Important distinctions regarding both intelligence and conspiracies. In the context of research in investigations, it is important for the practitioner, like a good scientist, to test their hypothesis against the larger pattern of facts. I think Jamey Hecht wrote a great essay where he differentiated between hypothesis and theory where conspiracy is concerned and gave high praise to practitioners who engage in the rigorous standards of a scientist when investigating political conspiracy. It's a shame that far too many engage in what I call "conspiratainment"; treating rumors and untested conspiracy hypotheses as highly probable for the sake of entertainment. This is part of why the word "theory" has become so debased in our society.
The other part of why the word "theory" has become so debased in our society concerns the power elite. It seems to me that the more deeply a theory threatens the way certain powerful institutions in society operate, the more controversial that theory is made to appear. Just ask Galileo or Copernicus. Why is it that gravity and relativity are accepted as reality, yet evolution and the greenhouse effect are a source of controversy? All four concepts are scientific theories. As it goes with scientific theories, it goes to an even greater degree for conspiracy theories. After all, the academic study of conspiracy theory hasn't exactly been embraced by institutions of higher learning to the same degree the study of scientific theory has. If anyone offers a Doctorate in Political Conspiracy Theory, I'm not aware of it. Lacking that legitimacy, it is a field of study that is easy to debase because so many practitioners fail to apply the same rigorous standards that a scientist does when testing a hypothesis.
Where the assassination of JFK is concerned, you are quite correct and it is an excellent point to make that there were some major figures (Guy Banister in particular jumps out to me) who were on loan from ONI. What I didn't know was that ONI conducted their own Dallas investigation with a different conclusion. Why has this report not been released and who is responsible for repressing it? I'm wondering if this might dovetail with my own little investigation. I've been researching the rarely reported role that the DIA might have played, taking into account the relationship Allen Dulles had with some key figures there, as well as the hidden history the DIA has had with Operation Gladio. When the DIA was created in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, one of their chief objectives was to coordinate all US Military Intelligence activities, including ONI. It would be extremely intriguing, to say the least, if the DIA played any part in the suppression of the ONI report on the JFK assassination.
Great talking to you again, H2O Man! I hope you recover from your surgery soon. Take care.
= new reply since forum marked as read
