Reclaiming Misery aka Reclaiming History

[Bill Chapman]

Remember that John will not even acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He is simply taking issue with any evidence against Oswald by suggesting it is all faked or the product of lies.  LOL. He doesn't have to provide any evidence of this fakery, however, since he is not a CTer.   The circle of lunacy.  A classic example is suggesting there is somehow doubt about Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle.  Imagine all the forge documents, photos, lies, and fakery that would have to have gone on to explain away the evidence that links Oswald to that rifle. But John is not alleging a conspiracy - right?  Just taking issue with the evidence.  We are left to wonder where all this fake evidence derived from if he is not alleging a conspiracy.  Maybe Santa's elves?

Appeal to rebellion
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:
"In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you!"
(In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!

[John Iacoletti]

Also, how exactly does my comment equate my position on the assassination to a religion?  You're going to have to explain that one.

A cop said it, you believe it, and that settles it.

[John Iacoletti]

You should know, since all you have is speculation that runs contrary to the facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the arse.  Your entire case relies on speculation and assumptions.

It's called 'cognitive dissonance'. Look that up to spare yourself having to wet your pants once again as is, seemingly, the case every time I post opinion and science from anywhere other than the conspiracy-monger fiction section of life.

I know what cognitive dissonance is.  It's why you call one witness a liar and chide others for daring to suggest that another witness lied.  It's why you think gorillas playing basketball somehow prove that there was a long bag near the window when the "sniper's nest" was first discovered.  Your entire world view depends on being able to lame excuse away blatant inconsistencies in the official narrative.

[John Iacoletti]

Remember that John will not even acknowledge that he is a CTer.  He is simply taking issue with any evidence against Oswald by suggesting it is all faked or the product of lies.  LOL.

There is no better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the "Oswald Did It" position than that its proponents have to lie about the evidence in order to make their arguments.  "Richard" can't even tell the truth about what other people on the forum say.  I've never said that any evidence against Oswald is all faked or the product of lies.  The conclusions that you make are not actually supported by the existing evidence.  Not without a lot of assumptions, speculation, and handwaving.

A classic example is suggesting there is somehow doubt about Oswald's ownership of the MC rifle.  Imagine all the forge documents, photos, lies, and fakery that would have to have gone on to explain away the evidence that links Oswald to that rifle.

What evidence, "Richard"?  Biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a two-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now "missing"?  There is no forgery required to explain why this is not evidence of ownership.

[John Iacoletti]

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

The ODIA-ites are masters at false appeals to authority.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

They think that you should believe the official story, merely because it's the official story.

[Bill Brown]

A cop said it, you believe it, and that settles it.

And you believe that somehow equates my position on the assassination to a religion?  The cop is a deity?  You're going to have to explain that one.

[John Iacoletti]

And you believe that somehow equates my position on the assassination to a religion?  The cop is a deity?  You're going to have to explain that one.

Strong belief in a doctrine based on faith in authority rather than evidence of its veracity.