"A" conspiracy? What is "a" conspiracy?

[Tom Sorensen]

One more attempt, my fellow philosophers:

"There is no God. The physical universe is all there is or ever has been."

"There is a triune God who created everything and who hears and answers our prayers."

Both of these metaphysical positions can have epistemological justification. Both are held by philosophers, theologians, Nobel laureates and others of the highest intellectual caliber.

Both are held by True Believers (or Non-Believers, as the case may be) for pretty much mindless reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the position. If I say there is no God because babies wouldn't die of terrible diseases if there were, this is not an epistemologically justified position.

EITHER POSITION COULD BE TRUE. BOTH COULD BE FALSE. BOTH CAN BE EPISTEMOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED.

I want my position on the JFKA to be as justified as I can make. At least in my own mind, I want to be able to explain it to myself in a way that seems rational, coherent, realistic (plausible), that confronts and deals with the problem areas, and that I can articulate and defend if I need to do so.

It seems to me - perhaps you disagree or don't care - that an awful lot of CTers don't feel the need for much if any epistemological justification for THEIR OWN BELIEFS and rather obviously avoid articulating and defending them if called upon to do so. Witness my CE-399 thread where only Martin even took a stab at addressing my very basic "What sense does that make?" questions. They are rather curiously content with just "a" conspiracy.

In the abstract, a conspiracy theory with Oswald as a complete patsy, multiple three-man kill teams and LBJ at the helm COULD BE as epistemologically justified as the LN narrative. That's why I'm still waiting, waiting for someone to provide a plausible, realistic set of answers to "What sense would have that have made? Why would the conspirators have done that? How would that actually have worked, from the time it was a gleam in someone's eye until all was said and done?"

This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.

[Lance Payette]

This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.

I guess if I were inclined to be snide - me? - I might say, "This is the best you can do?"

The comments section at FOX News is always humorous because someone is always posting, "Yet more clickbait garbage from FOX." To which the response is always: "And here you are, clicking and commenting on it."

BTW, you are averaging 2.4 posts per day while I am averaging 4.8. An additional 2.4 posts per day is apparently the difference between a desperate craving for attention and out of control ego and - what? - restrained and statesmanlike participation.

A greater mystery to me is participants such as yourself and several others who never actually say anything of substance. What is the psychological explanation for that, I wonder?

I just scrolled through your posts. They are almost entirely non-substantive, mostly one-line observations with a distinct reliance on ad hominem attacks. Whatever.

[John Iacoletti]

I need a theory that deals plausibly with the weird sh*t.

Then you need to actually deal with the weird sh*t in the official narrative rather than just ignoring it.

[Tom Graves]

Then you need to actually deal with the weird sh*t in the official narrative rather than just ignoring it.

Iacoletti,

What's your theory regarding CE-399?

Any idea as to how it became part of the JFKA "mythos"?

Was it fired by one of the bad guys or bad gals that day, or maybe even before that day?

You have thought about it, right?

What have you come up with as far as a plausible origin theory is concerned?

Have you decided not to think about it because it's an "unimportant mystery" and therefore doesn't require an origin theory that meshes with your overall . . . gasp . . . belief, i.e., that Oswald was innocent!!!, innocent!!!, innocent!!! and therefore some other bad guy(s) or bad gal(s) must have dood da deed?

Do you think he or she were rogue CIA agents, by any chance? Or a dirty "cop" or two or three from the DPD? How about oodles and gobs of evil, evil [fill in the blank]?

How does CE-399 fit in with what they did?

Did they want it to be found? Did they create it with such unusual deformation because they somehow knew in advance the kinds of wounds their ice bullets (or whatever) would cause?

Please enlighten us, Mr. Abt I mean Mr. Iacoletti.