New book on conspiracy theories by David Aaronovitch

[Harpo]

Glad a couple of you like it. Even if you didn't, at least you actually read the book before criticising it. Typical bloody sceptics!!

 

[Orphia Nay]

Great quote from the book in this New York Times article:

Conspiracy theories are “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

Furthermore:

These losers “left behind by modernity,” he writes, “can be identified in the beached remnants of vanished European empires; the doomed bureaucrats, the White Russians and the patriotic German petit bourgeois. They are the America firsters, who got the war they didn’t want; the Midwest populists watching their small farmers go out of business; the opponents of the New Deal; the McGovern liberals in the era of Richard Nixon; British socialists and pacifists in the decade of Margaret Thatcher; the irreconcilable American right during the Clinton administration; the shattered American left in the time of the second Bush.

“If it can be proved that there has been a conspiracy, which has transformed politics and society, then their defeat is not the product of their own inherent weakness or unpopularity, let alone their mistakes; it is due to the almost demonic ruthlessness of their enemy.”

 

[Harpo]

Great quote from the book in this New York Times article:

Conspiracy theories are “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

Furthermore:

Nice article Orphia.

Still no word from JihadJane, Plumjam, Magz, etc as to whether they'd actually read the book or not before criticising it. I know they're held up by fellow forum members as forthright and intellectually honest people that would answer a straight question.

 

[Harpo]

Still no word from JihadJane, Plumjam, Magz, etc as to whether they'd actually read the book or not before criticising it. I know they're held up by fellow forum members as forthright and intellectually honest people that would answer a straight question.

Bump.

Still waiting for a response from JihadJane and the rest of the kneejerk critics.

 

[Par]

Bump. Still waiting for a response from JihadJane and the rest of the kneejerk critics.

If I've read it between your penultimate post and the above one then they must have been able to. On second thoughts, perhaps not. Anyway, JihadJane, for one, sometimes claims to be interested in the relevant material, but, when it really comes to it, jolly well isn't! Imagine that. Oh, and he tells lies.

 

[Harpo]

What did you think of the book Par?

Still waiting for the critics of the book to respond.

/me drums fingers on desk

 

[Tricky]

Several posts moved to AAH. Issuing callouts to other members may be considered off-topic and uncivil. Please discuss the issue, or in this case, the book, and not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[BeAChooser]

To those who have read the book, I've a question. Does it mention the allegations about the deaths for Ron Brown or Vince Foster? One of the reviews would suggest not. If not, why not? Could this be an indication that the author knew he couldn't simply dismiss those allegations? Shouldn't their non-inclusion remove them from the list of discussions that must be automatically moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum? Hmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

I did some browsing and found a review indicating that Aaronovitch does mention the allegation of murder in the death of Vince Foster. Can anyone tell me specifically what he claims in the book about that "conspiracy"? Being a skeptic, I'd like to test his book for veracity. Does he actually deal with the facts in the case or does he do what all good leftists do … simply dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous without actually addressing the actual facts? Hmmmmmm?

 

[TraneWreck]

To those who have read the book, I've a question. Does it mention the allegations about the deaths for Ron Brown or Vince Foster? One of the reviews would suggest not. If not, why not? Could this be an indication that the author knew he couldn't simply dismiss those allegations? Shouldn't their non-inclusion remove them from the list of discussions that must be automatically moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum? Hmmmm?

I did some browsing and found a review indicating that Aaronovitch does mention the allegation of murder in the death of Vince Foster. Can anyone tell me specifically what he claims in the book about that "conspiracy"? Being a skeptic, I'd like to test his book for veracity. Does he actually deal with the facts in the case or does he do what all good leftists do … simply dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous without actually addressing the actual facts? Hmmmmmm?

These were really amusing back to back posts.

 

[dudalb]

A.Yes he mentions the Clinton "murder" accusation and
B.He shreds them to pieces.

 

[BeAChooser]

A.Yes he mentions the Clinton "murder" accusation and
B.He shreds them to pieces.

Well, by all means, give me some details. What are his specific arguments against the Ron Brown and Vince Foster allegations? Because I didn't find anything while browsing to indicate he's ever debunked the Brown allegations and the only comments I found about his views on the Foster allegation were all vague, hand-waving arguments like these:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6790709.ece

[by] David Aaronovitch

… snip …

The previous one, Bill Clinton, was enveloped — from before his first day in office — in a series of accusations of scandal that simply rose in volume: Whitewatergate, Troopergate, Travelgate, the accusation (made by supposedly serious journalists) that he had his friend Vince Foster, the White House counsel who committed suicide in July 1993, murdered. None of these accusations was substantiated, despite the £2.4 million spent on investigating and publishing them by the multimillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who told George magazine in 1999: “Listen, Clinton can order people done away with at his will ... God, there must be 60 people who have died mysteriously.”

In short, does Aaronovitch deal specifically with the facts in the case or does he just ignore them (like all the rest of you naysayers)? For example, does he discuss any the following:

1) The oven mitt *evidence* that clearly shows it was a fabrication introduced by Starr to try and explain the lack of fingerprints on the gun.

2) The sworn testimony of the first person to find Foster's body that there was no gun and his hands were in a different position than in the "official" police photos.

3) The fact that the only doctor to see Foster's body at the crime scene and almost all of the emergency responders say there was an exit wound in Foster's neck, not in the back of his head as officially claimed.

4) The fact that Starr's top investigator is on record saying that an analysis of the one photo of Foster's head that he got access to showed a neck wound.

5) The fact that the only witnesses to claim that Foster was severely depressed all changed their stories, from originally claiming they saw absolutely no sign of depression, after a meeting a full week after the death which those individuals attended in the Whitehouse.

6) The fact that the handwritten FBI interview form shows that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting prescription" (other testimony indicates he was afraid of becoming addicted to regular sleeping pills) but the typewritten version of that form in the Starr report quotes her saying he was "fighting depression".

7) The fact that multiple documents and witness statements prove the medical examiner, Dr Beyer, lied when he said the x-ray machine wasn't working to explain the lack of x-rays of Foster's head.

8) The fact that Starr's own top investigator is on record saying the government investigation was a coverup.

9) The fact that all the handwriting experts that have examined the so-called suicide note (including the one who originally stated it was authentic) have now said it's not authentic.

And I could go on and on listing facts like the above that should make any real skeptic (are there really any here at JREF?) reasonably doubt the *approved* government scenario. I'll bet Aaronovitch, being a long standing leftist (he's actually the son of a communist and became a communist himself), completely ignores every one of them in his book, much less "shreds" any of them. But go ahead, try to prove me wrong, dudalb.

I think the real truth is that Aaronovitch is trying to discredit the very serious and credible Foster allegation by linking it to other conspiracies that are indeed more than a little nutty. That's a tactic that leftists have been using for more a decade to try and protect their idol, Bill Clinton, in both this matter and the Ron Brown matter.

 

[BeAChooser]

Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch is a good book to buy her.

I haven't read this book, but someone on this forum claimed it shredded the accusations that were made against the Clintons. I asked for details about what was said regarding the Foster death, since that's specifically mentioned in the ads and reviews that advertise the book, and all I found on the internet were handwaving arguments. I got no answer from that JREFer. In fact, mine was the last point on that thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5975293&postcount=52 ). Everyone suddenly disappeared.

Specifically, I wanted to know whether Aaronovitch dealt with:

1) The oven mitt *evidence* that clearly shows it was a fabrication introduced by Starr to try and explain the lack of fingerprints on the gun.

2) The sworn testimony of the first person to find Foster's body that there was no gun and his hands were in a different position than in the "official" police photos.

3) The fact that the only doctor to see Foster's body at the crime scene and almost all of the emergency responders say there was an exit wound in Foster's neck, not in the back of his head as officially claimed.

4) The fact that Starr's top investigator is on record saying that an analysis of the one photo of Foster's head that he got access to showed a neck wound.

5) The fact that the only witnesses to claim that Foster was severely depressed all changed their stories, from originally claiming they saw absolutely no sign of depression, after a meeting they attended in the White House a full week after the death and their initial statements.

6) The fact that the handwritten FBI interview form shows that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting prescription" (other testimony indicates he was afraid of becoming addicted to regular sleeping pills) but the typewritten version of that form in the Starr report quotes her saying he was "fighting depression".

7) The fact that multiple documents and witness statements prove the medical examiner, Dr Beyer, lied when he said the x-ray machine wasn't working to explain the lack of x-rays of Foster's head.

8) The fact that Starr's own top investigator is on record saying the government investigation was a coverup.

9) The fact that all the handwriting experts that have examined the so-called suicide note (including the one who originally stated it was authentic) have now said it's not authentic.

And as I said in my post on that thread, I could go on and on listing facts like the above that should make any real skeptic, I believe, reasonably doubt the *approved* government scenario in the Foster case.

So I guess I'd want to know how Aaronovitch dealt with the Foster matter before recommending his book to anyone. Because if he doesn't rationally and honestly address each of those facts I listed, then his book probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. So … can you supply any details about what Aaronovitch says?

 

[Praktik]

I am happy to discuss the different books mentioned in this thread and their contents, let's just not get carried away here on the Vince Foster thing..

 

[BeAChooser]

I am happy to discuss the different books mentioned in this thread and their contents, let's just not get carried away here on the Vince Foster thing..

I'm not. I just made a very pointed and direct challenge to the legitimacy and evenhandedness of one of the books that was suggested to you. You're free to do what ever you want with that information. And, of course, if someone could show that Aaronovitch did rationally deal with the concerns I raised, you could then have more confidence that the book is a good one. But if not ...

 

[Sledge]

If you're that interested, BAC, why not read the book?

 

[BeAChooser]

If you're that interested, BAC, why not read the book?

I might, provided someone can show me that it treats the Foster case in a comprehensive and accurate manner, rather than simply promoting more disinformation in an effort to protect the Clinton administration. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a waste of my time and money?

 

[Orphia Nay]

I might, provided someone can show me that it treats the Foster case in a comprehensive and accurate manner, rather than simply promoting more disinformation in an effort to protect the Clinton administration. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a waste of my time and money?

It might take a book to answer your questions. Why not borrow it from a library?

Regards,
Orph.

 

[Chaos]

I might, provided someone can show me that it treats the Foster case in a comprehensive and accurate manner, rather than simply promoting more disinformation in an effort to protect the Clinton administration. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a waste of my time and money?

So you´ll read it only if it confirms what you think anyway?

 

[BeAChooser]

So you´ll read it only if it confirms what you think anyway?

No, I'd be most interested in reading the book if I had any confidence that it actually was worth reading. But the inclusion of the Foster Case as one of the CT's the author supposedly debunks makes me doubt that. For all the reasons I listed. And no one who has supposedly read the book, so far, seems willing to dispel my concerns. Which makes me suspicious that the book treats the Foster case in an accurate manner. I'm not looking for confirmation of any of the other CTs he mentions. I'd love to hear what he says, provided I can trust that he is dealing with CTs in an accurate and fair manner. Call the Foster example the litmus test for that. You should use it too.