JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?
Colin Crow:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on February 28, 2018, 05:42:11 AM ---Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, among others.
--- End quote ---
Dulles, Helmes, etc......or are you just concerned about US democracy?
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on February 28, 2018, 02:03:14 AM ---I think you're barking up the wrong tree, this whole debate is pretty much influenced by the CTs and it seems that most CTs nowadays are only interested in being Oswald defence lawyers hence the debate is always centered around Oswald's specific guilt or innocence and when these hardcore fanatics are pressed to divulge a conspirator we are confronted with "we don't have to prove anything, now you prove Oswald was guilty", again, again and again, rinse wash repeat.
I'm sure a lot of Lners like myself would like to explore a possible conspiracy beyond Oswald's clear guilt but as has already been established the modern CTs don't seem interested or perhaps this is the conspirators plan to influence the weak minded, keep the debate away from the conspirators and focus on Oswald so when any topic strays into their possible guilt they gently guide it back on course.
Were Lane and Garrison the original disinfo artists?
--- End quote ---
It's nobody's fault but their own that the LN faithful have utterly failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Desperate attempts to shift the burden don't change that.
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Colin Crow on February 28, 2018, 07:53:20 AM ---
Dulles, Helmes, etc......or are you just concerned about US democracy?
--- End quote ---
I am concerned about all Democracies. And acknowledge that not all enemies of Democracy are CTers. But most are.
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2018, 05:56:55 PM ---
It's nobody's fault but their own that the LN faithful have utterly failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Desperate attempts to shift the burden don't change that.
--- End quote ---
It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts. It?s even possible that there was a conspiracy. But it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty and no convincing evidence that others were involved.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 01, 2018, 03:45:45 AM ---It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts.
--- End quote ---
That's easy to say. Not so easy to actually demonstrate. Unless you just find unsupported conjecture to be "reasonable".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version