• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conspiracy or Cover up?

A cover up can be more or less benign depending on why it takes place. National security an fear of a nuclear WWIII could be such a benign explanation.

So, it is quite plausible to talk of problems with the official investigations without invoking The Great Conspiracy prematurely.
 
manifesto said:
A cover up can be more or less benign depending on why it takes place. National security an fear of a nuclear WWIII could be such a benign explanation.

So, it is quite plausible to talk of problems with the official investigations without invoking The Great Conspiracy prematurely.
Click to expand...

Did a cover up take place?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Do you think there should be an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing one?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I do not need a fully developed alternative theory in order to point out problems with another theory. If the evidens doesn't hold up, the theory goes down.
 
manifesto said:
Of course not. I do not need a fully developed alternative theory in order to point out problems with another theory. If the evidens doesn't hold up, the theory goes down.
Click to expand...

No, your alternative needs to withstand the same scrutiny that you apply to the prevailing one and it needs to explain all the evidence better.

So what is your alternative one?
 
RoboTimbo said:
No, your alternative needs to withstand the same scrutiny that you apply to the prevailing one and it needs to explain all the evidence better.

So what is your alternative one?
Click to expand...
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. A theory can be completely wrong on its own. You don't need another theory to prove it wrong, you just need to point out its fallacies.
 
manifesto said:
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. A theory can be completely wrong on its own. You don't need another theory to prove it wrong, you just need to point out its fallacies.
Click to expand...

True, but as I pointed out to you earlier the existence of inconsistencies does not invalidate the entire theory. All explanations have flaws because they are approximations. Also, having an alternate explanation, though not strictly required, is pretty useful, given that people usually want to replace one approximation with a better one.
 
manifesto said:
Not if the (perceived) reason is to save the world from a nuclear war, no. It was pretty close with the Cuba missile crisis.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Collusion in illegal acts is a conspiracy, and a claim of the existence of a conspiracy against the available evidence is commonly called a conspiracy theory. Let's not play with words, here.
 
manifesto said:
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. A theory can be completely wrong on its own. You don't need another theory to prove it wrong, you just need to point out its fallacies.
Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The prevailing theory accounts for a consilience of the evidence. What better addresses the preponderance of evidence than that?

You'll need a better one to gain any traction here. That's why all the CTists turn tail and run. Anything they come up with gets eviscerated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom