Do You Find This Annoying?

[PararealitySaint]

I know that for some of you I am considered anathema to all you believe in, and to others of you, mostly those brave enough to state their opinion without worry of chastisement, that you call me friend; but be that as it may, I would like to find out from ALL of you how you feel about the following:

Currently I am reading a book LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Philip Nelson, and although he utilizes a great deal of factual evidence in his theories and conclusions, at certain points in his writing he takes some serious professional advantage of what he thinks other people will just take for fact and move on with....

I could quote examples but proving this about this author alone isn't what I am setting out to do here. What I wanted to know from you is:

1. How much weight do you place on an author's stretching of the facts to promote his or her theory? For instance taking a fact out of context to show how another fact might have happened, and this without actually knowing the two facts were in any way influencing the outcome of either, or had anything to do with each other....And then once this is done, take the end result as "fact" and begin to move on in progression as if it is the truth to promote other "important" conclusive evidence as a given?
2. Once you find the author is doing this, do you then disregard his or her professionalism and just use the original facts the writer has combined as reference material, or do you continue to give the author the benefit of the doubt?

I ask this because I am finding the more and more I read today's authored interpretations on history, the more and more I am finding that they can so easily "hyper extend" an original fact, place it into the context of another area of historical fact, NOT CALL THE END RESULT THEORY for the purposes of the dissertation, and people reading the work move on with their heads a nodding as if the story is the God's all truth.

Just the title above should tell you this....It doesn't read, LBJ the "POTENTIAL" mastermind of JFK's Assassination.....:

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Hey, that happens all over the place. I remember that when I use to post on the MUFON board there were two guys that were the biggest conspiracy theory nuts I've ever run across. They were absolutely convinced that the alien abduction phenomenon was real but that the whole thing was perpetrated by government agents disguised as aliens (Among other conspiracy theories. You name it, they believed it). I'd try explaining to them how ridiculous that was, how impossible it would be to keep it secret, the enormous amount of resources it would require, and that no motive imaginable made sense. But they'd always come back at me with a barrage of enormously long and well written (And irrelevant) factoids. They'd cite example after example of the government studying this, researching that, whistleblower accusations of this, scandals involving that. On a point by point basis I suppose these things were true or at least had some hint of truth to them but they'd do this connect-the-dots thing where they could make all of these independent things spell out any kind of narrative they wanted them to. Like they'd take some information that the US government did studies on mind control at some time (Seriously, what hasn't the US government studied? You name it, and at some point they've had some kind of committee look at it and write them up a report. Absolutely nothing has failed to be scrutinized by a federal government sponsored thinktank or scientific investigative team at some point.) and somehow spin that around into being proof for government abductions. People will believe whatever they want to I guess. If there's no evidence they'll just manufacture it or pervert the meaning of evidence for something else to fit their own purposes.

 

[alzo]

People will believe whatever they want to I guess. If there's no evidence they'll just manufacture it or pervert the meaning of evidence for something else to fit their own purposes.

Spot on Wickerman...they can't let the truth get in the way of a good story.