Conspiracy: A Beginner's Manual

By Eleanor Van Dorfft

The subject of conspiracy seems to be growing by leaps and bounds since the beginning of the twentieth century. If you are a novice in the field or would like to reach a deeper understanding of the subject, this book takes a wide overview of all things conspiratorial. Many Conspiracy Theories - historic and current - are discussed in a manner which will help the beginner navigate these treacherous waters.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Martian Publishing
• Release date: Feb 29, 2016
• ISBN: 9781310007774

Book preview

CONSPIRACY

A BEGINNER'S MANUAL

By Eleanor Van Dorfft

MARTIAN PUBLISHING

Copyright 2016 by Martian Publishing Company

Smashwords Edition

All rights reserved.

No portion of this volume may

be reproduced in any format

without the express written

permission of the copyright holder.

A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing

but a lot of knowledge is far more dangerous.

── Ignatz Verbotham

They say it's all coincidence.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck,

and quacks like a duck, they'll tell you

it doesn't mean anything.

Experience tells me: it's a duck.

── C. Fenway Braxton

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE –

Chaos and Confusion;

What Is Conspiracy?

1 – How Some People See Events Differently

2 – Trusting What the Media Tells You – Instincts Have to Count for Something

3 – The Devil is in the Details

PART TWO –

Wheat from Chaff;

Detecting the Tools Being Used

4 – Misdirection Undetected

5 – The Grand Conspiracy

6 – Understanding the Lay of the Land

PART THREE –

Fan the Butterfly, Spank the Monkey;

The Mental Masturbation of Conspiracy Theory

7 – A Fertile Imagination Waiting for Seeds

8 – Not All Paths Lead to Truth, or Insanity

9 – Knowing When to Reign in the Wild Surmises

PART FOUR –

Déjà Vu All Over Again;

Historical Conspiracy - Unweaving Illusion

10 – Seeing Dead Presidents

11 – Linking Tragedies

12 – Waiting in the Wings

PART FIVE –

The Truth is Out There Somewhere;

When Eternal Vigilance is Never Enough

13 – Where is the Conspiracy Evident?

14 – The Heart of the Matter

APPENDIX

NOTES

Introduction

Before fifty years ago, conspiracy was a very minor subject, rarely touched on by several disciplines: political science, history, and criminology. Today, it is a major field of study all on its own.

A major motivator in this rise of interest - if not the primary impetus - was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, November 22nd, 1963. Of course, the tragedy in and of itself did not create the groundswell of conspiracy chatter but rather the resulting investigation by the federal government. The rather shabby case cobbled together by the collision of diverse political agendas did nothing to answer the multitude of questions about the tragedy. Many sensed something was being hidden and, quite naturally, many feared the worst.

It was not just that the Warren Commission had to rely on a magic bullet or that the accused lone nut was murdered before he could be brought to trial, though those two unstellar moments added greatly to the malaise of disaffection, but there were a great number of other questions that seem to have never been addressed in the course of the official enquiry.

Because of the uproar over the published findings and the subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Francis Kennedy, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was convened to examine the cases. Their final judgment exonerated the Warren Commission from any persiflage but did, however, concede that the crime was the result of a conspiracy. Even with this Pyrrhic victory, the conspiracists found the case put back on the shelf for many years. Many wondered: if it was a conspiracy, why then isn't the government reopening the case to get to the bottom of it? Would American Justice simply turn a blind eye and allow the co-conspirators a free pass?

Evidently so, as that is what they did.

Almost thirty years after the crime, Oliver Stone's film JFK energized a new generation to bring pressure to bear on the government. In response to this general outcry, the Assassination Records Review Board was established to try and declassify the documents surrounding the Kennedy assassination and allay the fears of the people.

The release of these documents - hidden since the Warren Commission's days - proved that something was amiss in 1963 and the politicians on the Commission were attempting to defuse a fragile political situation by wrapping up the case as quickly as possible. They had to pin it on Oswald and him alone so the crisis would not escalate. To many researchers today, the crisis seems to have been offered lamely as an excuse, the excuse for rushing to judgment. The alleged crisis seemed as illusory as justice, as slippery as the best machinations Allen Dulles and the CIA could muster.

Yet, even after the ARRB finished their work, there remains some many thousands of documents still being held as classified as well as many records we will never see because of the criminal activity within the Secret Service, destroying the files the ARRB had requested.

The continuing secrecy of the FBI, CIA, and the Secret Service, could mean many different things and yet to the conspiracist it means only one thing: collusion in the crime.

To say the government is not helping the situation would be a huge (and hilarious) understatement.

I do not foresee their dishonest stance changing anytime in the near future. All the agencies could, and many think should, be charged with collusion and conspiracy to cover up the crime of assassination.

Many pundits proclaim the conspiracy theorists are disillusioned, tortured by meager intellects to see boogeymen in every shadow.

Unfortunately, recent studies by several universitiesi have shown that conspiracy theorists have much quicker and more facile mental abilities, far superior in this regard to someone in, say, the mainstream media. Their ability to draw conclusions from disparate data sets allows them the make quantum leaps in mental processes required for this sort of investigation.

This is not to claim that all conspiracy theorists are flaming geniuses. There are certainly the usual share of analytically challenged people in the mix. Yes, some of these people tend to go to extremes with their theorizing but isn't that a far better result than merely sticking one's head in the sand and repeating nothing happened, nothing happened the live-long day?

Much of the material presented herein may seem to dance about from one period, one subject, to another. Those with a facile mind will find it instructive as the cognitive dissonance can help establish a resonance in the mind, assisting in linking non-similar pieces of the puzzle together. This is an intentional interdisciplinary approach not an attempt to confuse the reader.

And this is a small fact that most in Hollywood have yet to come to grips with.

Prepare for an analysis of the subject of conspiracy and the quantum mental leaps to which it leads.

~~~~

PART ONE

CHAOS AND CONFUSION;

WHAT IS CONSPIRACY?

There has been an awful lot written about conspiracies in the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of this one. It usually started with some whispers and grew into a network. Since the introduction of the internet, it has grown exponentially. Many young people have questioned events in the news and many retired persons now take the time to look into things that have puzzled them for years.

According to the mainstream media, the conspiracy theories and their creators are kooky, zany, somewhat unhinged. According to most Conspiracy Theorists the reason the Media does this is to act like they are not part of the problem.

Yet it is not all journalists, though it might be most of the editors and publishers that are contributing to the misleading news stories. I know a couple of journalists who were fired because they objected a bit too loudly when their stories were changed - cleaned, they claimed - of any conspiratorial hints against some of the powers-that-be.

Career-profiling does not always paint the proper picture. Each person, regardless of occupation or affiliations, needs to be judged on an individual basis. For the most part, however, the mainstream media is and has been complicit in the conspiracy.

That is, if you believe that sort of thing.

An Introduction

There is conspiracy around us all the time.

Two office mates conspire to set up their co-worker with the man they feel is perfect for her. Family members conspire to surprise their father with a party on his birthday. A couple conspires to meet secretly and cheat on their respective spouses.

But none of these conspiracies have an effect except for the parties involved, unless they populate a novel of modern fantasy.

And they are not the sort of conspiracies at the heart of this volume. We are more concerned with the conspiracies that have national or international impact.

And there are two types of conspiracies: the open conspiracy, where all those involved are known, and the closed sort, where all involvement remains hidden.

Examples of open conspiracies are military coups. The ones involved in toppling a government are usually those who take over the reins after the eviction of the previous leader.

This sort of thing goes on at fairly regular intervals from the times of ancient Egypt to today. The Tyrant of Sicily was ousted by such a conspiracy, Sennacherib of Assyria was assassinated by another, even the father of Alexander the Great fell prey to such a conspiracy.

But the players were revealed when the goal was accomplished.

Even the United States was born of such a conspiracy. A cabal of primarily wealthy landowners got together to overthrow the yoke of Great Britain. Many of their countrymen either did not support the change or were actively involved in supporting the Royal overlordship.

Still, the players were known. They all signed their names to the documents they created. This open conspiracy is easy to follow when studying its history. James Madison, and others, left us copious notes of the details of every step along the way.

And the purpose of that conspiracy was called benign. Oh, if only that was true of all such.

What is Conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken toward such an end need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary - but I hate using a definition that relies on another form of the word to describe it - definition of conspiracy:

1: the act of conspiring together

2 a: an agreement among conspirators; b: a group of conspirators

Probably a better definition would be:

1 - a combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.

2 - a concurrence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event, as if by agreement.

3 - an agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons join together to do an unlawful act, or to use illegal means to commit an act which is lawful.

These definitions make it seem that any conspiracy is necessarily evil. But is that exactly true? I am sure we all know stories of friends who conspired together to prepare a surprise party or a set-up date intended for match-making. These are conspiracies, but are they necessary evil?

Perhaps if the match turns out to be a match from hell and if the party is for something the celebratee would rather forget…

The definitions as given are, however, the type of conspiracy of which we are concerned with. Surprise parties and match-making may be of some interest to the parties involved but the conspiracies we are looking at affect a wider audience.

Conspiracy Theorists

From Wikipedia, November 2015, article on Conspiracy Theoryii:

"Conspiracy theory was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis. The former speculates on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals while the latter focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events. Scholars argue that conspiracy theory goes beyond the boundaries of rational criticism when it becomes nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which explains away contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it. The term conspiracy theory" is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

Supporters of conspiracy theories often claim their view and such evidence backing it up is often suppressed, censored, and/or covered up". Such accusations of cover ups are often the reason why conspiracy theories are sometimes continually supported.

According to anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Polls show that upwards of 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassinationiii. The fact that a similar number no longer trust their government says a lot about who they think was behind the cover-up.

Now, Let's Look at What This Means

There are two types of Conspiracy Theorists: 1- the real Conspiracy Theorists, and 2- how the media portrays them. Yes, there is actually only one type but viewed in two different ways.

Conspiracy Theorists are never actually described as kooks, but the way the news talks about them you can tell that is the underlying message.

The question that is never asked is: why should the news media even care if the Conspiracy Theorists people are kooks or not?