How many JFKA CT's also endorse other conspiracies, like 9/11, OJ, Moon etc.?

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Fungus, stop being so paranoid, because your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".

I just thought it would be an interesting topic and perhaps analyze the mindset of why people like you, can with a straight face, believe the most ridiculously unbelievable theories, that's all.

And yes, this is a JFKA forum but the spillover into investigating why CT's still believe the "People in Authority" are manipulating the general population decades later in unrelated "mysteries" is a fascinating subject. Don't you think?

JohnM

What a load of BS. And calling Fergus "Fungus" is just nasty and tells us all we need to know about "John Mytton".

And Fergus was of course correct. LNs, like him, know they can not argue the case on the weak merits of it's evidence. They are similar to the current "impeachment investigation" into President Biden, where Republicans constantly claim to have convincing evidence but always fail to produce it. Because of the weakness of their case, LNs would love to call anybody who disagrees with them a CT and a believer in all sorts of other wacky conspiracy theories, because that makes it easier to attack them and call them nutjobs. He is doing exactly that in his last post.

It is utterly pathetic.

[John Mytton]

What a load of BS. And calling Fergus "Fungus" is just nasty and tells us all we need to know about "John Mytton".

And Fergus was of course correct. LNs, like him, know they can not argue the case on the weak merits of it's evidence. They are similar to the current "impeachment investigation" into President Biden, where Republicans constantly claim to have convincing evidence but always fail to produce it. Because of the weakness of their case, LNs would love to call anybody who disagrees with them a CT and a believer in all sorts of other wacky conspiracy theories, because that makes it easier to attack them and call them nutjobs. He is doing exactly that in his last post.

It is utterly pathetic.

I like how you two are constantly supporting each other and coming to the other's defence, that's super neat!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I like how you two are constantly supporting each other and coming to the other's defence, that's super neat!

JohnM

Neither needs to be defended by the other, but I can understand how a sick mind like you would think that.

But thank you for showing, with your pathetically weak reply, that my previous post was spot on! 

[Robert Reeves]

John is looking for a stick to beat you with.

[Martin Weidmann]

John is looking for a stick to beat you with.

Of course he is. It's an admission of the weakness of his case. If he had a strong case he would not have to resort to this kind of BS.

[John Mytton]

John is looking for a stick to beat you with.

As I already said, you Kooks "serious researchers" have provided a lifetime of easily refuted garbage, crazy theories and outrageous speculation, so I don't need any more ammunition. This is just a thread to find out how deep the paranoia goes and thus far, I have been truly reaped the seed that I sowed.
Thanks for your participation.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

As I already said, you Kooks "serious researchers" have provided a lifetime of easily refuted garbage, crazy theories and outrageous speculation, so I don't need any more ammunition. This is just a thread to find out how deep the paranoia goes and thus far, I have been truly reaped the seed that I sowed.
Thanks for your participation.

JohnM

so I don't need any more ammunition.

And why would you even need ammunition?

The simple and only answer is that you need to attack people who disagree with you, because your arguments and "evidence" are so pathetically weak that it doesn't convince anybody except the most gullible.