“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
– William Colby, former CIA director
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (in his first staff meeting, 1981)
Years ago, before I met my wife, I was in a relationship that I knew could not last. A painful breakup was on the horizon, and it would fall on me to end it. I occasionally hummed words from a song by Willie Nelson, “if I were the man that you wanted, I would not be that man that I am.” The beauty of those words, I later realized, is their two edges.
4&20 now takes on the whole idea of conspiracy , referring to an essay by Jarrod Shanahan called I want to believe. I want to deal here with just snippets of the essay and comments that follow, but in the following framework: People conspire when they don’t want their activities to be discovered. The best word to describe this behavior is “conspiracy.” No small part of our criminal code deals specifically with conspiracy. The Mafia is a conspiracy, RICO laws were written to punish people at the top of conspiracies who order crimes but do not get their hands dirty. Popular lore has it that 19 Arabs controlled by a man in a cave pulled off 9/11. All of the nonsense surrounding Watergate was supposedly to uncover a conspiracy. JFK and RFK were killed as the result of … oh, wait … lone nuts.
One has to understand the power of social cohesion to understand why belief in some conspiracies (criminal and foreign) are accepted it as normal, but those by Americans are not. This blind eye to our own criminal element is considered normal, even skeptical! But the difficulty is not in the fact of opinion management, easy enough to see. People in a thought-controlled environment are the last to see it. In the world as a whole, and not just American culture, they are a tiny fringe. Two powerful forces are at work: Social pressure, and adherence to the opinions of authority figures.
Let’s take the Shanahan plunge. Here he describes a conversation with a mere working stiff::
One day a new co-worker sat grumpily wedged between us, saying nothing as our usual debate took shape. He grew increasingly agitated as we argued, and at long last became unable to stifle his perplexity.
“You guys do know that the world is controlled by a dozen families, right?” he asked us. “Ever hear of the Rothschilds? They run the economy and tell all the governments what to do. Experts agree.”
Nick and I learned that the global political order is coordinated by a tiny cabal whose tentacles extend to every aspect of society—political power, the production of cultural goods, and especially commerce, their center of activity. Centuries of war, social upheaval, euphoric boom and cataclysmic bust have all unfolded at the behest of this shadow government.
Shanahan here exhibits the exact phenomenon he is attempting to describe: Black/white thinking. Of course it is absurd to think as his truck driver thinks. He implies that because the activities of millions are largely undirected, that no activities are directed, ergo, no conspiracies.
Begrudgingly, we conceded that in the present, human events unfold within a limited set of possibilities, and that there is in fact a tenuous global order. We admitted that the actions of sovereign states, the decisions of participatory democracies, and the interplay of “free” enterprises are in fact predetermined by a logic which they cannot defy in their present form, lest it undermine and ultimately destroy them. And while we of course recognized that individuals or groups may wield immense power, take actions with beneficent or disastrous consequences, and create vast masturbatory displays of their own wealth and power, they can only do so under the compulsion of a power higher still. And among the world’s poor, individuals acting as such are powerless, with their powerlessness’ apotheosis in misguided martyrdom or impotent political violence.
Nothing to disagree with there. Let’s see where he goes with it.
As a point of divergence, however, we insisted that this higher power is ultimately not human, no more than it is divine. It has been called many names over the years, but it’s simply the necessity for capital to accumulate, and for capitalism to expand, destroying all barriers which stand in its way, and incorporating all extant social forms into its own reproduction or else wiping them out.
This is essential – Shanahan has dehumanized the powerful forces. There’s more:
At this stage in its historical development, the conspiring businessmen and heads of state are merely vectors through which capital expands, expropriates, and encloses. Particular human actors have a choice to play by these rules or be cast aside, to be replaced by others just like them. Shadowy cabals meet in broad daylight at international summits, as Chomsky is apt to remark, and their meetings are terrifically boring.
How unsatisfying! Again, no disagreement.
To face the possibility, we concluded, that the international ruling class is nothing more than the wealthiest representatives of a species dominated by forces outside of its control, is to admit that there’s no way out of eminent [sic] catastrophe without collective action capable of radically altering the very structure of society. Individuals, we conceded, are powerless as such. But classes are not. And like good conspiracy nuts, Nick and I added, “we know it sounds crazy,” but our version of events has the advantage of being the truth.
Or something close to it. I don’t know much of the truth myself, but am glad to encounter an authoritative source. Everything Shanahan says here is within the bounds of intelligent discourse. My objection is, again, his black/white mindset. He is lumping together the natural fallout of concentrated pockets of wealth and power with criminal behavior, and apparently saying that because one is natural and unavoidable … that we should not investigate and punish the other. (In the complete essay, he names the crimes we cannot investigate.) He won’t go near those crimes because of his words above, that to be suspicious of a domestic, rather than international crime, is to associate with Alex Jones. Instead, he uses his words above as a safe harbor. No need to think, no need to be sullied by the scarlet letter of mainstream thought. After all, a guy in a cave can pull off a crime like 9/11. That’s not reductionist at all.
That’s not very bright.
In the comments that follow, one can see the effect of this soothing palliative:
Nameless Range: I think it is far more useful to discuss different bias [sic] in human cognition that we know exist and can discuss and observe [sic], when we talk about conspiracies. I think too, that it is more useful to talk probabilities, which is what all history and induction reduces to, and point out why the evidence doesn’t overcome the prior improbabilities in a sufficient way as to make their claims probable. [huh?]
Also. I think these types of points of view fuel a false dichotomy. Just because someone adheres to a “conspiracy theory” does not mean they are wrong. Appeals to consensus or authority are fallacious. It is easy to slip into “conspiracy theorist” = irrational. When it may not be the case. A priori dogmas are not exclusively held by the religious. The skeptic can be just as guilty, and the evidence and arguments should speak for themselves.
The wording is convoluted, but the thought filters through: Just because our society is conditioned to avoid conspiracy theories does not mean that there are no conspiracies. It’s annoying that the credulous sector has co-opted the word “skeptic,” using it as a lever to avoid investigating crimes we have witnessed. That’s not mere history, infinite probabilities playing out, or happenstance. These are specific crimes. 9/11 was a crime that should be investigated. (Also note: his comment is written in passive voice. How appropriate.)
Lizard:
as the unofficial conspiracy theorist blogger here at 4&20, I certainly agree. and those of us who try to write seriously on this subject will sometimes go to great lengths to separate ourselves from the sometimes embarrassing diversity of the fringe, which, if I want to be honest with myself, is one of the reasons I posted this essay.
I have watched one particular member of the fringe, Tomato Guy, descend into the crisis actor meme, and though I don’t share his certainty, I also don’t automatically discount the possibility that aspects of recent “terrorist” acts and mass shootings have been planned, or staged.
I emphasized, as I’m trying to gauge the thoughts behind the words. It is really, in a nutshell, the quandary faced by the intelligent person faced with evidence: It’s unsettling. It is exactly the fear I felt when I decided last year to go forward with my thoughts on 9/11 – I was leaving the “thoughtful” mainstream, and would no longer be taken seriously on any subject. That is the degree of conditioning that goes on in our society. I use the expression “thought control,” because thoughts are controlled by fear of ostracism. Seems an appropriate phrase.
Finally, Feral Cat Freedom:
I loved this essay! Thanks! Most want to believe in some rational agent even if it’s evil rather than sheer chaos.
Note the expression of relief! No need to think. Shit happens! And if I were the man that they wanted, I would not write the stuff that I do.
_______________
There is, in every society, a resident evil. When not in power in public institutions, it operates underground. We call it “black market,” “Mafia,” “corruption,” “syndicates,” “racketeering,” “gangs.” The law deals specifically with these problems, and freely uses the word “conspiracy.” If one person commits murder as part of a group that is robbing a bank, all are guilty of murder.
What happens when resident evil assumes influence in our legitimate institutions? It commits crimes. People who are caught committing crimes while in public trust often go to prison. In extreme cases they are executed. But what if, as in Germany, the Soviet Union, pre-Castro Cuba, the criminal element also has control of the justice system. What if law enforcement is replaced by crime enforcement?
We then have a criminal regime, or what Andrew Lobaczewski calls “pathocracy,” or rule by sociopaths. We expect our institutions only to be reasonably effective in keeping resident evil at bay. But in 1947 we created an institution and specifically granted it immunity from its own crimes. Given that immunity, its influence has spread like rot, and corrupted most of our other institutions. While I am reasonably certain that the Social Security Administration and Post Office are still intact, that’s about it.
Our republic ended in 1947. We became a National Security State. Our “War Department” became “Defense” and went out in search of enemies. Our military machine, which was in the process of being dismantled, was instead strengthened. As the lamb followed Mary, Madeleine Albright famously said, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?”
In 1963 this center of impunity murdered the president. By then it could be seen that its moles had infected the FBI, Secret Service, Office of Naval Intelligence, the Dallas and Chicago police departments, all branches of the military, and had enlisted the Mafia in its work. Alien had given birth.
What’s so strange? It happens everywhere! Why not here? American exceptionalism? We’re no exception. It happened with the Catholic Church in medieval times, Spain and its conquistadors. The Soviet Union was a criminal enterprise, as was Germany and Japan in the post-depression era. Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, pre-1979 Iran, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Cambodia, South Africa … all endured reigns of terror just in my short lifetime.
Why is it so easy to see the disease in other societies, but so hard in our own?
Can we please dispense with the self-serving nonsense about the tides of history, the unintended fallout of the activities of power centers, and deal with criminals and their behaviors? Shanahan’s essay lumps all behavior, natural and criminal, into one gooey mass and says we should ignore it all because so much of it is uncontrollable. How convenient. He’ll never be stigmatized. He’ll be called “brilliant” by those who take comfort in his words.
Piece of Mindful 
There you go again Mark.
Enticing more violence.
Quote: “Conclusion
Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to
examine potential government responses. Most people lack direct or personal information
about the explanations for terrible events, and they are often tempted to attribute such
events to some nefarious actor. The temptation is least likely to be resisted if others are
making the same attributions. Conspiracy cascades arise through the same processes that
fuel many kinds of social errors. What makes such cascades most distinctive, and
relevantly different from other cascades involving beliefs that are both false and harmful,
is their self-insulating quality. The very statements and facts that might dissolve
conspiracy cascades can be taken as further evidence on their behalf. These points make
it especially difficult for outsiders, including governments, to debunk them.
Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine
democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can
dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be
counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We
have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more
rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by
cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-
minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.” -Cass Sunstein U of Chicago Law Paper.
LikeLike
I am writing about crimes, their investigation and punishment. Good grief what nonsense! You don’t want to investigate a crime because it’s a fricking conspiracy theory?
What the hell is wrong with you people? Whatever water you’re drinking, have it analyzed.
LikeLike
Take a number Mark. What makes your conspiracy/crimes more important than others?
But more importantly what solutions do your offer for the actions of our leaders in the commission of crimes and their cover ups?
LikeLike
9/11 really ought to be investigated by an independent body with subpoena power and a staff of sleuths, ya think? And if it all went down like they say, no problem. Ya think?
Crime. Not “conspiracy” although most crimes involve that. Crimes. Civilized peoples investigate in a transparent manner and hold people accountable.
Perhaps one of the highest accomplishments of the National Security State is the lumping of vague conspiracy theory with criminal activities. No one claims that the Illuminati did 9/11, but those who did need to be arrested.
LikeLike
First of all there’s no such thing as an “independent body”. That ship sailed long ago.
But lets take you for instance. Seems to me your biases are showing. 9-11 and Boston are terror related instances. Lizard people, Area 51 and Elvis living are not.
Maybe you should join a “independent body”?
When you lay out all possible pathways, no matter how ridiculous or counterintuitive they may seem, and sort the multitude of data, events, and actions upon their appropriate piles, a new reality may emerge to compete against your own bias. It is your ability to believe and amend your belief system, which separates you from the masses. “The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees.” —Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818 —
LikeLike
A court of law with lawyers and subpoena power is just such an independent body. In this regard, Boston and 9/11 are alike – no trial, no legal defense team. Supposed perps convicted on TV. (The FBI never put Osama on the 10-Most-Wanted list because by their own admission they did not have enough evidence. The Taliban offered to turn Osama over to the US if the US could supply evidence of his guilt. They promised, but did not deliver.)
Your notion of “related” is convoluted. I am merely referring to a relationship between objects of evidence. If I am an accountant and your son is too, the two facts are unrelated, so one has no bearing on the other. Therefore, no speculation is warranted as to the fact that both happened. But all of the instances of resemblance between Vogt and Bauman are indeed related, as both are double amputees who look very much alike, so that mathematically, concurrence tends to stack up against coincidence.
Schopenhauer makes no great claim to wisdom in that statement. Ir’s fairly obvious. The ability to see that events on TV are not reality is a start.
LikeLike
Courts look toward motives. Yours are showing.
You’re anti-war. 9-11 was the precursor to our invasion. Boston was a verification of our actions.
LikeLike
You’re not making much sense.
LikeLike
Muzzies are just freedom fighters.
http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113334/print
LikeLike
I find your view so constricted by your narrow outlook that you are impossible to argue with. Here you are projecting evil on Muslims, as if any one culture were not made up of people like us, mostly good, some bad. The word for that is “prejudice,” and the antidote is reading, travel, self reflection and self awareness. Start today, as the road, is long with many a winding turn …
Good day.
LikeLike
Oh yeah – forgot who you are. I’d better supply a link.
http://www.counselling-for-the-health-of-it.com/personal-development.html
LikeLike
Right up there with the National Security Act of 1947 would be the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Council. The Coup de Gras? Obama, with no new statutory authority, combined staffs of the (1947) National Security Council and (2001)Homeland Security Council, now called the National Security Staff. The King and his court. What a production!
LikeLike
The point I kind of took from the lizard or others was not that there is necessarily disagreement with anything in the last third of your post (regarding the pathocracy) but with the demonstrably kooky stuff like the crises actors theory.
The same way you yourself would not want to be associated with Alex Jones, now that you realize he is at best a nutty huckster and at worst an active disinformation agent. (although I do recall a time not that far back that you cited to him authoritatively).
Believing that an all powerful unseen hand is behind every misfortune can be a clear psychological crutch in the same way that religion is. Not trying to pick on you but you even said a few days back that it helped bring a sense of order to the world to you. That’s exactly the point. But just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.
LikeLike
People keep haranguing on “crisis actors” as if it were some wild notion that someone grabbed out of the air. The problem is that the evidence says that is what we saw. I had never heard of such a thing, would not have imagined it, but I looked at the photos realized it was all fake from the blood to the stumps to the deaths. From there I saw people who turned up elsewhere in life, like Vogt and Abbott. Who could make this stuff up?
I think the problem you and others have is the big lie – this notion of no casualties in Boston is so preposterous that even if the evidence says that’s what happened, you’re not going there. That’s all I can make of your inability to see that the guy in the wheel chair and Vogt are the same guy. The implications are too much for you. Because if this were not some monstrous crime, if it were a convenience store holdup, you’d see it in a heartbeat.
And again paranoia is not analysis of evidence surrounding crimes. The inability to look at evidence is a far more a psychological defect. Paranoia is fear of other people, that they plot against me, want to hurt me, and such. I have no such delusions. I am regular in that regard.
I had never heard of Alex Jones when I first encountered him. I had no clue of the “op” who is there to provide false leads to skeptics or the “limited hangout.” It speaks volumes that when skeptics speak of investigating crimes, people shout “Illuminati!” and “Bilderbergers!” That’s where he would take us. He poisons the well. No. We can’t demand real investigations of crimes because of the likes of him. It’s a short trip from him to UFO’s and moon hoaxes and Jews.
I don’t recall saying that this brings a sense of order. If anything, it discourages me seeing how easily fooled people are.
LikeLike
“But I do get a sense of order out of it, like having figured out how to fix a snow thrower – started out knowing nothing. I just kept at it. Now I know, and it’s kind of satisfying. If a bunch of people could see through the Marathon bombing, the spell would be broken. But that ain’t gonna happen, is it. They can look right at the pictures, and not see it. That is something to learn too, useful information.”
https://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/terra-firma/
Now that you “know” these things it brings a sense of order to the world. I went round and round with you weeks ago on the crises actors thing and basically what it came down to is that your evidence is not convincing at all. The implications have nothing to do with it because as Ive already said I agree with Russ Baker and you and anyone else who thinks “something” smells fishy about the entire Boston affair. Im not prepared to pass judgment one way or the other though (aside from discarding the crises actor thing as goofy).
The implications are no different if you were to say 1) that these guys were dupes and were led to set off bombs vs. 2) the bombs were really not even bombs it was all a play with crises actors. The implication with both is essentially the same. I don’t see how you can reference Jones and well poisoning without coming to the realization that is exactly what the crises actors thing is.
LikeLike
Sense of order refers to starting out knowing nothing and by sticking to it coming out with an understanding. I get that same satisfaction fixing or building something not having done it before. Boston was a TV show that I missed, and not having seen the show did not know what had happened. But I also had the advantage of not relying on TV to supply my reality, and so could easily see though it.
I don’t know how to answer your accusation that something is “goofy” having presented the evidence, not even knowing if you have examined it (hardly anyone takes that essential stap) and your only response being “it’s not convincing.” I don’t think you can be convinced, and don’t think it has anything to do with evidence, but rather with the idea that you presume you cannot be fooled on a grand scale.
But you can, and you have been. That’s what sticks. Also, there is the stigmata, fear of leaving the mainstream. It affects eyesight, I’ve discovered.
LikeLike
Oh I can certainly be fooled. If and when one of the thousands of internet sleuths on the case can actually present something convincing that shows (for example) that Bauman and Vogt are the same person or any other circumstances that convincingly support the crises actors I would certainly change my mind. As far as actually proving a ‘govt coverup’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ supporting this one should be about the easiest one ever to come up with supporting evidence given that both these guys identities are known and even with publicly available records it should be possible to prove if there were shenanigans. Which is exactly why it wouldn’t happen that way. The photos and various speculative opinions by non-experts in the medical field on blood & how actual trauma wounds would appear aren’t convincing to me of anything. If it were really the case that Jeff Bauman is really Voght or there is some other variation of that theory which was true it would be too easy to verify. That alone makes me skeptical that any competent illuminati would even touch such a scheme with a ten foot pole aside from the fact nobody has actually verified such a thing. Why bother doing such a thing when they could just plant actual bombs? Its kooky. Your claim that I just wont consider it because of the implications implies that I wouldn’t believe that the US govt is capable of or would consider faking such a thing or killing its own citizens. That’s obviously not the case. As far as im concerned something stinks but where the smell is coming from I don’t know. I don’t have a problem admitting what I don’t know.
LikeLike
Your use of the word “Illuminati” is a pejorative. I emphasize again that we are talking about crimes and criminal investigations. I urge that you not be satisfied with Boston until we have one. That’s a meme.
Otherwise, I’ll shorten your statement: You want an authority figure to verify the obvious claims made by non-authority figures.
I do not have to be a doctor to know that blood discolors when exposed to oxygen and sunlight. I only have to be a person who has bled. I don’t have to be a doctor to know that extreme loss of blood produces an unconscious state. I only have to heed the warnings of the people at the clinic when I donate blood. I don’t have to be a doctor to know that loss of blood in large quantities produces death. Honest, it does. That’s why a guy who has lost his legs would not be placed in a wheel chair, as the upright position encourages blood flow to the legs.
I don’t have to be a photographic analyst to see that misaligned limbs are the product of alterations in “pre-Boston” amputees, or that unusually large heads that are not centered over bodies are fake, or that a leg without a body in a photo cannot be in real life, or that Vogt and the guy wheeled out of the arena that day bear such striking resemblance that there ought to be some doubt in your mind.
I know what you want here: deus ex machina. I cannot give you that, but do offer TV, which in the absence of God, is your reality. You saw it there. It is real. Nothing will change your mind.
LikeLike
The bias’ I was referring to were the conjunctive fallacy and the narrative fallacy. Khaneman and Tversky, the world’s foremost leaders in human cognition, bias ,and decision theory have studied and observed them numerous times, detailing how human brains forgo probability in favor of that which is less probable by the laws of probabilty theory, and instead conflate uncertainties. You are a shining example.
It’s no surprise the last sentence you quoted got a “huh?” out of you. That’s induction, and you don’t understand it. All claims must be evaluated in light of their prior probabilities. So when we evaluate the probability of any particular conspiracy theory, the initial prior probability is very low. Therefore, good evidence is needed to overcome the initial improbability to make the claim probable (> .5). This is how, “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence” is quantified. Bayesian Confirmation Theory is probably the most salient and accepted position in philosophy and decision theory at current time. Blurry polaroids of sasquatch don’t prove sasquatch exists. Nor does a yellow brick road prove OZ exists. ” Fake legs and Masks and actors. Oh My!”
The reason for the passive voice was that I DO agree with certain aspects of certain conspiracy theories, and perhaps find some theories plausible if not probable themselves. But there is an enormous difference between that, and free energy beams and crisis actors and the fake limbs. Hence the reason Lizard feels the need to distance himself from you. You poison his well.
You’re nothing but an apologist with a dogma. Not only are you far too certain. But you are far too certain about that which is clearly bullshit. Exhibit A being your response to Jack Ruby above,
“The problem is that the evidence says that is what we saw.”
No it doesn’t. That’s not good evidence. Those are pictures. Hell, you deny video footage. How then do we determine if you are applying the same criteria of critical thought to all the evidence, when it is so easy to identify and internal incoherence in your methodology? Oh right, evidence that supports your a priori presupposition gets kept, the rest is CGI. I’ll let you look up that bias.
Everyone who denies your evidence is in mainstream media, self deluded denial. And you go on Psychologizing.
There are multiple ways to actually verify that the “crisis actors” are in fact amputees that existed prior to the bombings. I can think of half of dozen off the top of my head. I’m sure you and your ilk will go no further in your investigation but point to pictures and claim, “Evidence!”. It’s far safer.
There are interesting and compelling reasons to want investigation into events that seem to have not occured as reported. You are not helping this cause. You are a Young Earth Creationist at the Science Fair.
LikeLike
I’m going to take a wild guess here and say that you’ll not be back to read a response. So this is for public consumption.
I have mentioned before that you sound as though you are from academia. You are unable to clearly express yourself; you throw jargon about and cite high-falutin’ references. You are either not clear in your own mind on these matters, or the link between brain and keyboard is weak. You are words without music. Ergo, “Huh?”
Legal, and not probability theory relies on best evidence. But they are the same animal. Still photos are evidence, though not always best evidence. When we zoom in on a photo, it gets blurry. That’s a fact of life. A problem arises in that people tend to put their own biases in the blur. Confirmation bias is indeed present. A blurred photo is therefor not good evidence, but it is evidence. A large body of photos, many blurred, many not, all indicating anomalies and inferring a hoax cannot be disregarded due merely to CB or blur in so many. It should be taken with caution, but not used to satisfy your own CB.
Confirmation bias will cut two ways in that situation: Those who do not believe the official account see evidence of fraud while those who believe can’t see a damned thing.
The photos are part of a larger body of evidence, nothing more.
Confirmation bias is a common denominator among all of us. I have admitted it freely throughout my writings over the years here. I cannot escape it. You suffer from it as well, though you don’t say so clearly. But then you don’t say anything clearly.
Beyond that, there is clear evidence in the non-burred photos. The blood cannot be real, as it does not discolor over time as real blood does when exposed to oxygen and sunlight; Richard Serino, former Head of Emergency Services and now a Deputy Director at FEMA, is present at the scene running about issuing orders. (He devised a training drill in 2008 while employed by Boston that used the Boston Marathon as a staging ground for a mass casualty drill); photos of “victims” before the event have clearly been Photoshopped, even the amateur can see misalignment of real limbs for missing ones and awkward placement of heads on torsos along with the sharp lines in a blurry setting that Photoshop leaves behind. There are errors made in haste, as with a floating leg not connected to a body in a photo placing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the scene. And lots of other stuff. It’s all part of the body of evidence.
You have oversimplified the “conjunction” fallacy and seem to be saying that applying probability to coincidence is … what … always wrong? Fallacies are subjective. To say that I am an accountant and also love building things means that I work for a construction company demonstrates the fallacy. To say that two photos of amputees who bear a strong resemblance to one another, sharing the same hairline, nose, chin, eyebrows, ears in relation to eyes and nose, are probably the same person is a reasonable inference. Add to that the fact that both are double amputees, and it gets stronger. Add to that the fact that he lay there unattended for a period exceeding five or six minutes, that people around him were indifferent, that he was not stabilized but merely carted off, that he stayed conscious throughout, and we have another inference – his injuries were not of that day. Otherwise he’d be at the very least unconscious, mostly likely dead.
All of that taken together creates likelihood that Jeff Bauman and Vince Vogt are one and the same. The same reasoning applies to Heather Abbott with the exception that she is nowhere to be found in the footage of that day. Her absence is evidence of hoax. An advertised photo of a woman looking just like her who wants an acting job as an amputee (the amputation being identical to Heather Abbott’s) again creates strong inference, but not certainty. Taken together with Bauman/Vogt and it gets stronger yet. Such evidence needs a better rebuttal than mere crude reverence to a fallacy that is itself part of an “all or none” mindset.
Finally, extraordinary claims, Sagan’s famous dictum that you reference. The claims I make are not “extraordinary,” but rather unpopular. That’s an important distinction. You are suffering from confirmation bias in the extreme guided by a seeming need to believe in authority and enjoy social acceptance. That’s common.
Another commenter referenced an academic who I have read and absorbed in detail and keep handy: Marshall McLuhan. In regards to the televised medium, he said
In other words, if it is on TV, it is real. McLuhan is famous for saying “the medium is the message.” If the whole of the event were presented as photos in Life Magazine rather than as a TV show with an authoritative-sounding voice accompaniment, people would be far more skeptical. Your references to reporters and images seen on TV indicate that because you saw it on TV, it is not taken as evidence, but rather as your reality.
You, and not I, have a problem, as I don’t watch television news. I have a more objective view of reality.
LikeLike
Great stuff, Mark. Perhaps your best. You still care, man. You still care! And so do I. Our country was stolen from us, our future was stolen from us, and the legacy for our children has been stolen from us! I would not care if it had all been done legally, but it was done by criminality! And murder. We have indeed become a pathocracy! A pathocracy for the world! Evil.
p.s I am currently re-reading JFK and the Unspeakable. The first time through was so overwhelming that I had to put it down every fifty pages or so. I could not process all the evil in one sitting.
LikeLike
Keep in mind as you re-read that most countries regard international relations as a quest for balance of power, so that what JFK and Khrushchev were doing was unparalleled. There is no guarantee that he wasn’t being played by the forces behind him, as his removal was far easier in their system than JFK’s in a somewhat democratic system. But I wonder why the assassins did not merely remove JFK from office by exposure of his philandering. Jackie as victim would have sealed his defeat, IMO.
The decision to murder him had to be more – a power grab, or coup d’etat. It would have happened eventually with someone else, as the executive branch had to be neutered to allow for a permanent war footing. I regard his death as a trigger that fostered the rise of the Beatles, the riots, the protests, long hair and drug culture. That in turn gave rise to the far right, Reagan, underground wars, and eventually the Bush rise out of organized crime into respectable crime, like the Corleone’s. And that gave us 9/11 and USAPATRIOT …
It’s the narrative fallacy, as Nameless would say – connecting things that all happened only by coincidence.
LikeLike
something stinks about the Boston bombing, Jack is willing to say that much, Mark, but because you have zoned in on one narrow aspect of events, you don’t seem to be paying much attention to anything else.
LikeLike
His use of the word “goofy” scores no points.
You’ll find that I’ve written extensively about the Tsarnaev brothers, the apparent murder of one, the abuse of the other. There was also the small matter of the Watertown abuses, bad precedent, covered here. The FBI’s handling of the matter is nothing more than exposure of the manager/patsy relationship, easy to see, covered here. SK and I have discussed the implications of use of Chechens as patsies in the grander stage in the comments, the confrontation in Syria and use of events like this to keep tensions high, people angry, so that there is no organized opposition to military aggression.
So it chaps me a bit to have you come here all to offer advice or take shots at 4&20 about my descent into the “fringe.” it is very difficult to hold a point of view that is at odds with TV truth, but it is easily apparent that the crowd scene at the Marathon was staged. There were no victims other than the Tsarnaev’s. What do poets say about people who steadfastly stick to unpopular views? To keep our heads when all,about us are losing theirs …?
The death of Todashev and the supposed accidental death of
antwo FBI agent[s] involved inhis[the arrest of Dzhokzar Tsarnaev]killingall are very suspicious. There is a coverup going on. That is SOP in major crimes like this. People who know too much start having accidents.The state of mind in this country is creepy and somnambulant. TV owns the public mind.
LikeLike
O boo hoo, Mark. you have no problem trolling other sites to let people know how stupid and brainwashed they are, so in light of that, my comments on your descent are pretty restrained.
I don’t think you have the fortitude or the humility to create a space where honest inquiry and speculation can occur. instead of opening minds, you are shutting them down. I’ve pointed out before that is also the effect of your trolling, but you don’t give a shit, because for you it’s more about entertaining yourself than it is about trying to be respectful and persuasive.
LikeLike
Read these words with great care, as I am unable to put images on a TV screen to induce automatic belief: We have in-depth discussions of issues here, and sharp exchanges. As a poet you seem oddly unable to transcend media to get to the essence of things. My message is not a pleasant one: You are in a thought-controlled environment, and will not escape it until you realize it.
Aside from that, if I take a shot at you here, you are able to respond here. Asshole.
LikeLike
you don’t seem interested presenting information in a manner that could be persuasive, you seem more interested in martyring yourself, and being banned from blogs you troll acts as confirmation of your martyrdom.
you think you escaped your Catholic upbringing. I think you just replaced it.
LikeLike
I write about persuasion as it really exists. Words don’t work, as people are never persuaded that way.* They are psychologically undermined. So why would I be interested in writing that way? It’s pointless, and not me.
I’ve never “gotten myself banned,” nor am I a martyr. I am just a writer who writes for effect. I can put words on paper that move people. I can evoke compassion and concern, humor and anger. It’s so easy and so much fun that I do it every day. Others would rather that I stay in bounds, never imparting anything more than information in words. Not my style. The result of my style of writing is disruptive, so I am banned. I must have some kind of power! Censorship is the ultimate admission that words carry impact. Others who work in my style, like Kailey, are never banned. What separates us?
Most of the American public believes that global warming is not real. How did that happen? Did Exxon reason with them? Or did Exxon study them and find a message that undermined them? They were not persuaded. They were subverted.
____________
*Reminds me of a situation where verbal persuasion does have some effect: A jury. People are disarmed before being impaneled, warned to set personal prejudice aside, and asked to weigh all sides of a well-presented argument. They often change their minds. I can’t think of another forum that has that effect. It sure ain’t blogs where, as far as I can tell, no one has ever, ever changed their mind about anything.
LikeLike
I also called it kooky.
LikeLike