A Topic for LN's: What is a CT?

[Joe Elliott]

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I have no problem with WC Defender instead of LN because apart from some disagreement about Oswald?s motive those who align with the findings of the WC are consistent in their belief. The events happened in a particular way and no other. I am seeing CT used here as a term that is undefined and therefore interpreted differently depending on the members view. What a CT is becomes more like beauty, dependant on the mind of the beholder.

Personally I don?t have a theory that explains the events at this stage. However from what I have read and interpreted I am sceptical about the WC version. I do believe man landed on the moon, that Bigfoot does not exist, that creationism is merely a religious belief and that evolution is scientifically based. I do not believe in the illuminati or conspiracies involving the Freemasons, New Word Order, Skull and Crossbones, that climate change is real.....

I am a sceptic.....someone who is trained to be....that?s how scientific method works.

Good. But it is common for CTers (in regard to the JFK assassination) to be CTers in other fields.

** James Fetzer - the leading spokesman for the ?Zapruder film was faked? (at least until he made his anti-Semitism public) also believes in a multi generation world-wide Jewish conspiracy and has become essentially a Holocaust Denier. Also, a proponent of other Large Secret Conspiracies that have remained hidden, like the U. S. Government planning of the 9/11 attacks. And also, behind an attack on an Elementary school.

** Jim Marrs ? whose book was used as a basis for the movie JFK was also a believer in UFOs and the U. S. Government?s conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs. Indeed, I would suppose he believed that many or most of the world?s governments were involved in this conspiracy.


** Mark Lane ? a leading CTer over the decades who also argued the U. S. Government was behind the Jonestown tragedy. I think he carried more responsibility for this than the U. S. Government although it was Jones?s own paranoia that was mostly to blame. But Lane did a lot to feed this paranoia.

** Michael T. Griffith ? CTers go to authority on arguing against the Neurological Spasm Theory for explaining how JFK?s head could move backwards after z314 due to a shot from the front. And Griffith became this authority by checking with doctors, without telling them of the existence of films showing goats being shot in the brain, until he found a doctor who thought such a theory must be false. I be curious to know if the doctor would have thought so if Griffith was honest with him and showed him this film.

In any case, Griffith also believes in Scientific Creationism and that the Theory of Evolution is false. He also argues that the North was wrong to fight the Civil War and that the Confederacy was right to secede from the Union and it was wrong for the North to prevent this.

While none of this (necessarily) shows a belief in large conspiracies, it does show evidence of wacky thinking by Mr. Griffith.





Also, we have posters at this forum who hold Pro CT believes and a belief in other large secret conspiracies. I know of no LN on this forum, or a major LN spokesman, who does.


In any case, there does seem to be a strong correlation between people believing in the JFK conspiracy and also believing in other large secret conspiracies. Not all CTers are like this, but a lot are, including major spokesmen for the CT case. This is to be expected. If one shows a tendency to believe in one large secret conspiracy, one is probably more susceptible to a belief in others.

And so, believers in any large secret conspiracy theory, whether it is on the JFK assassination, or UFO?s, or Holocaust Denial or whatever, should not refer to themselves as ?Skeptics?, of any sort. Any more than believers in Creationism should refer to themselves as Scientific Creationists.

[Colin Crow]

You like to refer to Michael Shermer a lot......

"Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but ceased to believe in the existence of God during his graduate studies. He accepts the labels agnostic,[5] nontheist,[6][7] atheist and others.[8][9][10] He has expressed reservations about such labels for his lack of belief in a God, however, as he sees them being used in the service of "pigeonholing", and prefers to simply be called a skeptic."

From Wiki......

How ironic.

[Colin Crow]

Skeptics and scepticism
Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?
Rebekah Higgitt  @beckyfh
Wed 14 Nov 2012 00.12 AEDT First published on Wed 14 Nov 2012 00.12 AEDT

I was somewhat disconcerted to see something completely erroneous appear in Guardian Science's own Notes & Theories blog. It was this:

"A word about the distinction between sceptics and skeptics. A generic "sceptic" questions accepted beliefs. In this way, we have "man didn't go to the moon" sceptics. (Some people won't believe anything.) Skeptics are different: they espouse the evidence-based approach ? and find the world wanting in many respects."

Yikes! As an early commenter rightly pointed out, the sceptic/skeptic spellings are simply UK and US variants, although later commenters denied this and continued to perpetuate the error. Somehow the British spelling now denotes "bad" scepticism (i.e. questioning scientific consensus on topics as varied as vaccination, lunar landings and climate change) and the US spelling is identified only with "the evidence-based approach" to ? something-or-other.

It is true that the capital "S" Skeptic movement uses the US spelling even in the UK, but that is an extremely circumscribed use of the word. It is one that is not widely known or understood outside particular communities. Before about 2010, when I started blogging and using Twitter, it's something I had never come across (and I say that as someone who has an interest in science, is an atheist and attempts to make decisions rationally and based on evidence).

To compound matters, this was written by Deborah Hyde, editor of The Skeptic magazine. To not understand the meaning and history of the title of your own publication is a worry.

Scepticism, or skepticism, is neither denialism nor a movement. Based on the Greek skeptomai, which means to think or consider, it usually means doubt or incredulity about particular ideas, or a wider view about the impossibility of having certain knowledge. This uncertainty is a philosophical position, and philosophical scepticism includes attempts to deal with it, through systematic doubt and testing of ideas.

So, let's be clear. In the US you can be a climate skeptic. In the UK you might consider yourself a Skeptic and approach knowledge in a sceptical way. It also appears that it is possible to be a Skeptic and yet not be a sceptic. Hyde's parenthetical "Some people won't believe anything" dismissal of "bad" sceptics suggests very little understanding of what scepticism really means.

This goes to the heart of much recent criticism of Skeptics, often coming from within the movement itself. The charge is that many self-identified Skeptics are not properly sceptical (or skeptical) of the positions that they or their leading figures take up. Rather, a tribalism or group-mentality develops in which ? unthinkingly ? certain positions are condemned or approved.

It would be wrong to tar every self-identified Skeptic with the same brush. However, all too often what comes over to those on the outside is a rather narrow and repetitive focus on particular topics and, more importantly, a condescending, over-confident tone in engaging with those who disagree or who have given such things little thought.

These things matter if Skeptics are really interested in changing or opening minds rather than getting together and having a good laugh about whacky beliefs. Hyde's article suggests it is the former that now takes precedence:

Many skeptics retain a hobbyist's level of delight in debunking psychic powers or ghost stories, and that's where the movement started. But the subject matter has become more serious and political. In the last decade, the most formidable opponents of alternative medicine have not been government regulators, but skeptics.

She adds vaccination, the teaching of evolution in schools, gay rights and abortion rights. Her claim is that Skeptics, or nerds (or geeks) are "the people with the best intellectual tools to rebut the traditional postulates". I would query that, if her "nerdocracy" means the self-selected (and not necessarily experienced or qualified) group that might identify with the term. As it stands, they also may not be the best (and should certainly not the only) group to attempt to communicate the issues to the broader public.

I'll end simply with a reminder that the etymology of scepticism implies enquiry and reflection, not dismissiveness.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2012/nov/13/history-science

[Bill Chapman]

'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*

Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.

K.I.S.S. =  Keep It Simple Sherlock  =  Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald



*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs

[Colin Crow]

'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*

Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.

K.I.S.S. =  Keep It Simple Sherlock  =  Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald



*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs

On the contrary Bill.......

You can all become more sophisticated by providing a simple definition of what you deem CT'ers to be. A task so far has yet to be reached by your group.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Colin Crow]

'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*

Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.

K.I.S.S. =  Keep It Simple Sherlock  =  Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald



*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs

By the way Bill simplicity is not the same as simplistic.....

[Walt Cakebread]

Specifically, CTer, here, means someone who believes that there was a successful conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.


In general, CTer means someone who believes in any large conspiracy that successfully kept a secret for a long time, however unlikely this would be. Examples are:

** A worldwide Jewish conspiracy to do evil things to non-Jewish races.

** illuminati

** Freemason?s

** Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

** UFO coverup


A sign of such a conspiracy theory is if the proponents do not provide a list of all the people involved because the list would be too large and make it too obvious that they believe in a large conspiracy.

You've omitted the most obvious....The US Government.....   

[Joe Elliott]

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I have no problem with WC Defender instead of LN because  . . .

And I have no problem with LN or ?Lone Nutter?. There is a tradition of supporters of Democracy adopting the derisive name the other side gave to them. Like ?Yankee Doodle? or Yankees.

Personally I don?t have a theory that explains the events at this stage. However from what I have read and interpreted I am sceptical about the WC version. I do believe man landed on the moon, that Bigfoot does not exist, that creationism is merely a religious belief and that evolution is scientifically based. I do not believe in the illuminati or conspiracies involving the Freemasons, New Word Order, Skull and Crossbones, that climate change is real.....

I am a sceptic.....someone who is trained to be....that?s how scientific method works.

It doesn?t matter which Large Secret Conspiracy you believe in, which amazingly enough, has kept its secret for a long period of time. If you believe in any of them, Freemasons, New World Order, JFK conspiracy, you are not a skeptic. Or sceptic. No matter what you call yourself.


Holocaust Deniers can call themselves ? ?Conventional History Skeptics?
Moon Landing Hoaxers can call themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?
JFK CTers can call also themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?

None of them are skeptics. Anymore than ?Scientific Creationists? are a type of scientist.



It?s no good to say the JFK conspiracy has not successfully kept its secrets, at least to any thinking man. Because the World Wide Jewish Conspiracy believers will say the same thing.