Conspiracy theorist or historical researcher?

Are you a conspiracy theorist or a historical researcher? As human beings, we try to explain and analyse events or situations.  Therefore, when something proves difficult to explain, people may resort to speculative explanations in order to find closure and to provide their cognitions with a plausible justification.  In other words, it is in people’s nature to search for answers.

The common perception is that someone who is labeled a conspiracy theorist is suffering from some type of intellectual disorder, making it easy to dismiss everything they say. Conspiracy theorists have also been accused of trying to declare the “official” account of an event completely discredited without sufficient proof to do so. They are sadly equated with wild assumptions, crazy behavior and emotional statements with no factual context.

A  historical researcher is somebody who searches for knowledge in a general or systematic investigation to establish facts. Researchers collect, organize, analyze, and interpret data to solve problems and answer questions. Researchers accept the responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence that is peer-reviewed, based in scientific knowledge and with respectable sources. If you are engaged in investigating the truth concerning the JFK assassination by seeking answers with consistent, reproducible results based in scientific disciplines or historical documentation – you are a historical researcher.

In 2013 a lot of people are going to be asking questions about the Kennedy assassination. We need to be able to defend the position of more than one shooter a clear, definitive and acceptable manner. Pointing to inconsistencies without providing an answer besides “it was altered” or “the evidence was destroyed” is not going to win the minds of Warren Commission devotees. Instead give them one scientifically based example of more than one shooter.  Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination has several excellent chapters that do just that.

It is not necessary to know everything, just be very familiar with one point that proves more than one shooter. You can dramatically enhance the significance and validity of what you believe and convey to others by addressing the primary sources or original documents that relate to your single point.  Learn what secondary sources – the writings of others – say about your point of interest. Remember, it is not necessary to address everything you believe to be questionable, it only takes one indisputable point to show the Warren Commission had it wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s