Should the Kennedy assassination and UFOs even be discussed in the same critical piece?
In an intriguing article (‘Black and White and Gray’) in the October/November issue of ‘Port of Call’ (Region VII Newsletter for Intertel) Dr. Steve Mason proposes the question:
“How do you determine if an individual has a reasonable grasp on reality?”
But, of course, many would opine it’s a loaded question and automatically respond: Well WHO is doing the testing? Does the person – in the matter of the question at hand – have his own grasp of reality (especially knowledge) on the subject, or is he just fooling himself? Is he merely a therp or psychologist, lacking knowledge or expertise on the specific matter? Then his assessment can’t be worth much. (Mason himself observes that “between Relativity and Quantum Physics there is a lot of gray”. Indeed! Particles behaving as waves, one electron passing through two diffraction holes at the same time, etc.)
In many matters, such as the belief in things like the Loch Ness monster, UFOs (as actual alien craft monitoring us 24/7), Scientology’s clearing of “engrams” and Abominable Snowmen (Yeti), it isn’t a matter so much of grasp of reality as distorted reality. Somehow the people invested in these beliefs (which mean, btw, accepting something as factual without evidence) have allowed their overall grasp of integrated reality to be distorted by an emphasis on a “one trick pony” (e.g. UFOs as alien craft) which robs their ability to profoundly grasp the rest of what’s going on in our world. But I assign the same sort of distortion to those who never read books and only get their ‘news’ from comedy shows, or who have their nose stuck in smart phones tweeting nonsense all day long.
The issue of who assigns “reality” is also key. And also, just what constitutes it? Is it based on one type of perception, or multiple ones as well as reasoning in terms of those. Well, I have what I call an ‘integrated reality’ test which I will post next so people can see how they do. It isn’t predicated on asking nonsense questions for way out beliefs (whether in Yeti or 4” high fairies that speak Gaelic) but rather real world attention and response to real world issues – whether in economics, politics or basic science.
In his article Dr. Steve notes that “for many years” it was his job to “judge the sanity of others”. He wrote that “if they said I was the one who was crazy then I knew for sure they were nutters” – which is a fair response. But then again, it depends on the issues being discussed. And rather than calling someone “crazy” a better question is: How well informed is the person regarding the issue under debate?
Is what is referenced as a “nutball” issue really that, or is it purely a product of inattentive orthodoxy which – as author Curtis White noted in his book, The Middle Mind- is all about preserving a politically vanilla landscape which doesn’t tolerate challenges to the order paradigm. White's contention, well supported in his book, is that an entire government -corporate PR - academic specialist structure “exists to manage the public mind.” This is to ensure its collective thoughts don't veer too far off the orthodox path, or into realms that seriously question or challenge the powers-that -be. As he puts it (p.12):
"We have the lovely pretense of serious inquiry: no one gets hurt and no one has to worry that something undesirable might come of it. Like a demand for real thought. We are free to say anything we like so long as what we say does not suggest...that the ruling order has no right to rule"
IF one then asserted JFK was murdered as part of a coup d'etat, to enable a national security state elite takeover of the government, then this comes close to saying the same thing.
Psychologists, as author Chris Hedges has warned ('Empire of Illusion', p. 129), bear particular scrutiny. As Hedges observes:
"Psychologists, in and out of government, have learned how to manipulate social behavior. "
He goes on to note that such manipulation has as its primary objective an adherence to conformity, especially of thought. (The cult of "positive psychology" is particularly involved in this, but psychologists are also part of the CIA's ongoing psych agenda, as first demonstrated in "Operation Mockingbird")
“There are those who believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy involving LBJ, the CIA, the FBI and maybe even Lee Harvey Oswald – but the jury is out on the last one,.”
But it is exactly here where he crosses the line from a logical assessment of extreme fringe beliefs to a real world political case and for which an actual conspiracy has more than ample evidence to support it (based on files released since 1993). This also leads one to ask if he is really qualified to say anything about the event even peripherally or via invoking sarcasm. For example, I don’t take seriously anyone’s opinion if s/he can’t first pass a basic test to do with the actual constellation of accepted facts in the case, e.g.
The aim of the test is to expose the lack of actual knowledge concerning a real historical event, say as opposed to mere anecdotes or rumors concerning a mythical entity like the Yeti, Loch Ness monster or “Big foot”. If then a person can’t even get at least 18 correct then he isn’t qualified to discuss the assassination – or even offer quips. And if he isn’t qualified to discuss the event then he’s not qualified to discuss a conspiracy pertaining to it.
For example, Dr. Mason - as is usually the wont of JFK conspiracy skeptics or phobics (like Marilyn Elias of the SPLC) indiscriminately bundles possible components together without any explanation or clarification. Thus, when the untutored reader reads the passage highlighted above – with seemingly unrelated components (FBI, LBJ, CIA) muddied together, it appears that the whole conception of conspiracy is absurd. But that has been the intent of the 'Mockingbird' media for as long as I can recall. (Google: “Operation Mockingbird”). Is Dr. Steve part of the Operation Mockingbird axis? Hardly. He’s just a specialist – like many others – probably unaware of it, because he hasn’t done enough investigation and research on his own. But this is precisely why HE is the one responsible here for distorting others’ perceptions regarding the JFK case.
If one intelligently grasps that the ones who actually carried out the deed are separate from the architects, then he also sees it's egregious to conflate actors as if they are all distinct possible conspirators to the same degree and with the same objectives. But had Steve Mason really done his preliminary work (after deciding he’d interject a few lines on the JFK conspiracy) using texts such as Donald Gibson's 'Battling Wall Street - The Kennedy Presidency', he'd have seen how the CIA, Oil, Banking, and the Military-Industrial Complex have been in bed together for decades. He’d also have seen how close LBJ and
As for LBJ, no one - including me- has said he was an active participant. But no one other than a dunderhead (like Vince Bugliosi) would deny he stood to gain immensely if JFK was knocked off - since Kennedy planned to dump him from the 1964 ticket on account of the political damage from the Bobby Baker scandal. Knowing this, and there's little doubt he did, all LBJ had to do is nominally assent to an existing plan, probably made aware of it by Allen Dulles or
Mason next tries to skirt all these issues – after he’s basically knocked all past and recent JFK researchers – by appealing to an old and tired meme: that all of us humans are “pre-disposed as hard-wired pattern seekers”. So the evolutionary instincts that served us long ago, i.e. seeing patterns in the bush betraying evidence for the presence of tigers or snakes, are now re-directed to searching for patterns of conspiracy or some form of outer control.
Of course this is bollocks. First, just because pattern perception was valuable once doesn’t mean it has ceased to be in certain cases (e.g. disturbed articles in rooms of one's home betraying an intruder's presence). And second, the assessing of a real conspiracy entails far more than perceiving a pattern. It also entails examination of hard evidence – such as the
fraud generated – and analyzing it using physics and human anatomy, see e.g. the
approach used herein: Warren
As I carefully showed in the above link, the uncovering of the fraudulent nature of the Warren Commission Report is step one in uncovering one branch (the cover up) of the three-pronged conspiracy.. This was perhaps most crucial because it meant bending the minds – or trying to – of millions of Americans to the false conclusions of the Warren Commission, and that was ultimately Johnson’s creation. The two other prongs – as noted by deep politics researcher Peter Dale Scott were: 1) the framing of Lee Oswald, see e.g. the clear role of the CIA in laying the groundwork for Oswald to be the patsy:
And the actual assassination itself – carried out by at least three teams in a triangulation of cross fire. (As evidenced by the bullet numbers, trajectories and directions) That Oswald himself couldn’t have been involved has been demonstrated by the fact that his alleged rifle couldn’t even be operated – couldn’t be tested properly in the aftermath, e.g.
Again, the above rifle test trials aren’t based on simple “patterns” or perceptions of such, but actual physical tests of the purported rifle used, and carried out by a team of experts. No one who has thoroughly understood the consequences of the tests would remotely believe Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination, other than as a patsy. As for Peter Dale Scott, he's repeatedly warned of the media's role in conflating all three conspiracy legs when discussing the assassination, But this could likely be part of the Mockingbird disinformation plan.
Mason ends his piece by somewhat lamenting the hyper-speculative, 'belief in anything' state of affairs, in terms of those who propose “fringe” entities and conspiracies, but also likely those who've researched the JFK conspiracy, i.e. with LBJ, the CIA and
“So what do you say to someone who tries to fill you in….Absolutely nothing. It’s like trying to teach a pig to whistle. It wastes your time and it annoys the hell out of the pig.”
Teaching pigs to whistle? (Bad analogy, Steve!) What Mason is getting at is that it’s futile to attempt to stop people from searching for patterns and applying them to real life, but often coming up with “unseen” jabberwocky like Alien anti-grav craft monitoring humans 24/7, or discharging engrams through Scientology or tracking Yeti in the Himalayas.
But what it doesn’t address is the uncovering (often by diligent work-research) of hard evidence in actual historical events such as the JFK assassination. What about confirmation bias? As a scientist I’m trained to always examine assumptions and facts brought to bear to ensure I am not merely confirming what I already suspect, or selectively extracting only evidence that comports with a hypothesis. I’ve faithfully practiced that not only in my past research into solar flares and sunspot morphology, but also in the JFK case. By such assiduous practice, as I noted in my recent book ‘The JFK Assassination – The Final Analysis’ , I have been able to eliminate the hypothesis that “Oswald dunnit” otherwise known as the “lone nut” hypothesis. It fails on so many counts that it doesn't even make the serious threshold and only a naïve or untutored person would accept it.
Would that others (e.g. Marilyn Elias, Glen Garvin, Steve Mason etc) could summon the same energy before commenting on a case they know little or nothing about – and especially conflating it with truly marginal or fringe beliefs, examples. This tactic confers little benefit in helping people distinguish ideas-beliefs- theories of merit from those without, while also calling into question their own credibility.