Wrong. I'm trying to discuss the two cases I introduced above.
No, you're trying to dismiss the conventional narrative by pitting an insignificant detail against your made-up standards. Anomaly-hunting is neither science nor history unless you can provide a better answer to the questions it raises.
You are trying to discuss something else. Am I trolling for not wanting to discuss something else?
Your evidence has been thoroughly discussed. You simply don't want to consider that the problem with the evidence is not with the evidence itself but with
your assumptions about the evidence.
The reason you desperately want to avoid meta-discussion is that meta-discussion reveals the shell game that is practically every conspiracy theory. Your notion of staying on topic is a thin veneer over your desire to keep the discussion within the narrow framework you've constructed for it, a framework that all but ensures victory because it hides the application of the double standard.
The two-step process whereby the convention narrative has to meet an absurdly high contrived standard of proof, then the alternative only has to be not-impossible, is not how the real world works. It's certainly not how rational skepticism works. In a rational skeptic's approach, we simply pit two hypotheses against each other -- which one explains the most observations while requiring the least speculation, Hypothesis A or Hypothesis B?
You should think very carefully about why you frantically avoid such an even-ground analysis. It's equivalent to the shell-game player not lifting up all the shells and showing his hands.
Do you have any thoughts regarding the missing initials on the three shells and the CE-399 bullet introduced as 'evidence' by the FBI in the investigation of the assassination of JFK?
Yep, human error explains it with a lot less intellectual strain than some vague handwaving toward a coverup theory you're too afraid to let anyone see.
If so, I'm all ears. If not, well ...
You're only ears when you think you can convince someone to play your shell game. It's the same shell game that every conspiracy theorist has played, in the JFK case for well over 50 years. Like the nominal shell game, the purpose of a conspiracy theory isn't to find the pea under the shell, but to dupe someone into playing so that the game runner can take advantage of him simply for having played.
