Home

Evidence, nuance, & Persuasion

2 Comments

new-logo25 James Hufferd, Ph.D.

Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization

______________________________________________________________

Does overwhelming evidence persuade? Generally not, surprisingly. Because Americans at least, by and large, tend to accept, with little or no effective questioning, the official explanations of a rapidly growing number of horrific events — of which the JFK assassination and 9/11 are only the most prominent examples – either based on trumped-up (good word!) or no credible evidence at all.

Meanwhile, purveyors of alternative explanations and narratives, including scores of untitled,,,top-notch, impeccably credentialed, and highly reputable scientific investigators, have produced by now thousands of highly persuasive documents, books, and documentaries garnering scores or hundreds of irrefutable facts implicating insiders and point-by-point expositions of necessarily elaborate plots. And read and digested by mostly us activists ourselves. In response, the general public remains inert and unmoved, and more often than not, indignant at even the best-intentioned iconoclasts ineptly trying to disabuse them of their (note the word!) blissful preferred ignorance. After all, no one likes to be woken up from the “security” of a sound and pleasant sleep.

Part of our problem for certain is nuance.  Streamlined simplicity carries the day almost always. Most people aren’t news nerds, deep investigators, or eager buyers of highly unpleasant realities that, if embraced, are likely to get them into an awful lot of trouble as well as spoil their day. And there is a growing perception currently that we are drifting through shark-filled waters, making it advisable to stay inside the boat, with plenty of examples of the sorry fates of those why didn’t. It’s not so much a matter of people believing what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, as of people declining to embrace something proven to be imprudent, dangerous, and practically-speaking (just ask them), totally useless.

Think of your family sitting around the big table at holiday time. At least, your relatives aren’t likely to actually kill you over your unpopular, however evidence-driven views about 9/11. But you might not get invited back next year if you open your mouth too often for comfort and might even find yourself shunned before dessert rolls around. But, at least you won’t have to listen to credible, focused counter arguments that bolster the official position, because there aren’t any.

In fact, whatever headway you can reasonably hope to make with your self-protecting kin or anyone else inclined to push back has got to be achieved very quickly. You’ve got to be prepared to state irrefutable points in rapid-fire fashion, 1, 2, 3. Because that’s all the time and attention you’re ever likely to get. So, be prepared. And though even (if not especially) your own kin are likely to explode, erupt, or play hurt in response, you’ve given them a gift of something not too difficult to remember, to ponder alone and maybe even check out. And note, the genius of this approach is not that you’ve foisted on them a whole seminar or the equivalent of an 18-page well-reasoned technical paper. Quite to the contrary.

Prepare, be forearmed, and you can wade even into online blogs you know will be predisposed to hostility from the first clue. Find a way to insert yourself into a thread on a however remotely related subject in such a way as to succinctly assert at least a couple of unanswerable points of 9/11 evidence, provide a couple of choice web site links, and get out, leaving them showering obscenities on the snippets of text you’ve left behind while mumbling innocuously in their beards or beers or both. I did that last weekend, joining an online blog discussion of a hit piece/hate piece article in National Review, an unapologetically bitter right-wing rag. I quickly got as scurrilously savaged as a rat in a pit-bull ring, but picked up as a reward almost four-hundred instant visits to this web site. Do things like that. Be fearlessly persistent! No one kills you on the internet. (It’s later.) Don’t go for soft targets all the time. Make people think for whom thinking is a revelation, who have never thought or have forgotten how. Politely slam hard-right and left-gatekeeper bullies in the gut, those Fox-fed jackals who assume themselves well-insulated from raw reality’s ravenous rigors. Understandingly shame them that they don’t know… well… anything when it comes to reality, and ever so gently persuade them that they’re not alone and why they need to either learn and pass it on or die stupid. (Because, if you know but rest on what you know, due to fear, dread, complacency, or ennui, you’re a worse obstacle than those who don’t or don’t want to know.) Cynicism has already changed the world as much as it’s ever going to.

If you’d like to stimulate viral readership of any of the articles posted here (www.911grassroots.org), leave a comment, pro, con, or otherwise, to ignite a discussion – the more the better – it works!

Duty to Warn: Part 2

Leave a comment

strip bannernew-logo25By Gary G. Kohls, MD

_________________________________________________

Why do Good People Become Silent About the Documentable Facts That Disprove the Official White House Conspiracy Theory About 9/11? – Part Two

Last week’s column was prefaced by some very wise words from Frances Shure, a psychologist and an early 9/11 truth-seeker who has seen through the official conspiracy theories that first came from the Cheney/Bush White House and which were then endlessly re-broadcast by the complicit corporate-controlled media as “The Truth” – without any documentable proof – about what happened on 9/11/01. What she said bears re-reading and can be found here:

Part Two follows.

The CIA’s Invention of the “Conspiracy Theorist” Smear Campaign to Discredit Dissenters

In his 2013 book, Conspiracy Theory in America, author Lance deHaven-Smith traced the term “conspiracy theory” back to a CIA propaganda campaign that was designed to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission’s fake search into who assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas. In this light, the use of this pejorative term is obviously a tactic to shame and humiliate those who saw through the ulterior motives of the commission, and thus effectively censor out or even banish anyone who questions official government accounts.

The Warren Commission, to its eternal shame, ignored the testimony of a multitude of eye witnesses to the crime that proved that there were shooters both behind and in front of Kennedy’s motorcade. Many witnesses, none of whom were called to testify, had heard shots coming from the grassy knoll in front of the motorcade.

One of those eye-witnesses was an emergency room physician that attended Kennedy’s dying body. He would have testified to the commission that there was a tiny entry wound in JFK’s throat as well as a large exit wound that blew off the back of his head (depositing a chunk of his brain on the trunk of the limousine – which Jackie was shown retrieving in the famous film of the assassination by Abraham Zapruder). More

The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK

43 Comments

Note:  As we sit on the edge of another catastrophic election, it might be well to remember our history and those who decided what they wanted was far more important than what the country needed.  This is a lesson in what may happen when the elite are allowed to act without accountability.  Originally published in 2011.

Guest Author:  Robert Morrow

___________________________________________________________

“the President believes that this is going to open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again” – an obvious reference to the JFK assassination. Nixon’s aide Dean Burch said that when George Herbert Walker Bush heard that “He broke out in assholes and shit himself to death.” More

%d bloggers like this: