Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[John Iacoletti]

You need to realize that Iacoletti believes several hundred people participated in the assassination and/or the coverup, and that Officer McDonald was just one of them.

You need to realize that Graves makes up false crap like this and states it as a fact, purely for the purpose of disrupting conversations.

Just like he takes his own wild-ass guesses about who is who in blurry photos and states those as facts.

Get a life, Graves.

[John Iacoletti]

Appreciate your comments. Nothing against John... but it's difficult to understand his stance other than he derives devilish glee from being totally obstinate towards reality.

Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.

[Walt Cakebread]

Ross, it’s equally difficult for me to understand how you automatically equate assumptions and conjecture with reality.

What is reality? ......   A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? ....   The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men.    ( aka The warren Report)      Is that reality??

[John Iacoletti]

What is reality? ......   A mutually agreed on solution to a problem? ....   The Lner's accept the solution offered by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Honorable and venerated men.    ( aka The warren Report)      Is that reality??

No, that would be the ad populum fallacy. A claim doesn’t become true just because a bunch of people have the same opinion about it.

[Thomas Graves]

You need to realize that Graves makes up false crap like this and states it as a fact, purely for the purpose of disrupting conversations.

Just like he takes his own wild-ass guesses about who is who in blurry photos and states those as facts.

Get a life, Graves.

Iacoletti,

How ironic, coming from a guy who either has poor eyesight and can't tell three skirt-and-raincoat-wearing women from "Bermuda shorts wearing men" in a film which was shot on a cool late-November day during a presidential motorcade in conservative 1963 Dallas, or can but prefers not to admit it because doing so would contradict his misconceived, irrational, stubbornly disingenuous "position" regarding the identities of that trio, as well as their location during the assassination.

LOL

--  MWT 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Steve M.,

>>> S A R C A S M  .  A L E R T <<<

True JFK Assassination researchers KNOW the reason Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover and and Earl Warren, et al., had to cover it up wasn't because the Ruskies, through triple-agents Aleksei Kulak and Ivan Obyedkov, et al., had put a WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file, but because ... gasp ... evil, evil, evil James Angleton had done so by contriving to make it look as though Oswald had been in contact with putative "Department 13" Valeriy Kostikov, ... except ... hmm ... Kostikov had been made "radioactive" by the KGB, itself, and the Soviet embassy security guard, Ivan Obyedkov, who "volunteered" Kostikov's name to Oswald or an Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line was a triple-agent (i.e., a KGB officer whom CIA thought was working for CIA but in reality was still loyal to the KGB).

Hmm ...

--  MWT 

So the WC covered it up. The HSCA covered it up. The other investigations covered it up? The Washington Post investigated the shooting and determined Oswald killed JFK. Hugh Aynesworth investigated it and said the evidence for him was that Oswald shot JFK. PBS investigated the event - "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald" - and they concluded Oswald alone killed JFK. Bugliosi said Oswald acted alone. Posner said Oswald acted alone.

All of this was a coverup? The people who covered it up for the government - some still alive like Slawson and Willens - are still covering it up?

As Commager pointed out, conspiracists won't accept anything that doesn't show their conspiracy. In fact, anything that shows there was no conspiracy is another conspiracy designed to coverup the original conspiracy.

It's like a bizarre religious cult.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

What about a reasoned response to Mr Galbraith's comment? Like providing "supporting evidence" rather than a rude reply?

He can't. Not won't, he simply cannot. He has to make things up. And deny all of the evidence against Oswald. Not most of it, not some of it: all of it. Every single piece of evidence implicating Oswald in any way is dismissed. Out of hand.

All of the evidence against Oswald in every single one of the above investigations I mentioned is dismissed by characterizing it as just a claim. What does that tell you about how he looks a this? It's simply a fanatical objection to facts and events. It's a "No, no, no."

For example,  the HSCA photographic experts say the rifle in the BYP was the rifle found in the sniper's nest. Were they wrong in their analysis? They could be. Experts can be wrong. But one has to show how and why. He can't. He just says they were wrong. He can't show where they were wrong. He knows he can't. But he just dismisses it.

Forensic experts, ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, wound experts, photographic experts - he dismisses out of hand all of their conclusion. For him they are just claims.

This is really easy to do. Just say any and every piece of evidence in any event is just an assumption, a piece of speculation, a claim. Of course he doesn't do this when it comes to all conspiracy claims. Pat Speers above made a conspiracy allegation. Did he dismiss it? Of course not.

As I said, one can argue that all of this is wrong; all of these investigations got it wrong. Fine. Point out where they were. But the conspiracists argument (the main one) is that all of this was a coverup of what happened. A deliberate lie and not a failure or screwup.

The WC was a lie. The HSCA was a lie. The other investigations were lies. All of this. For half a century.

It's absolute paranoid nonsense.