Skip to main content

View Diary: The missing link: Discovered! (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Keep the killing of King out of your argument! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I strongly agree that climate change denialism is nuts.  But do not equate it with a conspiracy to kill King.  The King family backed a lawsuit against Lloyd Jowers for a fine of just $100 to prove that a conspiracy of government agencies including the FBI, the Memphis police department, and the US Army engineered the killing of King.  It took a jury just one hour to unanimously find for the King family in agreement with that argument.  

    William F. Pepper, the King family lawyer who argued for them at that trial, has written a book about that trial and the conspiracy.  Before you dismiss the conspiracy as ravings of lunatics, I strongly urge you to read his book.  I opened the book with an open mind about who killed King.  It will demonstrate that James Earl Ray was a "fall guy" for the conspiracy.  

    But rather than listen to me,  go check out the book here.

    Here is a key quote from the top review from the Amazon page for the book which I link to above:

    Pepper's investigation determined that King was most likely killed by a hidden gunman who happened to be the Memphis police force's top marksman, and he in turn was backed up by Army Special Ops snipers posted on nearby buildings to "triangulate" the target. (Perhaps this sounds absurd --- please read the book.) A patsy, James Earl Ray, was framed to take the rap; the rifle he supposedly used was found to be woefully inaccurate, and bullets fired from it didn't match the one that killed King. Witnesses and peripheral participants in the crime were murdered. Evidence was lost or tampered with. Ray pleaded guilty on the advice of his lawyer, Percy Foreman, who had deep connections to the likely perpetrators of the assassination. A massive cover-up and disinfo campaign ensured that the public would discount any version of what happened in favor of the official myth.
    •  So ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WarrenS, boatsie, Nowhere Man

      What I have there is a quotation from the study's abstract -- not my words.

      Are all theories about conspiracies wrong? No.  

      Am I willing to get into discussions of various 'conspiracies'?  No.

      The point of the work was try to identify linkages -- and the King assassination was among their touchstones.  

      What, which is a point you could point out to them, is that they might have a problem where they are mixing "truth" and "denialism" within the questioning: that some of the cases of "conspiracy theory" might be (or simply are) correct, with the "advocates" engaged in truth-seeking discussion (and willing to take evidence that shows them to be wrong seriously and, if it is of high enough quality, to move them away from the 'conspiracy theory') while the global warming denialism is simply a rejection of rational discourse.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:14:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  From Lewandowsky (0+ / 0-)

      Stephan read through the commentary -- I specifically suggested several comments, including yours.  From his note to me:


      I largely agree with your comment in reply to the King theory: The issue is the linkage between conspiratorial thinking and rejection of science, plus the clustering of people’s beliefs (so that if they believe King was FBI-assassinated, they also believe that NASA faked the moon landing).

      There are, of course, true conspiracies, (viz. Bush-WMD-Iraq) which makes it difficult to dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand. It’s possible, however, to identify the cognition underlying conspiracist ideation, which is what I’m interested in (e.g., the fact that absence of evidence is taken to be affirmative evidence; the fact that the presumed conspirators are simultaneously all-powerful but small in number, the fact that the conspiracy is extended to include all contrary pieces of evidence etc. etc.). So there is a ‘thinking style’ that leads to endorsement of lots of conspiracies combined with rejection of lots of scientific findings.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 05:40:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site