JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Way too simple. It's not a coherent theory, it's just a vague inference. Try again, please.
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
Way too simple. It's not a coherent theory, it's just a vague inference. Try again, please.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, it's the opposite of specific. Specific means clearly defined or identified. Your statement literally includes everyone alive on that day in 1963. The statement, "Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy" is specific. Your statement is literally anything and everything that isn't that. Please tell us how that can possibly be considered specific.
Yes, and that's not too much to ask after fifty years of vigorous "research." No, it doesn't have to be "airtight." Earlier your critics agreed that airtightness was an unachievable standard, and we don't expect it from you. But as I've explained at length, in order to be taken seriously you have to show the world something that's more airtight than the story you say is wrong.
Yes, you need to name names. Yes, you need to be able to account for the activity you accuse them of with actual evidence. You know, just like a real investigator would do. You need to have a bigger pile of evidence for the persons you claim really killed Kennedy than there is against Oswald. Simply pretending to tear away at Oswald's pile doesn't automatically stop him from being the biggest pile if there's no other pile. Get it?
Because then you'd need affirmative proof, which you clearly don't have. As long as a conspiracist never venture outside the safe little circle of "The official story is wrong!" he never has to do any work or let his beliefs be subject to any sort of test. He can keep believing whatever illusion satisfies him.
Unfortunately that cuts both ways. Standing in the relative safety of vague disbelief doesn't make a person any more shrewd or enlightened or skilled at research and investigation than his peers. It doesn't answer questions. It doesn't further the benefit of human kind. It just makes money off the gullible -- endlessly. The difference between real investigation and conspiracism is that the conspiracists "can't or won't" give us a testable alternative.
Who cares? We have far more reason to question the conspiracy theories on the same grounds. Hence we stick with the story that makes the most overall sense, because no one will give us anything better.
So you keep saying. But you won't answer questions about what that material is and what you think it says. You really have no idea what, if anything, is being withheld. You just pin your hopes on it. Simply alluding to secrets you think are being kept and assuming they somehow confirm your beliefs is the epitome of wishful thinking.
Accusing the "villain" in your conspiracy theory of being the reason you can't or won't prove anything about it is less credible than saying the dog ate your homework. It's a sideways admission that you have no proof -- you just leapfrogged over the admission and went straight to the lame excuse for not having it. It's the same as all the UFO fanatics claiming they would all be proven right if only they could get access to the Sooper Seekrit Gubbermint Archives -- you know, the big warehouse where they keep the Ark of the Covenant and the alien corpses from Roswell. How many people do you think seriously believe that somewhere in a secret archive there just happens to be a document you've never seen that somehow proves you right?
No, the reason the conspiracy theorists can't prove anything is because they have no idea what a real investigation looks like, and no interest in undertaking one. As long as they can convince you there continues to be a deep, dark secret being held by evil men out to thwart them, they can lead you around by the nose indefinitely -- fifty years and counting -- and keep you buying their books and videos that have never much beyond, "The official story is wrong! You're being lied to!"
BazBear
Possible Suspect
You seem to believe people here accept the WC report without question. This is simply not true. CTist after CTist have made this claim or that claim about where the WC went wrong. Each of CT those claims is then looked at, and found wanting. The reasons they are found less than credible vary, running the gamut from drawing conclusions not supported by evidence, all the way to total BS spun by some CT author or conspiracist. Many are little more than attempts at poking holes in the minutia of the WC report.
I think it's safe to say that in the five decades since the assassination, there have been few events that have received greater scrutiny. The fact that CT speculations and hypotheses remain all over the place, are often contradictory and mutually exclusive, and have never come up with anything resembling a narrative that fits the evidence, is pretty damning of the approach taken.
I used to believe there was some sort of conspiracy, having been exposed to some of JFK CTs over the years. But when I finally decided to actually look at these claims thoroughly, I realized most were utter hogwash, conclusions reached without evidence, or at best, conclusions reached from misinterpreting the evidence. In fact, the more I've studied these CT claims, the more convinced I've become that LHO acted alone.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
...who concocted this grand scheme involving who knows how many people to be carried out in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses. This, rather than have one or two operatives on the inside arrange an overdose of his daily drug cocktail, or simply shove him over a stairwell bannister.Belz said:
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Fundamental conspiracist technique. If you allow the conversation to focus on a single point at a time, then points can be refuted. Present a whole raft of disjointed and disconnected issues and you can always argue that an attempt to refute any single one of them is simply nitpicking and leaves the big picture unaddressed, even though there isn't actually a big picture to address.
Dave
Allen773
Graduate Poster
Exactly. In constructing their "theories", CT'ers inevitably are unable to make empirically (or even logically) sound claims, so they have to resort to a bunch of third-rate political polemics-which is what the whole purpose of their "theories" inevitably is.
They aren't interested in uncovering facts or evidence; rather, their half-baked "theories" merely provide them a narcissistic platform about how "enlightened" they are compared to the "sheeple." Most people, fortunately, see right through that BS.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
As did I, because that was all I had been exposed to; let's face it, CTs are just more fun than mundane explanations, and, for that reason, are more accessible and sell better. It wasn't until I was in my early 20's (around 1980) that I began to consider that there even was another side; and, in looking a little more into it, began to realize what superficial nonsense the CTs really were.
And this is a point I think a lot of CTists just don't get, or prefer to ignore- some of us have been exactly where they are now, fingering those same "back and to the left" and "pristine bullet" beads. At some point, you realize that it's a faith you have; then you either question it (which is usually all it takes to leave it), or you refuse to, and cling to it. It's just silly to say skepticism is only doubt of "accepted" truths; it begins with questioning your own.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Random Special Operations Unit descriptions don't support anything in your theory, so try again.
How about this? provide one proven factual account of multiple precision shooters firing on a single human target, anywhere, at any time in history.
I'll give you a clue.
There isn't one.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
When it's just a guy riding with his wife and a couple of friends slowly in an open-topped car, why does it matter if he's a head-of-state? For purposes of assessing difficulty, he's just a guy riding slowly in a car -- an easy target.
Part of the mystique of the conspiracy theory says that the importance of the victim has to be matched by deep-dark motives and teams of Hollywoodesque trained assassins. Some nut with a rifle shot a guy in an open car. Why is that such a hard thing to believe?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Where's the fun and self aggrandizement in that?
The fact is that the sharpest operator in the world from any of the units Jango referenced can fall to a barefoot 13 yo w/ an AK if he's in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a guy like LHO with whatever snakes were loose in his head had no issues with shooting and killing whoever happened to be in front of his muzzle at the moment he fired - he already took the shot at Walker and simply moved up the food chain when he had the chance.
The most common thing in the world for some bent *******, start out with smaller victims and escalate from there.
Jango
Graduate Poster
FTFY.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
His evidence is MIA.
Whether Jango is honest enough to admit it is the question.
One musician buddy of mine believes some sort of approximation of what jango et al seem to believe. but freely admits he has no idea why past his personal pov based on the JFK movie and his belief that the shooting was so out of the ordinary that LHO couldn't have done it - and no, he's never fired any kind of firearm and has consistently turned down my invitations to go to the range for recreation and education.
At least my friend admits up front that he doesn't know the facts of the case from a hole in the ground. Most CTer's wouldn't do that under any circumstances.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
And we have plenty of cases where solo, non-professional shooters have killed their targets. John Wilkes Booth*, Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Mark David Chapman, Dan White, and Sirhan Sirhan are just some examples off the top of my head.
*Part of a conspiracy, but a lone assassin.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
White did a tour with the 101st in 69-70 and was a former SFPD officer, so he had at least basic instruction and qualification with rifles and handguns.
The people that I know that knew him never described him as a range rat, but he did pass initial qualification and requals w/ SFPD.
Jango
Graduate Poster
I've already answered that: the Zapruder film is evidence of a second shooter.
Jango
Graduate Poster
It's not, I just don't believe that Oswald was the singular shooter. He certainly shot the President, but he didn't deliver the head shot. Evidence for that is the Zapruder film and the President falling back and to the left and not going forward where the momentum of the greater force was allegedly going. It makes sense given what we can all clearly see in the video that the head shot comes from the front because his body succumbs to the greater force and is pushed back from the violent high-spreed collision.
BTW -- What do you mean by "Hollywoodesque trained assassins"? I routinely see people say similar things.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
No, it absolutely isn't, regardless of what your comic book level of terminal ballistic knowledge may be.
Here's a link to a segment of a video (Deadly Weapons, Second Chance Body Armor) showing live fire testing of body armor. including a point blank shot with 7.62 NATO out of an early FAL (much more powerful than the Carcano 6.5 x 52mm) on a guy balancing on one foot (former SFPD Alec Jason), and also the inventor of soft body armor shooting himself w/ a .44 magnum, jeez, why didn't they get "knocked" down or back like the headshot on JFK in the Zapruder film?
Any answer jango?
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Wow...
Of the units you cut and pasted only the SBS, SAS, and Spetsnaz were around in 1963. Their training regimen is not comparable to athletes other than basic fitness.
Special Operations make no sense in the context of the JFK assassination. In fact, most of those units would have put a guy in the Texas Schoolbook Depository on one of the upper floors as all you would have needed was one guy with a rifle.
It was an easy shot.
Jango
Graduate Poster
1. And what? There have been several investigations but not a whole bunch of information sharing after 50 years. But that's nothing to be concerned about at all, is it? You, like so many other people, believe that the government isn't hiding anything, that the lack of transparency over 50 years is inconsequential. You also fail to take into account that for actual progress to be made that it would require many levers of our society, like the government itself and our media, to broadcast the change in their 50+ year peddled narrative.
But let's say for the sake of argument that the media actually ponied up and used their resources to do some investigative journalism into JFK or any conspiracy with credibility behind it. Okay, so they're invested in finding out the truth. Now what? Can they force the government to hand over relevant documentation? Nope. Can they force government employees or cabinet members or Congressmen or Senators or the POTUS to give interviews and answer questions? Nope.
It's not gonna happen with JFK. Even if our media had a united front, nothing would change, except of course the media's relationship with the government. They would find themselves without access to the government. That would be bad for them just as it would be for a truly independent media to be as probing and unrelenting as it needs to be.
None of these realities fall on your radar.
2. Why waste your time? People do the same thing with other conspiracies. Invest all sorts of time dealing with counter theories while not looking at the theories with mainstream acceptance themselves. If people here question the WC as you claim, I have yet to see that.
- Status