JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
A Topic for LN's: What is a CT?
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 12, 2018, 01:52:27 AM ---Good. But it is common for CTers (in regard to the JFK assassination) to be CTers in other fields.
--- End quote ---
This is poisoning the well. What somebody believes about some other issue has nothing to do with what they believe about another issue. They can either support what they believe with evidence or they cannot.
--- Quote ---Also, we have posters at this forum who hold Pro CT believes and a belief in other large secret conspiracies. I know of no LN on this forum, or a major LN spokesman, who does.
--- End quote ---
You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy". A conspiracy could be two people.
John Iacoletti:
The irony here of course is that the "Oswald did it and did it alone" crowd chides the skeptical crowd for not agreeing on a single narrative, when they can't agree on what "conspiracy theorist" means.
Both terms are really not good representations. Would a person who believed that a lone nut did it, but it wasn't Oswald still be called an LNer?
Would a person who isn't convinced by the available evidence that Oswald was involved, but who also doesn't see any convincing evidence of any other particular person being involved still be considered a CTer?
How about-
1a) Convinced that Oswald did it and did it alone
1b) Not convinced that Oswald did it
2a) Convinced that more than one person was involved before the fact
2b) Not convinced that more than one person was involved before the fact
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 04:55:05 PM ---
You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy". A conspiracy could be two people.
--- End quote ---
But the conspiracy that CTers really mean is not a conspiracy of two people but a much large conspiracy.
The CIA was in on it.
But the FBI investigated it and found the evidence went against Oswald. That?s not problem, the FBI was in on it.
But the Dallas Police Department collected the rifle, a handgun (wrestled out of Oswald?s hand), shells, statements by Oswald showing he lied about owning a rifle and bringing a long bag to work and other evidence. But that?s no problem because the Dallas Police Department was in on it.
But the autopsy shows all the shots came from behind. But that?s no problem because the autopsy doctors were in on it.
If CTers want me to believe that they believe in a small conspiracy, they need to tell me what evidence is real and what is faked. And how many people would be needed to make it fake. How many FBI agents. How many Dallas Policemen. And how the conspiracy arranged that always one of the conspirators would evaluate the evidence and prevent an honest investigator from being brought in.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 16, 2018, 10:55:20 AM ---But the conspiracy that CTers really mean is not a conspiracy of two people but a much large conspiracy.
--- End quote ---
Good thing they have a spokesman like you to define what they "really mean".
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on March 16, 2018, 03:56:18 PM ---Planted the handgun on Oswald?
Removed Oswald?s rifle from the garage?
Planted a rifle on the sixth floor?
Planted a bullet on a stretcher at the Parkland hospital?
Swapped in the bullet fragments into the limousine?
--- End quote ---
I don't believe anybody did any of these things.
Next question?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version