JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?
Steve M. Galbraith:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on March 04, 2018, 01:42:30 PM ---Dulles, Hoover and Johnson are bogeymen. And people would cover-up their conspiracy to murder a POTUS? This just gets better. There's Johnson a few months later having to be talked into running in the 1964 election. Dulles has retired to write crime fiction.
A target of opportunity that Oswald could not resist. "Strange right" turn? LOL.
What "smoking gun" have you great CT researchers revealed? The "Mauser"? The "smoke" on the knoll? The storm drain inlet? What "solid" evidence.
For CTs, not suffering from Dunning-Kruger seems to mean asking questions that require time-travel to "prove".
--- End quote ---
It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)
All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.
But remember, it was just three people.
And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 02:19:30 PM ---JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."
Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.
What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).
To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 03:37:09 PM ---
It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)
All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.
But remember, it was just three people.
And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?
--- End quote ---
Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.
It's all black and white for this guy.
Bill Chapman:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 09:26:39 PM ---Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.
It's all black and white for this guy.
--- End quote ---
Against claims so muddied & contradictory that after 54 years CTroll Nation cannot possibly form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.
Probably.
;)
Steve M. Galbraith:
--- Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2018, 11:08:36 PM ---Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.
Probably.
;)
--- End quote ---
But Bill, where's your nuance?
As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?
There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 11:17:39 PM ---But Bill, where's your nuance?
As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?
There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
--- End quote ---
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
No. Let's not.... let's examine it closely and see if it really supports the LN claim of guilt.
What's the counter explanation?
Why does there have to be a counter explanation? Can you prove Oswald's guilt conclusively or not?
All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups.
More and more I see LNs going down the shaky path of claiming that people who do not share their opinion (because that's what it is) are anti-government, wish to destroy democracy and/or are a threat to freedom. It's all BS of course, but, and I could be wrong, I am beginning to get the impression that this paranoid LN belief somehow motivates them into clinging to the lone gun man scenario, because a possible alternative scares the sh*t out of them.
So please be more specific. Who exactly has a grudge against who?
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
Is this just something you keep telling yourself to somehow validate your own feelings or do you have some actual evidence for these idiotic claims?
A wise man once said that the biggest fool of them all is the one who thinks others are the fools......
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version