By fearing whom I trust I find my way
To truth; by trusting wholly I betray
The trust of wisdom; better far is doubt
Which brings the false into the light of day.
Abdallah al-Ma’arri (973-1057)
I get flack from some quarters regarding state of mind, as in “he’s a little off-center,” getting old,” “on a tangent” … and a “conspiracy theorist” as the suggestion goes. It’s a little difficult to explain, and a problem – if I were crazy, I would be the last to know it.
So first I have to self-examine: Am I paranoid? I don’t believe so. No one is out to get me. I don’t even think that NSA is watching me. I don’t matter in the large scheme. We look out over the city of Denver from our home, and it helps to see the mass of people out there and to realize that I am one small pebble of sand on the beach. So paranoia is not a problem.
Am I seeing things that do not exist? That is strictly a matter of examination of objective evidence. This part troubles me, not that I have a problem, but rather that most people do: They either are oblivious to the obvious, or in denial. I see what I see, and can show it to anyone else and yet … as with the butter-plane going through a building, which is physically impossible … they cannot see it. The eyes only show what the mind allows.
Dr. Judy Wood, in her analytic manner, suggests three reasons why people cannot see the obvious: Poor problem solving abilities, group think, and fear of the implications.
Poor problem-solving abilities: All of us can fill in blanks. If we hear a chain saw in the distance, we can assume that there are trees there. If we hear gun shots, we know that there is hunting, target shooting, a drunk at midnight, a military funeral, or in rare cases, a crime or act of self-defense. If we hear a noise at night, we quickly analyze all possible noises, and if it doesn’t fit, get up and investigate. So we are not helpless in the matter of solving problems.
However, due to the power of suggestion and hypnotic quality of television news, we chuck all of those abilities when we see problems in need of solutions on TV. We accept the pronouncements of officious-sounding TelePrompTer readers as factual. I do not understand this phenomenon well, but know I am susceptible to it too. If it is on TV news, people assume it is true.
Another aspect of problem-solving was succinctly put by Conan Doyle: the dog that did not bark. Certain things that did not happen should have happened. Why were the windows not closed in Dealey Plaza? Why was President Reagan, the most heavily guarded man on the planet, not protected from a shooter hiding in an alley? Why was the most sophisticated defense system in human history simply non-functional for one whole day? Why was a hurricane sitting off New York not reported to the residents? We need to know why things that should happen do not.
And there is also basic mathematical progression. The odds against one thing happening are incidental, that is, when a golf ball lands on a green it will hit certain blades of grass and not the others. That’s a matter of happenstance. But the odds of two related incidents happening can be paired – the odds of heads/tails is always one in two. The odds of two heads in a row is one in four, and three in a row one in eight … it is possible to flip a coin one hundred times and get heads every time, but the odds against it are astronomical – two to the one-hundredth power.
The odds of related phenomenon happening together are always subject to mathematical progression. One “plane” being successfully hijacked is highly unlikely given sealed cockpits, distress codes, ex-military pilots capable of defending themselves, and a military defense system response. Four “planes” on the same morning? Astronomical odds! Couple those odds with practice drills that just happen to have been running that day that just happened to place fighter jets in distant locations … even if there just happened to be four successful hijackings, the odds of normal air defense system being shut down are astronomical squared. Stranger yet: Even as airliners supposedly crashed into buildings, there were no identifiable engine parts, seats or door handles, wiring harnesses or metal parts or black boxes. The odds of not finding at least one part with a traceable serial number? Astronomical cubed. Couple those odds with what was found: a hijacker’s paper passport.
That, friend, is impossible. What are the odds? Imagine every beach in California. Imagine one grain of sand. Those are the odds.
Group think: We all need human companionship and form groups naturally with people of similar interests. Groups are an important element in personal happiness. But some of us are different in one regard: while we need companionship and warmth and comfort, we buckle when the group imposes its will on us.
As a youth I belonged to the Boy Scouts, and was known as an odd duck who did not play by the rules. When it was suggested to the group that we divide up and play games, I suggested we do “Ring Around the Rosie.” I was told by the troop leader, a certain officious Boy Scout named Tom Jacobson, that “We don’t talk like that here.” Those words have stayed with me over the years. Who is “we?” Was it Tom? Was he speaking for the whole group as an authority figure? Or, more likely, was he expressing a melding of minds that had become self enforcing? I’ve lived many years, but certain words spoken by certain people stand out. That was the group speaking, telling me to conform.
I was relegated to a “patrol” of similar boys. We were called the “Burning Arrow Patrol, and were held in low regard. I lasted one year, never making it to Eagle Scout, but more importantly, never wanting such a thing.
Some of us by nature are formed of a higher state of consciousness than the group, and so cannot be bent to its will. It isn’t that we do not need groups and companionship, but only that we do not yield to the herd mentality.
Fear of implications: Leave it to Dr. Wood to nail it succinctly. I have often said that if you can see a little, you will see it all. The trick in avoiding reality is to avoid seeing details. There appears to me to be conscious intent on the part of those who so rigorously believe in official truth: they know that if they see one detail that cannot be true (butter plane flying through building, passport surviving inferno), that their whole outlook will come undone.
Belief in things like Jesus, America, Boy Scouts, education, democracy, freedom and the official 9/11 story, JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC, Boston – these stories all require submergence of the intellect into the illogical. If we doubt but a little bit, it all collapses.
Doubt is the beginning of education. If we see one thread that cannot be and realize that the whole cloth depends on that one thread, our instinct is to believe FIRMLY in that thread. Those of us of higher consciousness are not susceptible to such fairy tales. It appears to me that we are born that way, or that something in our youth causes rebellion.
Whatever it is, only a few are able to see clearly. I am proud to be one.