JFK conspiracy... yes or no?

Great Debates
321

How about CSIOPtics will always: ridicule what they consider to be CTs, Woos, (those into parapsychology,), True Believers, etc.?

Congratulations, you’ve done a great job of avoiding the issue entirely. Now that you’ve got that out of your system, let’s break it down and talk about it.
Cognitive closure - is a need to to eliminate ambiguity and arrive at definite conclusions (sometimes irrationally).

Need to eliminate ambiguity – To not find resolution and definitive answers is too unsettling for some people to bear psychologically. They have a tendency to bend, twist, alter or distort reality, sometimes irrationally, to eliminate uncertainties, gray areas any and all ambiguities so as to conform to their reality map. Any answer is better than no answer.

Definite conclusions. Everything must be accounted for, everything must have an explanation or a reason that can be quantified because it is too unsettling otherwise. It will either be ignored, ridiculed or attacked and distored so as to fit their reality map

”…sometimes irrationally” – there is a tendency to employ The Law of Forced Plausible – (every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.) A classical example of this a show on human levitation on the History Channel. The segment on the Flying Friar has Joe Nickell, of CSIOPtic fame, giving his Forced Plausible to try to explain away something.

go to the 1:15 mark and see Joe give a typical knee jerk explanation that is very indicative of a pseudo mindset.

I give this year’s Baloneysaurus Award to Joe Nickell. “Come on up, Joe, and get your tropy!” It’s a bronze bust of Alfred E. Newman with a pack of Oscar Meyer boloney on his head.

This thread is another typical example of a urgent need for cognitive closure by a CSIOPtic mindset. One post by me about how the Secret Service vid “stuck in my craw” and then my uncle calling bullshit on it, too. Any voice that dissents from the party line is attacked by Rat Packing it to try to:

  1. Convert and show the way to the one true beacon of enlightenment.
  2. Outright defeat by force of reason that allows you to strut and thump on your chest like an Alpha Male Gorilla
  3. Drive away you opponent, which gives one a sense of validation
322

I scrwed up on page 317, please disregard and go to next post down:smack:

Also 321, sorry.

323

No, I loose faith in you, sorry

324

Explain why you loose [sic] faith in me. What’s the difference? There is no more evidence for any JFK CT than there is for Allah. Unless you have some? Elaborate, please.

325

Heck, I loosed faith in Cisco years ago.

326

What day you loose it in me? I’ll check my diary to see if I felt anything strange.

327

I think it was a Toosday.

328

The fact that some of us might have less-than-noble reasons for arguing says nothing about the validity of our arguments.

The fact that you’ve been forced to retreat to the desperate position of attacking the motivations of your opponents suggest that you’re no longer capable of arguing for your position on its own merits.

Bad form, sir. Bad form.

329

Not only wrong, but easily proven wrong.

The latest 'Amazing Meeting" sponsored by the James Randi Foundation was held in Las Vegas last month. At the end of the meeting they tested a psychic dowser. This lady applied for the Randi $1M prize, and agreed to take the preliminary test at the meeting in front of an audience for skeptics. If ever there was a situation where the CSICOPtics* could ridicule someone into some kind of “woo” all they wanted, this was it.

But I watched the streaming video live online. I read the threads on JREF’s message boards before and after the event. This woman was given every courtesy and respect. During the test, you could have heard a pin drop in the room where the test was conducted, despite there being over three hundred people there. I think a lot of people were actually hoping she could do what she said (identify three cards picked at random from a deck of cards). When she failed, the audience actually applauded her, and everyone said what a good sport she was, and how much courage she had to step up and be tested.

The same goes for the message boards threads before the test. They were universally supportive and encouraging of the woman to take the test. No ridicule at all.
*BTW, will you stop misspelling that? At least get the name right when you’re lamely trying to make fun of someone, and it’s been just CSI for two or three years anyway

330

Take your pick, every single point has been challenged, re-challanged and then challenged back again. And, of course, each side has its expert forensic experts. So it’s not so much a matter of any one point, it’s just that the whole thing in general has thousands and thousands of different points of contention, and of course, each side is convinced that they and they alone possession the Holy Grail.

I linked that Joe Nickell vid about his “Forced Plausible™” explanation saying that, “perhaps he was an exceptional athlete…” is that this is a prime example of someone who desperately clings to a world view that they will go to any lengths to maintain the structural integrity, thereof.

The point I keep trying to make over and over is that I take an agnostic stance on this issue because of too many conflicting versions coming from too many people whether qualified or not. On of the things I factor into the equation is that ‘our govt.’ has shown through past crimes against its own citizens is that if they had the desire to kill jfk they would no moral compunction whatsoever and they certainly have the resources necessary to do it.

Brian, it’s ok to have doubts in life. Not everything in life can always be reduced down to a reductionist, mechanistic world view where everything has it’s place and there is a place for everything. Life is full of mysteries, uncertainties, shades of gray and ambiguities. Just relax and enjoy the ride.

331

I have no idea what the bulk of that post has to do with my original post.

I like CSIOPS because it sounds like Psi Cops, or better yet, Cyclops as in one eye = tunnel vision.

And please don’t even try to accuse someone of ‘lamely trying to make fun of someone.’ For Christs’ sake, CSIOPtics are walkin’ talkin’ ad hominems. You love to put derogative insulting labels on anybody who doesn’t agree with you skeptic stance as in woo, CTer, True Believers, kooks, nuts, etc. Need I say more? You should have learned in 1st grade that if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

332

And the point we keep making is that this is a false statement. If you are agnostic about this then you are not paying attention.

There are many conflicting theories but they are not equal. The “standard” story is the one that is supported by the facts. Many of the conflicting versions that you mention are hogwash. Every time you’ve posted an example it has been shot down, so handwaving about the confusion out there is disingenuous. There is no reliable evidence of any conspiracy, or of any significant challenges to the idea the LHO acted alone.

333

Out of curiosity, are you equally agnostic about whether we landed on the moon? Whether the Holocaust happened? Whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya? And if not, why not? After all, there’s conflicting versions of each of those events coming from large numbers of people.

334

I would think that “CSIOPS” would sound more like PSY OPS, as in Psychological Operations.

If you spelled it properly, which was RJKUgly’s point, then it might sound like Psi Cops, but you keep misspelling it over and over and over.

335

Let me explain.

In response to some supposed psychological argument from you, Algorithm pointed out that “starting a sentence with the words “You will always…” is pure speculation and not actual debate. It’s not psychology, it’s a straw man.”

To this you responded with yet another of the same type of thing:

To which I responded with an example of a large group of people who are exactly the ones you refer to as CSIOPtics (sic) doing just the opposite. This disproves your statement and shows that Algorithm was correct.

And of course if you spelled it right, CSICOP instead of CSIOP, it would sound even more like Psi Cop, but no sense letting that get in the way of trying to cover your error.

Touched a nerve, eh? Poor boy. But show me where I’ve done that to your crowd and we’ll talk.

336

And the point we keep trying to make is that “whether qualified or not” is an extremely poor way to sort information. The sad fact is that not everyone’s opinion counts the same. Just because there is an opposing view held by someone somewhere does not mean that it is equal in likelihood to the “mainstream” view.

When 99%, or even 90% of the data says one thing, and the remaining percentage is ambiguous, a reasonable person settles in and says to themselves that barring something very unusual, this one has been put to bed and need not be worried about anymore.

Then you spend your time on those cases where something usual does come up, and thus the state of knowledge advances.

337

So what are the biggest points of contention? Is there a single cohesive theory that involves Oswald not being the shooter (or being one of several shooters) which is supported by actual evidence, as opposed to just claiming flaws in the Oswald-alone theory? It’s very easy to nitpick and speculate and such, but I remain curious about where the second shooter would be (if such a shooter existed) and how he could operate unnoticed and where his bullet or bullets went.

Well, if humans with the power of levitation once existed, why don’t they exist now when verification of their abilities would be easy? As far as I can tell, Nickell proposes a possible explanation. I understand your need to ridicule him, but can you refute him? All it would take is a modern day levitator.

Fine, they might have done it. I haven’t seen any actual evidence that they actually did it, though. Could the Soviets have done it? The Cubans? Why focus on the American government when alternate theories exist?

This is quite an insult to my intelligence, suggesting as it does that I should become willfully ignorant. It’s advice I’ll decline, thanks, but if you prefer to remain in your fantasy, be my guest.

338

Not at all. There are some things that have been determined before you or I as a person came on to the scene: fire is hot, 1+1=2, I couldn’t give two shits about Obam, the moon landing is real or countries around wouldn’t have been able to watch us on our radar. Big Foot I’m not buying in the sense that there are so many similar stories around the would of some scary, ape-like critter that at some point somebody would have found some scat samples, shot one, found a skeleton, etc. UFOs I give much more weight to the possibility of their being UFOs simply because there have been tens of thousands of sightings by all kinds of qualified experts like pilots, radar guys and mass sightings to simply write off and throw it in the woo bin.

I am a Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSIOPS, style of skeptic:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

As oppossed to what Marcello called Truzzi was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism. Truzzi stated,

"They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."

Oh, by the way, what’d you think of that Joe Nickel vid? That’s a classic example of pseudoskepticism. It’s exactly what Truzzi was talking about. Joe didn’t go in with suspended judgement, he went in with his mind already made up. All he need was to come up with the Forced Plausible™ to make it happen

339

Thanks for pointing out the spelling. But no matter how it was spelled, you got the point, didn’t you?

To any skeptic that has never used the term CTer, woo, True Believer, nutter, kook, idiot, etc. pertaining to these types of topics, I apologize. It wouldn’t be fair of me to judge you guilty by association, would it? That would make you like all those other crazy wacky pseudos who automatically do it whenever the subject comes up.

By the way, how about that Joe Nickel vid? It’s like there’s a roaring silence from y’all. I’m really curious to hear you take. You did watch it, didn’t you?

340

Then please, you, with you qualifications of having read Logic for Dummies and a couple books by Shermer, needs to go tell the scientifically degreed Ph.D people who have suspicions that they are wrong and deluded.

By the way, what’d you think about that Joe Nickel vid and that groovy Forced Plausible™ he gave that gave healthy skepticism a black eye? I can post it again if you want.