11/22/21

[Robert Reeves]

Apparently Trump knows what's remaining in the JFK files, because he chickened out of releasing them.

[Richard Smith]

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.

All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.  In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.  They are like Inspector Clouseau.  They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one.  Why?  Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.  Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof.  Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist.  How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination.  It just is.  Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole.  Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ. 

[Martin Weidmann]

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.  In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.  They are like Inspector Clouseau.  They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one.  Why?  Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.  Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof.  Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist.  How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination.  It just is.  Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole.  Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.

Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.

In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.

Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.

Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.

To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right? 

You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.

[Jon Banks]

Hashtag #CIAKILLEDJFK is trending on Twitter today.



Russian Trolls? 

[Jerry Freeman]

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. 

A private citizen can't go out and start collaring snipers 58 years later...so this proves that Oswald was the assassin?

[Bill Chapman]

The Gang of 12+ caught The Gang of 4 with his pants down in Oak Cliff. Up yours; to those who think their 'serious' 'discussions' are nothing more than deflection from the fact that Oswald won the 'Ambusher of the Day' award by a 2-0 margin.

----------
GANG of
FOUR
----------

1) Lee Harvey Oswald
    Head scumbag
    Aka Alek Hidell/O.H. Lee/Dirty Harvey
2) Alek Hidell
    In charge of armament procurement
3) O.H. Lee
    In charge of safe-house procurement
4) Dirty Harvey*
    In charge of killing poor dumb cops

*
Dirty Harry
"Smith, Wesson... and me"
------------------------------
Dirty Harvey
Smith, Wesson.. and Lee


   billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Also, maybe someone can answer this question.  Is it true, even President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents?  Why?  If LHO was guilty and acted alone?

Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.