The Backyard Photos Have Insomnia

[Jerry Freeman]

Yep, and the obvious way your opinion is molded by your manipulative conspiracy elders indicates that you're the classic example of a sheeple. Congrats!

"manipulative conspiracy elders"? Mad Jack is just too much!



 

[Matt Grantham]

Interested if anyone has any ideas on how we  would come up with criteria for measuring sheppelism There3 must be social scientists that try to measure this, but I had trouble finding any

[Bill Chapman]

Appeal to rebellion

 CTers want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psychological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". Cters want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory: "In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"

(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

[Bill Chapman]

[Matt Grantham]

 Plenty of evidence for well documented funding for the mechanisms of indoctrination and assimilation. Bernay's perhaps being the most accessible example Some here may scoff at the relationship of materialism and authoritarianism, but what is the need of authoritarian system if it doesn't have something to sell The bastardization of Smith and Ricardo also appear high on the list of the corruption of mainstream authoritarianism. I am not sure what the estimates are for the dollar amounts dedicated to 'marketing' from the beneficent overlord class, but lets say it is a few bucks more than any countervailing efforts

 Interesting that  the previous poster makes no effort at identifying markers of indoctrination and the deterioration of critical thought, instead just a singular narrative of an individually derived proclamation. Hayek, at least, believed the capitalist and/or entrepreneur was the personification of rebellion.

[Jerry Freeman]

In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"

(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

It is not the government's function to tell people what to believe. It is the governments function to administer and implement  the Constitution of the United States.
Let's get this thread back to the Backyard Photos that can't seem to be put to rest.

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry Iacoletti, wrong again.

Sorry "Mytton", lying again.

Oswald killed a police officer in front of eyewitnesses.

Wrong.  Only Helen "I didn't recognize nobody" Markham witnessed the killing and she (allegedly) identified Oswald in an unfair, rigged, lineup because she looked at his eyes and sort of fell over.

Oswald's shells discarded at the scene were a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle

Wrong.  You haven't demonstrated that it was "Oswald's rifle" or that the shells had anything to do with the assassination.

Oswald was seen by more eyewitnesses fleeing while fumbling with a gun.

Not a crime, and the bogus unfair lineup is still unfair.

Oswald's jacket was recovered between Tippit's murder and where Oswald was arrested.

Also not evidence of anything -- particularly since you can't prove it was Oswald's jacket or that it was connected in any way to a crime.

Oswald resisted arrest.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Who told him he was being arrested and on what charge?  And why does the arrest report not have the "resisted" box checked?  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theater.

Wrong.  Not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  But even if this is true, it tells you nothing about who killed JFK or Tippit.

How could they use evidence that they never saw? Doh!

Then what is the source of your beloved CE134 that your whole "yellow blob" analysis rests on?  Doh!