DISCUSSING THE MINDSET OF CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&st=0&p=220215&#entry220215
Via the YouTube private message service, I recently had the following
interesting discussion with Mr. Mike Picardi about conspiracy
theorists and the JFK assassination:
-----------------------------
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
Request for Mr. Von Pein:
Date: Feb. 21, 2011
Hello Mr. Von Pein,
I'm a 34 year old business owner and screenwriter. I'm currently
doing research for my current screenplay that centers around the world
of conspiracy buffs, kooks, authors and debunkers. My protaganist is
a debunker (much like you) who bumps into many conspiracy theorists
along his travels.
As my main character is a man much like yourself, I think I could
learn a great deal in regards to character profile/research from what
your thoughts are on a number of things. Mainly, your disposition on
the JFK CTers in particular. I recently phone interviewed Professor
John McAdams who was very nice and generous with his time. He gave me
an interesting point of view and it really helped me. I've been
researching online and your fine website and blogs keep coming up.
I'm a former CTer (as a youngster) who now knows that Oswald was
guilty as hell. I do not have the special outlook that folks like you
and Prof. McAdams have towards dealing with prominent CTers.
I wanted to politely ask if perhaps I could ask you a few questions/
interview you anytime that you would find convenient. I see how busy
you must be and I certainly do not take offense if you are unable.
I'm seeking a breif background, your spark of interest in the JFK case
and your dealings with strong CTers.
I'm in Chicago and can provide references to prove who I am via my
company website. I only offer that as some I've requested interviews
with have been afraid that I'm a kook.
I really enjoy your JFK website and have gotten much needed info from
it - thanks!
Please respond if you have a moment and I will look forward to hearing
from you.
Thanks,
Mike Picardi
===============================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hi Mike,
I'd be happy to answer your questions. I'd rather do it via e-mail/
written correspondence. I find that I can articulate my thoughts
better in print.
I can answer one of your questions right now.....
You asked:
What provided my "spark of interest" in the JFK case?
That occurred for me in 1981 when I bought and read David Lifton's
fairy tale book of nonsense entitled "Best Evidence". I have a blog on
that book, here:
http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com
I know that that review isn't as in-depth as some who have written
reviews for it, but it cuts to the chase regarding just how absurd
Lifton's thesis really is. And he is still postulating that same basic
"body alteration" theory 30 years later too. You can find some of
Lifton's more recent interviews here (near the bottom of the page):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html
Fortunately, I wasn't persuaded by Lifton's book, but I did find it
fascinating reading nonetheless.
And from that point on, my interest in JFK (and particularly his
assassination) grew and grew.
I really haven't read all that many physical books on the JFK case,
although I have read most of the "lone assassin" books, plus a few
conspiracy ones too, with most of my recent information about the case
coming mainly from online sources. Mary Ferrell's website and "History
Matters" are invaluable resources when it comes to finding documents
of all kinds re the assassination.
And, of course, I have gathered a lot of (false) information from
talking and arguing with the "CTers" (as we LNers call them) on the
Internet.
I'm sure if you've looked through some of my blogs (where I like to
archive just about everything I write online), you can tell just
exactly what kind of nutjobs and conspiracy kooks I've dealt with the
last few years. Some of these people are just unbelievable in the
things they believe.
Do you realize that a prominent CTer (Jim DiEugenio) actually believes
that witnesses Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle just MADE UP their
story about Oswald carrying a large bag on the morning of 11/22/63?
That is how desperate some of these people are to exonerate Mr.
Oswald. It's crazy.
In short, it's my belief after conversing with several of the kookier
conspiracy theorists on Internet forums that those type of "outer
fringe" CTers can never be swayed to let go of their theories,
particularly their notion that double-killer Lee Oswald was merely an
innocent "patsy" and never shot anyone (not even J.D. Tippit!) on
November 22, 1963.
That type of "Anybody But Oswald" theorist WANTS a conspiracy to exist
so badly that they are willing to call EVERYONE "liars" or "cover-up
agents" who block their path toward their "patsy" goal.
A great example of this is the previously-mentioned James DiEugenio,
who is a very smart and articulate individual who possesses an immense
amount of knowledge about all of the 1960s assassinations (JFK, RFK, &
MLK) -- and, btw, not surprisingly, he thinks that all of those
murders were conspiracies.
I've argued with him many times since 2008, and have noticed that
there doesn't seem to be ANY limit to the number of plotters and co-
conspirators and after-the-fact cover-uppers that he believes were
involved in wrong-doing re JFK's death. He keeps adding more and more
plotters and liars with each passing month and year.
I've noticed that there is something inherent about the JFK murder
case that makes ordinarily very smart and sensible and rational people
somehow want to turn off their "common sense" switch in their brain,
so that they are now open and willing to accept almost any implausible
theory that comes down the pike.
David Lifton is another good example. He's certainly a very smart
person. I don't deny that for a minute. But he got involved in this
(JFK) case back in 1966, and somehow all of his normal logic and
common sense was thrown down the toilet after he talked with some
witnesses who told him some things that he should have realized COULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
It was physically impossible for the things Lifton theorizes about in
his book to have actually happened, but Mr. Lifton thinks they
definitely DID happen nonetheless -- e.g., body alteration, casket-
switching, JFK's body spirited off of Air Force One in full view of
many witnesses who HAD to have been there, and--get this--his belief
that ALL of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza came from the FRONT! ALL of
them! This, despite the BACK WOUNDS being suffered by both Kennedy and
John Connally. Can it GET any sillier than this? And yet we have a
very smart person like David S. Lifton writing about such silliness,
year after year.
It's almost as if there's a built-in mental barricade that prevents
such conspiracy theorists from being able to step back and say to
themselves -- 'Hey, this is kinda crazy, isn't it?'
But they never ask themselves that logical question. Instead, they
throw away all garden-variety common sense when it comes to so many
aspects of the JFK assassination (as you have no doubt seen, if you've
looked at some of the discussions I've had with people like DiEugenio
and the total nutcases I've battled at the Usenet newsgroups).
If you have additional questions, I'd be glad to answer your
inquiries.
And you picked a good man to interview previously too -- Professor
John McAdams. He's a man who knows far more about the case than I do,
and always approaches things with common sense and logic at the
forefront. He has a new book coming this year which I look forward to
seeing -- all about the way "CTers" think. It should be enlightening.
For more insight into Mr. McAdams' JFK thinking, I can direct you to
yet another webpage of mine that I created that includes many hours of
radio debates on the JFK assassination that John participated in.
Those audio files are here:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/radio-debates-featuring-john-mcadams.html
Thanks for writing, and thank you also for your kind words about my
sites and blogs. I'm just glad to know that at least a few people out
there are getting some use out of them.
Best regards,
David Von Pein
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
===============================================
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
Do you believe it's possible that CTers (the otherwise intelligent
ones) ever "wake up" and make a decision to keep the CT stuff going
out of pride, books, money? What do you believe a guy like DiEugenio
would do if he figured it all out today? Would he admit it?
===============================================
DVP SAID:
Hi again Mike,
I think it's quite possible (or even likely) that most life-long (and
long-time) conspiracy theorists do, indeed, "keep the CT stuff going"
due to the combination of things you just suggested. And particularly
"pride".
It certainly isn't an easy thing to do to admit you were wrong about
something that you have studied for many years (such as the JFK
assassination), especially if that person has written millions of
words, articles, and books about the topic of conspiracy in the case.
So, I really cannot envision a person like Robert Groden, who
practically lives in Dealey Plaza on the weekends trying to sell his
completely-wrong conspiracy-slanted books and videos, ever being able
to wake up one day and say to himself--or anyone else--"I was wrong;
Oswald did it after all". He has too much to lose if he ever did that.
Now, that same type scenario can easily be applied to LNers such as
myself and Professor John McAdams, too. I.E., if we were to ever
become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy DID exist
in the JFK case, would we be able to swallow our pride and throw away
years of research and blog posts and articles, etc., and admit to the
world that we were wrong and we have now joined the ranks of the
conspiracists?
I'll be very frank with you, Mike -- when studying upon that question,
I truly cannot give you an answer one way or the other (as for me
personally).
I can't answer such a question, because I have never reached that
point regarding my belief in any kind of a believable conspiracy
(although there are JFK researchers, like Anthony Marsh for one, who
have accused me of actually believing in a conspiracy--deep down--but
I simply won't come out and admit it--because I'm a "propaganda"
machine, per some CTers I've talked to).
But I'd like to BELIEVE that I would have the integrity to admit I was
wrong if the day ever arrived when I was confronted with evidence that
I truly thought WAS credible evidence of a conspiracy (and not just
simply another "theory" spouted by the next in a long line of CTers
with a book and a theory to sell). If that day ever comes, I guess
I'll find out.
But thus far, I haven't been convinced of any large-scale conspiracy
and cover-up, despite the efforts of people like Jim DiEugenio, Mark
Lane, Oliver Stone, and Bob Groden.
Those people haven't come close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that ALL of the vast amount of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was
faked, planted, or otherwise tainted. And to believe in THAT kind of
"It's All Fake" theory is, quite frankly, to believe in miracles of
the first order. And miracles don't happen very often.
===============================================
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
One more follow up question to that - I believe that you can NOT
change a CTer's mind using the facts of the case at all. You must
trick them into engaging into a lesson on how to think critically
without their knowledge, of course, and maybe with that newfound
talent, they will look at the case and their claims again with a
different viewpoint. Do you agree? I would love your thoughts on this
if you do not mind.
===============================================
DVP SAID:
That's an interesting line of thought, Mike. "Tricking" the conspiracy
theorists into thinking in a reasonable and logical manner.
To tell you the truth, I had never thought about approaching the
conspiracy theorists in such a manner. But it does sound like a good
technique to use. But I'm a little dubious about having any success at
"tricking" any of the hardened and hard-boiled CTers on the Internet
into thinking in a totally different manner about a murder case that
many of them have practically spent a lifetime studying.
From my experience with online CTers, I've learned that the thought
processes of many of the conspiracy theorists about THIS particular
subject (the JFK assassination) are just not the same as their thought
processes when it comes to other topics.
As I said in my first message to you, it seems as if THIS CASE is a
one-of-a-kind subject that I have never seen duplicated (although,
lately, I think the subject of "9/11" might come close, what with the
various nutty kooks who now want to believe that NO PLANES AT ALL hit
the World Trade Center or the Pentagon).
But something weird seems to happen to certain people when the JFK
assassination topic comes up. A person who would probably, under
different circumstances, not be so willing to toss in the trash EVERY
LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against the defendant (Oswald in this case), is
more than happy (even eager) to accept the notion that ALL of the
evidence pointing to Oswald is somehow corrupt.
To me, that type of thought process is just nutty, and particularly
when we're talking about TWO murders that Oswald was charged with--and
not just one. Because a lot of these conspiracy kooks (the otherwise
intelligent DiEugenio included) also want to pretend that ALL of the
evidence that exists against Oswald in the Tippit murder is also phony
and intentionally tainted -- including every one of the many
eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Oswald as either the one
and only killer of Officer J.D. Tippit or the one and only person seen
running away from the vicinity of Tippit's murder.
Crazy conspiracy talk, huh? Yes, IMO, it is.
===============================================
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
I did NOT know that DiEugenio made those claims about Frazier and the
curtain rods - it's almost sad to me (still a bit funny). Does he
guess as to why they lied about it?
===============================================
DVP SAID:
Yes, DiEugenio at least tries to explain his very flimsy reasons for
why both Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing
Oswald with a large paper bag -- with Jim D. claiming (without a SPECK
of evidence to support this silly claim, mind you) that the Dallas
Police forced Frazier to tell that whopper of a lie about the bag (and
the cops apparently forced Randle to tell a similar lie).
Below is a direct quote from DiEugenio on the subject (which is
contained within a quoted passage that I wrote in an Internet post
last year):
"[Jim DiEugenio] said on Black Op Radio that Buell Wesley
Frazier had been "pressured into doing what he did" by the Dallas
Police Department. And the "doing what he did" portion of that quote
is referring to DiEugenio's belief (at least as of January 2010) that
Frazier had been "forced" (DiEugenio's word) into telling a lie about
seeing Lee Oswald carrying a bag into the Book Depository on November
22, 1963. Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in
[the video that appears on the webpage linked below]): "I think Wesley
Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police
forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard]
Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; 1/14/2010"
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-46.html
===============================================
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
Again, I thank you for helping me out and I hit your website almost
every night - really great stuff. I especially like the pages where
you take on CTers claims, one by one.
===============================================
DVP SAID:
Thank you very much, Mike. I've enjoyed talking with you. Write
anytime.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
===============================================
MIKE PICARDI SAID:
Hi Mr. Von Pein,
Very interesting answers to all of my questions and I really
appreciate the time you spent responding to me.
First off, you may certainly use any and all of our messages for
anything you like. You can use my name, etc. I'm very glad that you
enjoyed the discussion that much.
I think it's worth sharing that I used to be a CTer. My own conversion
story relates to some of what you wrote in regards to 9/11 truthers.
I was a CTer because, as a kid, I read all of the conspiracy books. I
would always skip over the books that were pro Oswald - after all, I
wanted to learn about the conspiracy as that is what interested me.
After years of reading and interest, I was still NOT aware of facts of
the case but I sure knew most of the different conspiracy theories.
I left the subject alone for years, then 9/11 happened and so did
"truthers". I was disgusted at what I saw and read, but something
sounded familiar - the same "passion for the truth" and the same
acceptance of nearly or totally impossible things, and it was the same
stuff I had read in the JFK CT books.
I decided to look at the facts of the case this time and it was a
matter of days when I realized what happened that day - Oswald did it.
There are things we will never know...Oswald still did it. Some FBI,
Dallas Cops, Secret Service, etc. could of done a better job - Oswald
STILL did it.
I give myself a break for believing in the conspiracy as I was young.
I also had the integrity to admit how wrong I was.
One point that I've formulated on my own is this - (talking to a CTer)
Let's say for a minute that Oswald DID do it and it pretty much
happened the way the WC said (giving a break for the human factor and
imperfections), then how do you think the evidence WOULD look?
Wouldn't it look JUST like it does? What would you expect it to look
like if Oswald DID do it?
The above worked really well on a CTer at my work and he often cites
it as a spark of his conversion to a LNer. So, I just wanted to share
it with you.
This strange phenom of an otherwise intelligent person (like
DiEugenio) suspending logic in this case alone is something that
fascinates me to dig into. I actually don't mean to pick on Jim
DiEugenio at all, as I only cite him as I heard him on a debate and he
seemed very smart and well informed to me.
I can't thank you enough for all your time and I will certainly send
you some more questions as I write this screenplay.
Chicago Lone Nutter - Mike Picardi
===============================================
DVP SAID:
Thanks for your latest message, Mike. I appreciate it.
And good luck with your screenplay.
And remember to have your main character in your screenplay ask the
following question when confronted with every conspiracy theorist he
meets who thinks that President Kennedy was struck with bullets that
came from the FRONT of his limousine and who also believes that Lee
Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent patsy. That very logical question
is this one:
If the conspirators who orchestrated the murder of President John F.
Kennedy wanted to frame a lone person named Oswald for the murder,
then why on Earth would those plotters/conspirators have even
CONSIDERED for a single moment the idea of shooting at JFK from the
Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza?
Such a multi-gun plot that ALSO involved framing Lee Oswald (who was
located in the Book Depository at the time of the shooting) is one of
the most ludicrous and bound-to-fail assassination schemes I have ever
heard of.
But many, many conspiracy theorists (including the likes of Oliver
Stone, Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and Robert Groden)
actually believe that such a plot was planned IN ADVANCE of November
22, 1963.
That is just one example (among many others) of conspiracy theorists
trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. And it doesn't matter
how utterly illogical or outright stupid such a plot might be from the
get-go, the conspiracy mongers who actually support such nonsense will
pretend it is the truth from now until doomsday (with Oliver Stone
actually making a multi-million-dollar motion picture that depicts
just such an idiotic multi-gun, one-patsy assassination scenario).
I'm always amazed by the number of people who fail to see the built-in
illogic that exists within such a "multi-gun, solo-patsy" plot. More
conspiracists who think Oswald was an innocent patsy and who also
think JFK was hit by frontal gunshots in Dealey Plaza should ask
themselves the question I posed above. If they asked that question
more often, maybe some garden-variety common sense would begin to seep
into their skewed thinking.
Regards,
David Von Pein
aeffects
<snip the lone nut trolls lunacy>
Have you no shame dipshit? Hiding behind another Von Pein alias (and
of course Von pein is an alias too!).... man, you must get winded with
all the name changes during the past 10 years.....
You're never going to hit the bigtime media troll, you haven't what it
takes....
Carry on dipshit!
Gil Jesus
<snipped Von pein nonsense>
The Conspiracy Theorists in this group want to talk about the evidence
and the LNers want to talk about anything else.-- Gil Jesus, 2/22/11
Baron Wrangle
Yes. Bringing up David Lifton, Harrison Edward Livingstone and their
ilk is the best way to defend the Warren Report. Take a look at the
Warren Report and the evidence, and the game is over.
BW
Walt
Baron said....."Take a look at the Warren Report and the evidence, and
the game is over.
Well said, Baron..... Any honest and intelligent person who compares
the Warren Report against the actual evidence can't help but see that
the Warren Report is the "big lie". Just as Hitler's propaganda
minister used to convince gullible Germans that the Jews were the root
of all evil.
This not to say that The Warren Commission didn't put the security of
the nation first and foremost. I don't believe their intentions were
evil...they simply thought that the American people couldn't handle
the truth, and the truth would have destroyed the myth that the US is
a flawless nation. They thought that Americans would have rioted and
lynched the bastards responsible if they told the public the
truth..... Who knows...They may have been right, but I for one
believe that our system of justice would have taken care of the
problem and we would have emerged a stronger and better country
because of it.
Bud
The retard tells a lie then quotes himself as if he said something
profound.
Bud
Then why is it the only explanation of the evidence on the table?
Surely the conspiracy retards should be able to produce something that
can be put beside it for comparison. But the reason this even
attempted is because once the retard version of events is produced, it
will become obvious even to the retards what a contrived mess it is.
Nothing but weak ideas strung together by the necessity of believing
Oswald was innocent. Reliance time and time again on extraordinary
actions (forged, faked, coerced, "in on it") that can`t be shown.
> BW
Baron Wrangle
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17411&st=0&p=22...
To have a mindset, you must have a mind.
BW
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17415&st=0&p=220309&#entry220309
WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>>> "There's no evidence that he [Lee Oswald] was a nut case." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There are DEGREES of "nuttiness", Bill (as I'm sure you'll agree).
While it's true that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the raving lunatic type
of nutcase who hallucinates and thinks he sees millions of rats trying
to attack him (like that fellow "Renfield" in the 1931 film
"Dracula"), it's definitely true that Mr. Oswald was not RIGHT IN THE
HEAD when it came to some pretty serious things -- like, say, the
value of human life.
After all, when a man is willing to take a rifle and aim it at
somebody with an intent to kill that person (as Oswald most definitely
did do on 4/10/63 when he tried to kill General Walker, despite all
the protests of the CTers to the contrary), well, that person has
something inherently WRONG with him, IMO. And after the Walker
incident in April, I certainly WOULD have classified Mr. Oswald as a
"nutcase". It's just too bad nobody knew about Oswald's involvement in
the Walker shooting before November 22nd.
And then there's Oswald's choice of countries that he wanted to live
in (and defect to) in 1959--as a mere 19-year-old kid....the Soviet
Union of all places on this wonderful Earth. The Soviet Union...during
the Cold War!! That's as nutty as all get out, too.
I'm sorry, Bill, but I must disagree with your analysis of Oswald as a
non-nut. That guy was as screwy and nutty as an 11-dollar bill.
And, of course, as all reasonable people know, this same "nutcase"
named Oswald killed Officer Tippit and President Kennedy on November
22. To deny his involvement in BOTH of those murders is just too silly
to believe for more than two seconds.
A person who thinks Oswald was innocent of BOTH the Kennedy and Tippit
murders has no choice but to pretend that ALL of the physical evidence
was faked or fabricated. Again, that's crazy talk.
And the actions of Oswald himself speak volumes....both before and
after the assassination. Evaluating his movements and actions (and his
provable lies) can only lead in one direction -- guilt in the two
murders he was rightly charged with on 11/22/63.
As for Tom Scully's barrage of facts and articles -- none of that
material is relevant to determine whether Lee Oswald was innocent or
guilty. And none of it is even relevant on a peripheral basis either.
Scully is merely playing the same game all "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracists have played for many years -- he throws up something
that he thinks looks suspicious, and he's now going to play the "THIS
FACT MUST THEREFORE MEAN THIS" game.
And bringing up the Connally connection is just too funny. Does Tom
Scully really think Oswald was shooting at John Connally? Or isn't
that relevant at all in Scully's conspiratorial scenario?
The bottom line is -- There's not a shred of physical evidence in this
case that implicates anyone else but Lee Oswald. And if conspiracy
mongers want to pretend that ALL of that evidence (and, somehow,
Oswald's OWN BEHAVIOR) was manipulated and faked--well, go ahead and
believe it. People like Oliver Stone certainly do.
But I'll choose to stay on the side of reasonableness, thank you.
Fantasies are better suited for the movie screen.
And speaking of fantasy movies and Oliver Stone....
http://Amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1