JW's and JFK - It Makes A Certain Sense. Try it out...

ZeroKool29

Hello everyone. I think it's time for MY KIND of Sunday Talk. Per WTS standards, I will be making effective use of questions, illustrations and practical application. I will be using repetition for emphasis and, if you could see me, there would be gestures.

I began thinking about this tonight, I rented JFK. Now, my girlfriend just finished reading this book written by a forensic pathologist. In this book , she says the author took the forensic evidence available for study in the assasination of JFK, and, after carefully examining it, he found that no evidence to his knowledge existed that somone other than a lone shooter (Lee Harvey Oswald) was responsible. I do not believe the lone gunman theory because I have seen alot of evidence that speaks against such a thing. The evidence I have read and researched points to a plot to assasinate the president. But, as wierd as it seems, the discussion that she and I had concerning this relates very well to leaving ths WTS.

I would like to see if anyone else's brain works the same way mine does. So I will leave this post the way it is and see what you all have to say about the similarities between the two subjects. Believing a lone gunman or a conspiracy and WTS or no WTS? I will check back in a little while, see the replies that I HOPE will be here, and then comment some more.

bisous

Okay, well here is my 1st reaction

JFK - lone gunmen or conspiracy theory relates in a similar way to me because..............

WTS = Lone gunmen theory ... fed to the public by the reigning authority (governmental body). Systematic suppression of information to subvert opposing theories.

NO WTS/Apostates = Conspiracy theory ... arrived at by research of all the facts AND other possible circumstantial evidence not even considered. Governing body oversees ongoing propaganda war to deflect inquiry.

Carmel

CRISIS OF CONSCIOUS = PLAUSIBLE DENIAL?

bisous

Conscience.

And please elaborate.

Sentinel

Here's my take. No matter what evidence is presented, a person has to be open-minded enought to look at new information and accept a new idea or theory before they will accept anything different--no matter how it's presented. Even if you have facts and proof, they still cling stubbornly to their opinions. If they are close-minded, it won't occur to them to counter what the most acceptable thought patterns of those they look to for information. This is quite obvious to me when the subject of the JFK assasination comes up.

In the borg, we were/are condemed if we look outside the "box"; therefore, we find ourselves forced to accept their dogma as fact and truth. The sad thing is, those in the borg are labeled if they seek answers or information from anyone or anything other than the WTBTS. We are told that only they have the source of spiritual food that we need, so what they say about their "truth" is the final word and seaching for answers and speaking "outside of those confines" could cause you to be labeled as an apostate and possibly disfellowshipment. So even if a JW is somehow presented with a new idea, fact, or proof, they will most likely still cling to that safe little box. This is most frustrating, when we are trying to help family and friends.

/<

Loris

This is a quote from an article Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in "otherwise intelligent" people. In order to effectively change beliefs skeptics must attend to their survival value, not just their data-accuracy value.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

It is something I have to review anytime I am investigating a new thought about religion etc. My beliefs are so ingrained that I have to remind myself that I can change them if I need to. It's as tho I have to give myself permission to change belief systems. Coming away from the WT has been the most confusing change of all.

There are people that have deeply ingrained beliefs about JFK. Getting them to change that is just as hard.

Loris

ZeroKool29

Ok. These are the thoughts that occured to me when my girlfriend and I got into a discussion about whether the JFK assasination was a conspiracy or not. She had just finished reading a book by this forensic pathologist who, after reviewing the evidence of autopsy findings and all, had concluded that one gunman could do what was done in Dallas. I, on the other hand, had read Jim Garrison's book, watched the movie JFK, looked at other sources and had concluded that the more likely explaination was a conspiracy. She asked me why? How did I think that the people involved with some conspiracy could have gotten away with it. She asked me who I thought was really responsible. My inability to come up with a definite answer as to who was responsible seemed to deflate my argument with her. But, I asked her to watch the movie JFK and she did. I agree, the movie is in large part a fabrication, but for the most part the evidence presented in the story is true and verifiable. Connections between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald are a matter of public record. Guy Bannister and Clay Shaw (Bertrand), Lyndon B. Johnson, the headlines in New Zealand charging Lee Harvey Oswald with the crime 4 hours before he was charged with the crime in America, military units assigned to provide supplimental security for the president being ordered to "stand down" that day, the changing of the parade route, eyewitness testimony of shots coming from the grassy knoll, the Warren Comission editing, omitting and outright fabricating eyewitness testimony. The kicker was the difficulty of the shooting had it only been Oswald and the "magic bullet" theory. She had not been privy to this information and, after seeing it, she came to the same conclusion I have been operating under : Although the evidence that exists does not conclusively point to the culprits, it is enough evidence to render a belief in a lone gunman obsolete and naive. If a person believes there was only one gunman, that Oswald did it, all they would need to do is look at a small sample of the evidence tha exists to the contrary to realize that such a belief is foolish. I feel the same way about JW's. The problem is, JW's view the consideration of ideas that are contrary to their teachings as detrimental to their prospects of eternal life.

freydi

QUOTE: "I agree, the movie is in large part a fabrication, but for the most part the evidence presented in the story is true and verifiable."

There is obviously a conumdrum.

My question is why didn't Garrison subpeona any members of the Warren Commission?

Jim Garrison's Closing Summation: http://www.prouty.org/closing.html

funkyderek

bisous:

WTS = Lone gunmen theory ... fed to the public by the reigning authority (governmental body). Systematic suppression of information to subvert opposing theories.
NO WTS/Apostates = Conspiracy theory ... arrived at by research of all the facts AND other possible circumstantial evidence not even considered. Governing body oversees ongoing propaganda war to deflect inquiry.

I see it almost exactly the other way around.

Non-WTS / real world = Lone gunman theory - The world is largely as it appears to be. The crazy guy with the gun who appeared to shoot the president really did shoot the president.

WTS / (to some extent) religion in general = Conspiracy theory - Introduction of a "heap of evidence" designed to discredit various aspects of the official theory; there are powerful shadowy figures behind the scenes manipulating world events. Appeals to a sense of melodrama.

Hoi polloi: Don't really care and haven't really examined the issue but in general give too much weight to the conspiracy theory: "there must be something in it"

SixofNine

I see it as FunkyDerek sees it, and I'd add that there is much good, solid evidence for the one gunman.... but it takes a much more open mind to look at that evidence, as it is counter-intuitive.

JW's and JFK - It Makes A Certain Sense. Try it out...

Share this