great point

The corporate news media barely covered it at all during the first year. I don't think that they would have covered it at all had it not been for the "voting machine grassy knoll conspiracy theorists."

[kdpeters]

46. I don't mind conspiracy theories. It's strange, secretive behavior and lies I don't care for

Listen, we know they're lying about 9/11 and we know they're lying about something big. Why else would they fight so hard to give us answers we deserve? Why would they try so hard to stonewall the investigation? Why can the president not risk testifying under oath, in public, or without Dick Cheney there?

We shouldn't have to figure out these questions, it's our government. So what are they hiding? Without all the secrets and the lies, then there would be no conspiracy theories, but when they act in this manner, they guarantee it. From those that almost get it right to those of physical impossibility, it's a guaranteed side-effect of such secrecy in the wake of such a traumatic event. What's more important, figuring out what happened, or shouting down people who are trying to figure out what happened? As far as I'm concerned, the kookiest conspiracy theory is from someone who shares my interests. The discussion over conspiracy theories is a distraction so we'll stop asking them why they're hiding these things.

[Time for change]

109. Excellent point

A national news media that was worth its salt would make a big scandal of such things: Cheney refusing to release the minutes of his Energy Task Force; Bush doing everything he could to obstruct the creation and work of the 9-11 Commission, and having to have Cheney there to hold his hand when he testified. Anyone who doesn't get suspicious of such things isn't thinking very hard, yet a lot of people don't think these things are very important simply because our corporate news media doesn't make a big deal out of them.

[Prophet 451]

48. Should I ridicule you here?

If in doubt, piss on the premise, right? Isn't that the accepted thing to do?

No-one has ever said that a lot of conspiracy theories aren't bunk. What the OP is complaining about, as have I for many years, is that simply labelling something a conspiracy theory is now enough to shut down examination of it.

Yes, you can trot out a lot of nutcase theories. Here's a little counter list: Watergate, the Gunpowder Plot, Iran-Contra, the CIA-MI5 attempt to destabalise the government of Edward Heath. Conspiracies happen. Real ones, genuine ones. How many genuine abuses of power are going to get missed or ignored because all it takes if for someone to label them a "conspiracy theory" and suddenly, no-one takes it seriously? How about the massive evidence of vote tampering in 2000 and 2004? How many people will simply ignore the evidence because it sounds like a conspiracy theory?

People think stupid things. No-one's questioning that but research into political conspiracies is, at base, a belief that small groups of people exert an unwarranted effect on history. This isn't up for debate because it's simply been demonstrated too many times: The Nazis, the Papist Plot (either one), the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Even the USA's current holiest cow, 9/11 was a conspiracy. And the second I type that, I just know a lot of people are going to assume I'm going on about missing planes of foreknowledge or something like that. I'm not. Even the accepted version of events is a conspiracy. A bunch of people, acted in secret to commit a crime. That is the very definition of a conspiracy but the word has been so polluted, both by nutcase conspiracists and by the knee-jerk demonising of conspiracy research that barely anyone will call the thing what it is. The automatic ridicule of conspiracy theory may be largely because of people coming out with idiot theories but it also massively aids those in power if they can effectively shut down any awkward questions just by invoking the words "conspiracy theory".

In the space of five years, the USA lost it's president, it's probable next president and it's foremost civil rights leader to assassinations which were investigated, at best, incompetantly. At least one of those (RFK) featured a man firing a pistol at close range into the back of a man's head from six to eight feet in front of him. I have no idea who did shoot RFK but Sirhan Sirhan couldn't possibly have done. Conspiracies happen, all the time. Every gang dealing crack is a conspiracy; every coup is, by definition, a conspiracy; every terrorist plot is, be definition, a conspiracy. They are all around you, all the time. That doesn't mean believing any ridiculous thing people come out with but it does mean not writing off logic and shutting down your reason just because someone says the words "conspiracy theory".

[Time for change]

97. Excellent discussion -- Ridiculing "conspiracy theorists" is just one method they have

of preventing the truth from coming out.

Here's another one that I wish would have been publicized a lot more than it was. The man investigating allegations of electronic vote switching fraud found dead in a hotel room with severe bruises over his neck, arm slashed with a razor blade, on the Georgia side of the border, where autopsies aren't mandatory:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5567680&mesg_id=5567680

[Usrename]

112. Since you mentioned Iran/Contra -

George W. Bush appointees
George W. Bush selected some individuals implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal for high-level posts in his presidential administration.<31><32> They include:

Elliott Abrams:<33> under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
Otto Reich:<34> head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte:<35> under Bush, the National Intelligence Director.
Admiral John Poindexter:<36> under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
Robert Gates: <37> under Bush, confirmed on December 6, 2006 as the new Secretary of Defense to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. Served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991–1993 under George H.W. Bush. In Iran Contra he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
Charles E. Allen: <38> under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#George_W._Bush_appointees

Anyone honestly think that these guys are not capable of forming a conspiracy? It's in their DNA!

[bobthedrummer]

49. I'm a conspiracy realist, not a coincidence theorist.

I do theorize about the tactics, techniques and posible motivations of real criminals and traitors (as well as hidden history from open sources) in what I call the BFEE's HOMELAND(tm) which is merely a symbol of reality that I and others post about within the rules of DU.

[leftstreet]

50. This is an excellent post

Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[Philosoraptor]

52. Your succinct wording seems to have broken through the wall.

I applaud you.

[Time for change]

99. Thank you very much Philosoraptor

[Jeanette in FL]

53. Those of us who came of age in the 60's and 70's

were exposed to a myriad of life changing occurrences. President Kennedy assassinated, his "alleged" killer shot dead on our tv screens. Robert Kennedy assassinated just as the country was starting to find our way again. Martin Luther King, Jr, assassinated just as the civil rights movements was becoming mainstream.

Our collective souls were terrorized.

Commissions were formed to investigate/cover-up and shroud all loose ends into a neatly wrapped package.

Problem was, little by little, we were not buying it.

That is why "official" stories are taking with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting, an excellent read.

[rman]

59. And 30 to 40 years later (just about now) the classified government docs are released,

proving that most of the "theories" are correct.
Small wonder the MSM are almost completely silent about it.

[Vidar]

55. K&R.

[Philosoraptor]

58. ............

[Bushwick Bill]

65. Great article today on Alternet.

9/11: The Case Isn't Closed
By Sander Hicks, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2007.
In defense of the "9/11 truth movement."
http://www.alternet.org/story/45726

[Time for change]

101. Yes, a very good article

As Hicks points out, the coincidence of Bush and Cheney having all their dreams come true as a result of 9-11 is pretty hard to swallow.

For me, there are a lot of things about the official story that are hard to swallow, but the story of Flight 77 is what did it for me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=73406&mesg_id=73406

Yet, for so many people, it's just too bitter of a pill to swallow -- they just can't believe that Americans would do such a thing. Muslems sure, but not Americans.

[HamdenRice]

66. " 'Conspiracy theory' is itself an Orwellian concept intended

to shut down conversation." A DUer wrote an essay on this theme in the dungeon that shall not be named. I wish I had the link or the name of the poster. The idea is that the term is used, as the OP states, to simply shut down discussion and even investigation of crimes of state.

kr!

[Philosoraptor]

67. ..............

[earth mom]

68. K & R and Thank You! eom

[screembloodymurder]

73. Was PNAC a plan turned conspiracy?

Had MSM informed the American public of the PNAC plan in 2002 we might have avoided Iraq. Did they fear they'd be labeled conspiracy theorist? All the dots were there to connect and yet MSM refused to expose or explore the motives behind Bush's fixing of the intelligence in his rush to war. They still prefer to promote the ludicrous "false intelligence" story even as the neo-cons push for war with Iran. Has fear of speculation kept us from exposing the truth?

[Time for change]

102. Yes, that's why this is so important

"False intelligence" my ass. It has been so well documented that the Bush administration demanded false intelligence from the CIA, by Seymour Hersh and others:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=166441&mesg_id=166441

You're exactly right about this. It is because our corporate media fails abysmally to do its job that the path to war is made so easy for the war criminals.

[melody]

74. Any attempt to marginalize topics of dissent is dangerous

Conspiracy theories are fun things to study and consider. Some of the most paranoid conspiracy theorists have often stumbled over important stories. Perception itself is pattern-seeking. Being
determined to NOT see patterns (because some external authority smirks at us for doing so) is as
much a form of blindness as seeing patterns that may not be there.

I think we need to consider everything at least once.

[PATRICK]

83. Retune the curiosity

to the first and most critical needs. Investigate, prosecute, regulate. What happens to the newsspeak term of populist conspiracy theories is only another version of the attack against accountability and legality for the aims of rogue interests.

Take flying saucers. The hoopla was ridiculed, many publicists profiteering or fanatic or likely both. Yet they forced some investigation, some hidden records to surface. Insofar, however, as they related peripherally to governmental secrecy the limits and barricades to these inquiries illustrate the larger problem. And that problem is not satisfying the demands or speculations of the theorists. For many, devoid of trust with good reason, even admissions and verifications would leave them suspicious.

The problem is that our government is not open to its own citizens and that the most dire "good" reasons for this serve to render such practices themselves as perhaps greater dangers than anything thus defended against. Perpetual war, in fact, and fear, is needed to stymie openness and accountability with any "greater good" legitimacy. The other fear of powerlessness and paralysis in government functions by openness is now pretty much demonstrated, in contemporaneous extremity, is something such self-protecting secrecy creates. You do, in most cases, create what you fear right in your midst.

The push for open knowledge and accountability abrogated to the zealous outsiders(who have greater real investigatory tools at their disposal than ever) needs to be taken up by the majority for overall policy before anyone can cast a stone at the boat-rockers. That is always the case. In extreme times it becomes clearer or more polarizing.

And the irony is that making such words as "liberal" and "conspiracy theorist" terms of hatred and ridicule for special interest protection and the tamping down of the public forums IS a real and documented and publicly spoken conspiracy involving Gingrich and many others sharing an organized chain of dissemination and ideology that almost idolizes parrot talk over ANY real thought one way or the other. The subtext is they mock "theory" because they hold the power to stop the advance of proof truth and consequence. Typical criminal arrogance and disdain.

Anyone resting in the world of theory with no work or intention of going further simply plays the punching bag for their propaganda. Keep demanding the next steps and probe the great shibboleth of government secrecy itself. And as for results it is far less important oto have films of the Bohemian Grove than to make sure the usual suspects have jobs as streetcleaners without a sasvings account to their name.

[Time for change]

115. "Idolizes parrot talk over ANY real thought"

Yeah, I think that summarizes it pretty well.

[Mrspeeker]

84. Damn now You got me wondering what the dang forbidden subject was

Cause I'll prolly post about it and get in trouble.
Me being the conspiracy theorist nut I am of course! lol

[Straight Shooter]

85. History of Secret Experiments Conducted on U.S. Citizens

All factual, all documented. At the time suspicions were first raised, they were derided as "conspiracy theories."

Here are four of them:



1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

More at link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/experimentation.html

[Time for change]

116. Very powerful stuff

as ammunition against people like Tucker Carlson who love to denigrate "conspiracy theorists".

[CRH]

87. Government by Stealth is a conspiracy ...

Anyone who is highly critical of 'conspiracy theories' without investigating their merits should explain the standard of procedure of today's government. What is happening behind closed doors in our legislature today is nothing short of a conspiracy of the few to create and enact laws that attack the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution.

In conference committees the use of inserts and trailers in all types of legislation in the wee hours of the morning after all debate has ended, not only attack our liberties, but also in effect hide the legislation from transparent public purview. These committees in theory are to reconcile differences between House and Senate bills but are used instead to amend without public discussion. A perfect example is the PATRIOT act when the final amended text was not provided as it was rushed to approval, then voted on unread by your legislators or their staffs. And, ... the worst parts of PATRIOT act II were similarly inserted into HR2417 Intelligence Authorization Agreement of 2004, in late night committee. Even more insulting was this measure passed without individual accountability by voice vote. It was a classic exercise of Government by Stealth, a conspiracy of the few, to alter then introduce liberty restraining measures without public debate. Of course this little conspiracy went largely un noticed, as it coincidently occurred on the day the mass media was busy breaking the story of the capture of guess who, ... yep Saddam Hussein.

edited for grammar

[EVDebs]

88. SMOM, Knights of Malta, represent no country but sit at the UN.

Their Will Be Done, by Martin A. Lee
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1983/07/willbedone.html

[Time for change]

118. Very well put CRH

Indeed, many parts of today's government routinely engage in conspiracies against the people they were elected to serve.

Welcome to DU :toast:

[Larry Ogg]

93. There’s a need, a right and a duty to ask and question authority.

You can fool some of the people all of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Every time the discussion of conspiracy theories comes up, I think of “JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press”. (?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C56QlmgMSFU&mode=related&search=) Part 2 (?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWPXVBbMba8&mode=related&search=) Maybe this is one of the biggest reasons he was assassinated. Was he a conspiracy theory nut with the power to shine the light on some dark and evil bastards?

Thank you Time for change, for bringing up this important subject!

[Time for change]

123. Thanks for the links

I think you're right that JFK was recognized as having the potential to shine a light in some dark places. He was planning on withdrawing from vietnam. I believe he was going to move to substantially decrease the oil depletion allowance. And who knows what else.

And who knows how different things might have been had he lived.

[RandomKoolzip]

94. Bush caused the tsunami! Chemtrails! And faked moon landings!

HUZZAH! :party:

[happydreams]

96. One big concern I have since being attuned to

what's been going on for he past 5 or six years is that pockets of people who are anti-Bush lose their critical thinking skills, if they ever had them, when involved in anti-Bush groups. I saw one writer who exposed Bush from a way back make a claim that was false and everybody nodding their heads. When I challenged it I was treated with hostility.

People who don't read, research and analyze--a large group on both left and right--are what really bugs the hell out of me. They shoot themselves in the foot when they make unwarranted claims, or look ridiculous when they shout about Bush's crimes without knowing the facts.

[Time for change]

120. If the claim was about a Bush crime it could not have been false

:rofl:

Seriously though, what claim are you referring to?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

98. Slice them with Occam's Razor and the Principle of Least Moving Parts and Bonaparte

Conspiracies are like machines. Huge mammoth conspiracies that depend on thousands of people and near perfect secrecy fail because of too many moving parts (people).

When there are two possible explanations for an event and one involves some simpler mechanisms than the other which might be a complicated conspiracy, choose the simpler. This is Occam's Razor.

Finally, usually the simplest explanation is Napolean Bonaparte's wisdom: "Do not ascribe to malfeasance what can simply be explained by incompetence."

On edit: I would add: "Question Authority" and "Eschew Obfuscation".

[petgoat]

110. I would add, don't mistake Occam's blunt instrument for his razor.

Some, finding a dead man with a pulped head and a hammer, would invoke
Occam in concluding "suicide by hammer."

[FiveGoodMen]

119. So, BushCo. never meant any harm!

"Do not ascribe to malfeasance what can simply be explained by incompetence."

Maybe Napolean isn't the best one to take advice from.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

130. Your implication does not follow

Plamegate hardly deserves to be dignified with the word "conspiracy", to pick one example. For another, when Bush said to Clarke on 9/11 "Get Iraq", it was clear he was going to grab the excuse and try to one-up his father. That's Oedipal incompetence writ large.

(on edit: spelling, flow)

[Time for change]

121. Occam's razor often doesn't apply to conspiracies

especially when they're conducted by intelligent people.

If a group of powerful people want to plan a conspiracy they will do whatever they can to make alternative explanations look plausable and the conspiracy itself look implausable.

[mikelewis]

122. Why not just quote George W. Bush... "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"

Of course... he didn't really lie about Iraq... Why would he lie? Too many people would have to be involved to lie us into a war. He really was on the ball during Katrina... how could the POTUS let an American city die in order to try and federalize National Guard troops? The election's of 2000 and 2004 were perfect... rigging election results is impossible (except for Cuyahoga County where 2 lazy poll workers are in jail for doing that very thing). America doesn't torture... Just a couple of soldiers getting carried away, it's not policy. America doesn't do illegal wiretaps... they're legal and if we could only tell you why they're legal you'd believe us. There's no such things as secret detention centers... Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and a few other EU countries are just making these stories up to get us back for being Number 1 all the time. Extraordinary rendition? Come on, America doesn't do that either...

Keep in mind... the Holocaust, by your definition, is also an unlikely conspiracy theory.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

128. Wrong

Keep in mind... the Holocaust, by your definition, is also an unlikely conspiracy theory.

Wrong.

[Prophet 451]

124. In contrast

You said "Huge mammoth conspiracies that depend on thousands of people and near perfect secrecy fail because of too many moving parts (people)" and that's entirely true. However, consider the conspiracy theories put forward by saner researchers: The assassination of JFK, RFK or MLK could have been pulled off by perhaps half-a-dozen people, the Gunpowder Plot was nearly executed by about a dozen people, 9/11 had a lot of people supplying information and resources but the actual conspiracy was executed by nineteen people. In the current electronic age, a few men with keyboards and some coding knowledge can do all kinds of things.

No, conspiracy research doesn't mean we have to believe the absurd (Nazis on the moon, variations of Jews rule the world theories) but it does mean that we do not stop research, put aside logic and turn off reason whenever someone invokes the phrase "conspiracy theory".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

129. Excellent rebuttal, but no contradiction. I agree with you.

[AX10]

127. As another poster said: "Question Authority"!

Alot of crap has been done in the past. As you said, the establishment calls it "conspiracy", when in reality it is fact!

[twylatharp]

131. yes, it's sad that people only believe their television sets

and ridicule their fellow citizens. I hate that term "conspiracy theory"; the government or corporate views of events usually involve conspiracies, too, only their "conspiracies" usually benefit them in some way (IE: 9-11 and the endless war on invisible terrorists) Why are they any more believable? and usually the "scientists" are bought and paid for by the Bush administration or defense contractors, so they are no different than believing Bush himself.

[deutsey]

132. I believe US participation in the coup in Chile was disputed at first

as was complicity of US intelligence in the executions of Americans Charles Horman and Frank Terrugi shortly after the coup.