The Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories have officially begun

[Tom Graves]

Woke is like pornography. It's hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I hear a bare female knee is scandalous in your part of the country.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

What, in your opinion, did Charlie Kirk "stand for"?

Christian conservatism and patriotism. He was a bright and passionate young lad, injecting the youth with a healthy dose of common sense and high moral standards through his TPUSA organization. His early death was most unfortunate.

[John Corbett]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/report-all-the-charlie-kirk-assassination-theories-debunked-in-court/ar-AA27ueq1?ocid=BingNewsSerp

The above article tells us how the prosecution has already debunked many Charlie Kirk assassination theories but those of us who have dealt with JFKA conspiracy theories for decades know that debunking the conspiracy theories is not enough to kill them. The CTs will continue to keep them alive n matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

I wonder if a study has ever been done on the likelihood of the development of conspiracy theories after any given occurrence and the factors involved that would impact such a process.

For instance when the Watergate burglars were caught it was not a big deal, until one of them told the judge he worked for the CIA. Was this the beginning of a conspiracy theory that proved valid over time?

Is the impact of the event related to the development of suspicion that the official findings of the related investigation and conclusion are wrong or even a cover up? This happened after the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations, but also after the 9/11 attacks. Presumably there will be overlapping aspects in the JFK murder and the attack on Kirk that led to surfacing of conspiracy theories in the latter case.

[John Corbett]

I wonder if a study has ever been done on the likelihood of the development of conspiracy theories after any given occurrence and the factors involved that would impact such a process.

For instance when the Watergate burglars were caught it was not a big deal, until one of them told the judge he worked for the CIA. Was this the beginning of a conspiracy theory that proved valid over time?

Is the impact of the event related to the development of suspicion that the official findings of the related investigation and conclusion are wrong or even a cover up? This happened after the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations, but also after the 9/11 attacks. Presumably there will be overlapping aspects in the JFK murder and the attack on Kirk that led to surfacing of conspiracy theories in the latter case.

There was never any doubt Watergate was a conspiracy. Whenever two or more people work in concert to commit a crime, it is a conspiracy. The only question, which took a couple years to answer, was high up the conspiracy reached. As it turned out, the conspiracy to cover up the crime reached all the way to the Oval Office. I don't think Nixon had any foreknowledge of the break-in. He thought it was a dumb idea. He didn't know why anyone would break into the DNC HQ. His reaction when told about it was, "Nothing but crap there".  He knew all the good stuff would be at the candidates' campaign HQ.

I have no reason to believe either of the Kennedy assassinations were a conspiracy. I'm a bit more open minded about MLK because I haven't studied that in any depth. I'm on the fence on that one.