Early newspaper reports and delusional theories

[Supe]

I post the following link:
http://http://www.bostonglobe.com/me...IDN/story.html
not because of any desire to get tied up in a discussion about the Marathon-bombing-denying loonies -- I don't -- but rather for the points it makes about the way conspiracy theorists and the simply deluded will seize upon demonstrably confused and contradictory early newspaper reports and turn them into counter-factual arguments. Any similarity to any Ripper theories is purely intentional.

Don.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Don but I think that's a dead link...its the http it doesn't like

All the best

Dave

[TomTomKent]

I post the following link:
http://http://www.bostonglobe.com/me...IDN/story.html
not because of any desire to get tied up in a discussion about the Marathon-bombing-denying loonies -- I don't -- but rather for the points it makes about the way conspiracy theorists and the simply deluded will seize upon demonstrably confused and contradictory early newspaper reports and turn them into counter-factual arguments. Any similarity to any Ripper theories is purely intentional.

Don.

Trutherism is a sad fact of the modern world. To some degree it is easy to understand. The idea that random guy with a gun, or a foreign terrorist on a plane, can strike in the heart of a nation you assumed to be safe is scary. It could happen to you. So some people cope by convincing themselves there are conspiracies and plots. That only the CIA, Tragedy Actors, or a global military complex could be responsible for a masacre, 9/11, shooting JFK, or what ever. For others it is not so much about coping as being smarter than others. You were one of the few smart enough to notice the Illuminati message, the pattern, the true evidence, etc, and actually being right is less important than being smarter than others.

There are very few events that have been free of rumour or theory, but today Social Media means it is cheap and easy to share these messages in the hopes of finding kindred spirits.

I would normally say they are mostly harmless, and are often well intentioned and intelligent people who happen to have fallen foul of a logic fallacy somewhere down the line. But recently there is a growing trend of being more aggressive towards those who were "really" responsible and a distinct lack of appreciation for the weight of the accussations being laid down. From random members of the government being responsible, via families being "in on it" and so forth.

[jmenges]

I would normally say they are mostly harmless, and are often well intentioned and intelligent people who happen to have fallen foul of a logic fallacy somewhere down the line. But recently there is a growing trend of being more aggressive towards those who were "really" responsible and a distinct lack of appreciation for the weight of the accussations being laid down.

Timothy McVeigh, already a right-wing "Patriot" movement nut job, witnessed the Waco siege and bought into the conspiracy theory that the government intentionally set the fires that brought the Branch Davidian complex down*. He then, of course, went on to bomb the Murrah Federal building in OKC, killing 168 people, many of them children inside a day care. This proves that believing in anti-government conspiracy theories, or viewing the government as acting too heavily handed (as in the Boston/Watertown situation) can lead people to greater acts of violence if the right crazy person is suitably provoked.

JM


*I personally am undecided on this theory.

[Supe]

Dave,

You are right, I didn't look carefully at the link before posting it. I think if the first http etc. is eliminated it should work, but then as I said the purpose of my post was not to discuss the bombing or other modern manifestations of conspiracy craziness. Rather, I was interested in re-alerting folks to the undependability of early newspaper reports of any situation in any era.

I have long urged those who seize upon any early newspaper reports of the Ripper crimes and then consider them as gospel to compare early stories about other horrendous events with what we later learned to be fact. The Boston bombing could be instructive in that regard.

Don.

[jmenges]

Sorry Don,

The article you linked to in the Boston Globe discusses people who believe in a government conspiracy being involved in the Boston bombing more so than folks being misled by early press reports. I did not intend to derail the purpose of your thread by bringing up Mount Carmel.

JM

[Supe]

Jon,

I understand and any comments weren't necessarily directed toward you or anyone. And yes, the article does talk about conspiracy buffs with just a passing mention to those seizing upon early reports. I probably should have been more explicit in my initial post.

Regardless, early reports on any events, from the revelation of the Ten Commandments onward can be misleading and that certainly applies, to my mind anyway, to many of the early articles about the East End murders in 1888.

I became particularly concerned with the problems of early newspaper accounts when Casebook Examiner published Jabez Balfour's chronicle of the Ripper crimes that he wrote in 1906. Despite being nearly two decades after the events, Balfour's account relied on initial newspaper stories and was thus full of howlers. Yet even today, those with a "chosen suspect" or other agendum to push, will cherry pick among the early stories to bolster their theories. And that is a problem for the field as a whole.

Don.

[Hunter]

I'll second that, Don. But in this 'field' even a modicum of objectivity is the exception instead of the rule.

Liked TomTom's thoughts too. Society is not as well ordered as many of us imagine and that is an uncomfortable reality.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I post the following link:
http://http://www.bostonglobe.com/me...IDN/story.html
not because of any desire to get tied up in a discussion about the Marathon-bombing-denying loonies -- I don't -- but rather for the points it makes about the way conspiracy theorists and the simply deluded will seize upon demonstrably confused and contradictory early newspaper reports and turn them into counter-factual arguments. Any similarity to any Ripper theories is purely intentional.

Don.

I think it's quite easily explained.

Some people need to believe there is some grand force managing human behaviour. I suppose it's more exciting than normal, day-to-day existence.

You only have to look at the terrorist attack on New York. A shocking incident. For some people it's exciting to believe that the US government would willingly watch US citizens die in return for some gain which usually is economic in nature. Maybe these people like to create a puzzle that they can get their teeth into.

I think they're just bored, confused and probably both.

[Robert]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/07/26/despite-evidence-tsarnaev-has-his-supporters/fnSnWQ4rcvUDhiVhnTCIDN/story.html

Is that the one, Don?

[kensei]

I always feel like I'm firmly on the fence when it comes to conspiracy theories, because there are some that pique my interest and some that I reject. But even when I reject them I like to hear them out first and carefully consider what their proponents have to say.

As just one case in point- some insist that on 9/11 United Flight 93 had to have been shot down by the military because of how spread out the debris was over several miles, with very little left at the now iconic main impact site. I respect the fact that people noticed that and do not call them crazy for thinking what they think. However I think it is explained by the fact that as the passengers fought with the terrorists on that plane, it did not slow down as it descended but may have even sped up. Planes are designed to fly fast at high altitude where the air is thin, but must slow down when they descend or the wind resistance will tear them apart. United 93 may have approached the sound barrier at only a few thousand feet above the ground. That is the reason for the wide debris field- it broke up in the air. The government- even Dick Cheney himself in televised interviews- admitted that the order had been given to shoot down that plane, but that it crashed before the fighters could get there. That alone is going to offend some people, that they would even consider shooting down a civilian airliner. So by admitting that the order was given, the damage is done. Those people are offended. Why admit that the order was given but then lie about it actually having happened? Not that I'm a fan of Cheney mind you (far from it), and there are other questions about 9/11 that I still think bear looking at. This is just one example of a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up. Like this one, many of the 9/11 ones have to do with the physics involved with the fact that planes did things on that day that no plane had ever done before.

But on the other hand, how many people believe that their governments never lie to them? I doubt there are many in this day and age. The only question is how much or how little. I don't for a second believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, for instance. Bottom line- I don't see why the term "conspiracy theory" needs to be synonymous with "crazy" or "untrue." All it means is that someone has a theory that someone else has conspired to do something wrong. By that definition, Woodward and Bernstein were conspiracy theorists and they were absolutely right. Some people who follow in their footsteps get their theories right, and some don't. I just think that each time one of these things happens, we should at least take a look at the evidence people are offering and consider it instead of refusing to even look at it and just brushing them off as another "crazy conspiracy theorist". Even the people who don't think that man ever landed on the moon made some good points and noticed things that I give them kudos for. I think they interpreted those things wrongly, but it doesn't make them crazy.

[martin wilson]

David Aaronovitch wrote that conspiracy theories are manifestations of the need to believe that someone,somewhere is in control, and that we are not subject to the random, uncaring nature of the universe.
Stephen King made a similar point in Danse Macabre, that the function of horror stories is to reassure us that good always triumphs over evil, and everything turns out all right in the end, of course in some of his books it doesn't.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But on the other hand, how many people believe that their governments never lie to them? I doubt there are many in this day and age. The only question is how much or how little. All it means is that someone has a theory that someone else has conspired to do something wrong.

Kensei,

I think it's accepted wisdom among governments that sometimes the government must lie to the people - for the "greater good". Whether you or I agree with this stance is another matter.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with your definition. I don't think a government and its associates 'conspire to do something wrong'; rather, they act of expediency.

Clearly, they have many competing interests to manage: social and political costs at home; social and political costs abroad.

A good example is Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq. He was fully aware that the portfolio of documents presented to Parliament were in some cases doctored and in other cases outright forgeries (e.g. the document stating that Iraq was sourcing nuclear ingredients from Africa). Tony Blair willingly went ahead with this because he believed this was a just cause and Britain is just the country to save the world (laughable really, but there's no accounting for personal taste).

In my view, this is ethically bankrupt, not because I care about Iraq or any other foreign country, but because I don't believe a government should lie to its people; it should be honest first and foremost. On the other hand, Tony Blair genuinely believed he was doing us all a favour - for the greater good. And just to add, this is why the modern day liberal is a very dangerous beast: the ends justify the means to them.

I tend to think that there is a difference between governments lieing to the people, e.g. Tony Blair above, and a conspiracy among agencies to subvert law and order at home (although I suppose you could argue that Tony Blair was circumventing the law in this case).

Law and order is a cornerstone of any British government, we don't really do revolutions and general break-downs in society. You can see this in Anderson's memoirs - they weren't prepared to circumvent English principles of liberty and law in order to catch JTR. These were men from a certain background: religious, educated at public school, steeped in the idea that Englishness was the most civilised form of behaviour in the world (clearly Englishness to them didn't mean England the country with all of its dirty towns and cities, but the England that existed in public schools and the shires).

Out of expediency, I can't see why they would have suggested JTR was a Polish Jew or someone else when they knew fine well he wasn't, unless of course, JTR was a high profile figure among the establishment. In that scenario they may have considered it expedient to lie to the people, and more for the greater good than out of self-preservation.

[Mayerling]

Kensei,

You can see this in Anderson's memoirs - they weren't prepared to circumvent English principles of liberty and law in order to catch JTR. These were men from a certain background: religious, educated at public school, steeped in the idea that Englishness was the most civilised form of behaviour in the world (clearly Englishness to them didn't mean England the country with all of its dirty towns and cities, but the England that existed in public schools and the shires).

Out of expediency, I can't see why they would have suggested JTR was a Polish Jew or someone else when they knew fine well he wasn't, unless of course, JTR was a high profile figure among the establishment. In that scenario they may have considered it expedient to lie to the people, and more for the greater good than out of self-preservation.

Hi Fleetwood,

Well I could think of two reasons: the East End location, and a two part hyphenated word with "Semitism" as the second part. However, although I do question the total motives of people like Sir Robert, I have tended at times to question my reaction to his fingering a Jew (possibly Kosminski) for the killings. The East End was a large haven for Jews from Eastern Europe, and there is a logic in searching for the Ripper among all its denizens. Then there was whatever information that made Kosminski even a brief suspect. Certainly I don't know, but Anderson seemed to be intensely interested in him as a candidate. Furthermore the Jews have their bad apples like all groups, and one can see names in the future like Stinie Morrison among them. So my reaction to Anderson's theory is somewhat mooted - but only somewhat mooted.

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

Well I could think of two reasons: the East End location, and a two part hyphenated word with "Semitism" as the second part. However, although I do question the total motives of people like Sir Robert, I have tended at times to question my reaction to his fingering a Jew (possibly Kosminski) for the killings. The East End was a large haven for Jews from Eastern Europe, and there is a logic in searching for the Ripper among all its denizens. Then there was whatever information that made Kosminski even a brief suspect. Certainly I don't know, but Anderson seemed to be intensely interested in him as a candidate. Furthermore the Jews have their bad apples like all groups, and one can see names in the future like Stinie Morrison among them. So my reaction to Anderson's theory is somewhat mooted - but only somewhat mooted.

Jeff

Hello Jeff,

I think Anderson makes it clear in his memoirs.

They undertook a house to house search of single males and found nothing. From there, he/they concluded that he must be living with someone, and it follows was probably Jewish due to the Jewish/Gentile justice situation.

To me, that is ridiculously flawed. I don't doubt for a second that some Jews would not go to the police, but there are a million and one reasons why people of any religious persuasion would not go to the police. Also, I'm not sure what they were expecting: someone to come to the door swinging freshly harvested organs above his head?

Either way, I don't believe for one second that Anderson had a vested interest in wilfully accusing a Jewish man in order to protect his interests.