The number three CT nightmare question ...

[John Iacoletti]

I think it does have some bearing. If there is a debate and all the prominent spokesmen on the issue who have flaky views on other subjects all come down on one side.

"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.

How should a CTer handle this? Well, they could say to themselves, it doesn’t matter. I’m right and that’s that. And put it out of their mind. You seem to handle it this way.

No, I handle it by examining the evidence they put forth for their position.  Which is why belief in the WC conclusions (IMO) is one of those "flaky views".

This is just an attempt to poison the well, and it is itself irrational.

[Joe Elliott]

"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.

To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:

Yes. [followed by explanations]

Or:

No. [followed by explanations]


Questions:

1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

2.   If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

[Thomas Graves]

To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:

Yes. [followed by explanations]

Or:

No. [followed by explanations]


Questions:

1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

2.   If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

Well, I believe that self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and I believe that former-Communist-but-now-Fascist Vladimir Putin, with help from Julian "Wanker" Assange, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and (probably) the fascistic, pro-Russia Lyndon LaRouche organization, et al., installed "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president.

Does that count?

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:

a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.

and

b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.

[Joe Elliott]

I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:

a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.

and

b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.

No. I do not equate “flaky” with contradicting official government pronouncements. Afterall, I disagree with the HSCA pronouncements that the Dictabelt recorded four shots, when it was later discovered that the four “shots” occurred about a minute after the assassination.

No, I equal “flaky” with believing the Holocaust never happened. Or believing that the theory of Evolution is false and Creationism is true. Or that the South was justified in seceding from the Union to preserve slavery. Or that the government is conspiring with the space aliens for some secret purpose. Or that Jim Jones did not order a massive murder-suicide action but this was instead conducted by the U. S. Government. Those are the views I consider to be “flaky”.

Since you dodge my questions, I will give the answers for you.


1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

No.     If you could name prominent LNers who are just as “flaky” you would say “Yes” and name them. But since you can’t you dodge the question.


2.     If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

No.      Answering “Yes” would be absurd.

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

Again, you cannot point out prominent LN spokesmen with non-JFK related views.

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

No.      If you could you would name some, or at least one.

And so, if it did turn out that the CTers were right, this would be the only example, in history, that the “flakey” advocates were all attracted to the side that was true on some major issue of contention.

[Jim Brunsman]

Best post I've ever seen from Tommy. There's hope for you yet! But LHO? Come on, you have to be smarter than that! I have not seen one piece of evidence that convinces me that LHO fired a weapon that day. Every piece of evidence has been tampered with, lied about, or covered up. It's so obvious if we are open-minded enough to read enough material. Sure, there are some rather idiotic theories out there, but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[John Iacoletti]

Joe, all LNers are flaky, because they believe that the evidence conclusively shows that Oswald killed JFK. This is akin to creationism.

By the way, it’s news to me that Mark Lane ever denied that Jim Jones told his followers to commit suicide, so you probably need to come up with something else to smear him with. Even so, it’s still a poisoning the well fallacy. Their views on the JFK assassination stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Can I likewise try to smear prominent LN authors? Sure. Posner was a plagiarist. We’re now learning that Bugliosi’s theory that Manson was trying to start a race war was so much hogwash. And he was accused of beating and choking a woman he had impregnated out of wedlock because she refused to abort his child.