JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Colin Crow on March 09, 2018, 01:27:43 AM
-
As we regularly see the term CT thrown about in the forum, (sometimes kook is used interchangeably by some), I wonder if the LN's cohort that resides here could agree a definition that describes their understanding of what a CT is and thinks.
Once this is agreed to the rest here can determine whether they belong to that group or not. I am going to ask non-LN's to refrain from joining this debate (this may be a forlorn hope I know).
So go to it LN's......what do CT's believe and think?
-
As we regularly see the term CT thrown about in the forum, (sometimes kook is used interchangeably by some), I wonder if the LN's cohort that resides here could agree a definition that describes their understanding of what a CT is and thinks.
Once this is agreed to the rest here can determine whether they belong to that group or not. I am going to ask non-LN's to refrain from joining this debate (this may be a forlorn hope I know).
So go to it LN's......what do CT's believe and think?
Colin, For me, CT is a blanket term that I apply to those who refuse to accept that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963. Being short for "Conspiracy Theorist", it is not a literally accurate description of most non-lonenutters, since most of you guys don't have a specific theory on who carried out the assassination. If you find the term bothersome, I could just refer to you as a Buff. Would you prefer that? I believe that Bob Harris hates it. Of course, he thinks nothing of calling us LNs "Nutters".
-
Colin, For me, CT is a blanket term that I apply to those who refuse to accept that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963. Being short for "Conspiracy Theorist", it is not a literally accurate description of most non-lonenutters, since most of you guys don't have a specific theory on who carried out the assassination. If you find the term bothersome, I could just refer to you as a Buff. Would you prefer that? I believe that Bob Harris hates it. Of course, he thinks nothing of calling us LNs "Nutters".
Thanks for your reply Tim. So that someone who believed Oswald was the shooter but his actions were not undertaken without the knowledge and assistance of others would not be a CT?
It's not that I find the term bothersome but relatively simplistic and lacking in sophistication. Personally I would prefer the label sceptic or "WC sceptic". In contrast Lone Nut is a term that immediately defines that sides position. You all suffer from monorchism 8).
-
Thanks for your reply Tim. So that someone who believed Oswald was the shooter but his actions were not undertaken without the knowledge and assistance of others would not be a CT?
It's not that I find the term bothersome but relatively simplistic and lacking in sophistication. Personally I would prefer the label sceptic or "WC sceptic". In contrast Lone Nut is a term that immediately defines that sides position. You all suffer from monarchism 8).
'Conspiracy theorist'
simplistic and lacking in sophistication
> Thus, a perfect fit
You all suffer from monarchism
> Yeah, sure. And we're all lemmings according to Iacoletti. Well, I sure hope the Reptilians amongst us don't develop a taste for lemming flesh anytime soon.
:(
-
'Conspiracy theorist'
simplistic and lacking in sophistication
> Thus, a perfect fit
You all suffer from monarchism
> Yeah, sure. And we're all lemmings according to Iacoletti. Well, I sure hope the Reptilians amongst us don't develop a taste for lemming flesh anytime soon.
:(
Sorry Bill, spell suggester decided to change monorchism to monarchism and I didn?t notice. Apparently Hitler was a LN too.
-
Specifically, CTer, here, means someone who believes that there was a successful conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In general, CTer means someone who believes in any large conspiracy that successfully kept a secret for a long time, however unlikely this would be. Examples are:
** A worldwide Jewish conspiracy to do evil things to non-Jewish races.
** illuminati
** Freemason?s
** Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
** UFO coverup
A sign of such a conspiracy theory is if the proponents do not provide a list of all the people involved because the list would be too large and make it too obvious that they believe in a large conspiracy.
-
Thanks for your reply Tim. So that someone who believed Oswald was the shooter but his actions were not undertaken without the knowledge and assistance of others would not be a CT?
It's not that I find the term bothersome but relatively simplistic and lacking in sophistication. Personally I would prefer the label sceptic or "WC sceptic". In contrast Lone Nut is a term that immediately defines that sides position. You all suffer from monorchism 8).
Terms like ?WC sceptic? or ?Holocaust sceptic? or ?Evolutionary Theory sceptic? are misleading because they imply support from the true skeptics, like Michael Shermer. In reality, most skeptics argue against large successful conspiracy theories.
-
Sorry Bill, spell suggester decided to change to monarchism and I didn?t notice. Apparently Hitler was a LN too.
So now we LNers are facsists with a missing testicle. Good one.
;)
-
Conspiracy Theory
Cite: Merriam-Webster
A theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by (usually) powerful people or groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me that CTer is a perfect fit
-
Specifically, CTer, here, means someone who believes that there was a successful conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In general, CTer means someone who believes in any large conspiracy that successfully kept a secret for a long time, however unlikely this would be. Examples are:
** A worldwide Jewish conspiracy to do evil things to non-Jewish races.
** illuminati
** Freemason?s
** Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
** UFO coverup
A sign of such a conspiracy theory is if the proponents do not provide a list of all the people involved because the list would be too large and make it too obvious that they believe in a large conspiracy.
The bottleneck here is CTer Burden of Proof issues v LNer Standard of Proof issues
-
Specifically, CTer, here, means someone who believes that there was a successful conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In general, CTer means someone who believes in any large conspiracy that successfully kept a secret for a long time, however unlikely this would be. Examples are:
** A worldwide Jewish conspiracy to do evil things to non-Jewish races.
** illuminati
** Freemason?s
** Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
** UFO coverup
A sign of such a conspiracy theory is if the proponents do not provide a list of all the people involved because the list would be too large and make it too obvious that they believe in a large conspiracy.
And in the past you have claimed that CT'ers are enemies of democracy have you not?
Can we add this to the list of CT attributes?
-
See quite a few of you guys on now. What do you think......come on surely you can come up with some sort of concensus view. A short paragraph that defines a CT.
-
Now 10 that I recognise here. Surely a team that is comfortable with consistency and voicing opinion can come up with a reasonable definition.
-
Now 10 that I recognise here. Surely a team that is comfortable with consistency and voicing opinion can come up with a reasonable definition.
'Team' haha
I thought we were all 'lone nutters'
:-\
-
Sorry to break rules of ?only LNs,? but surely a CT is one who proposes or adheres to any theory which suggests the involvement of others beside Oswald at any level. Such a definition can be arrived at by defining a LNer: one who proposes or adheres to any theory which posits Oswald to have been sole person involved.
-
Sorry to break rules of ?only LNs,? but surely a CT is one who proposes or adheres to any theory which suggests the involvement of others beside Oswald at any level. Such a definition can be arrived at by defining a LNer: one who proposes or adheres to any theory which posits Oswald to have been sole person involved.
'surely a CT is one who proposes or adheres to any theory which suggests the involvement of others beside Oswald
> Don't call me Shirley
Until CTer truth* shows up, we're stuck with CTroll Nation's Saint Oswald the Deranged as prime suspect.
* Tongue-in-cheek, for those oblivious to nuance
-
And in the past you have claimed that CT'ers are enemies of democracy have you not?
Can we add this to the list of CT attributes?
No. Because I only said that some CTers are enemies of democracy.
Certainly, this is true. The Soviets paid for Mark Lane?s first book on the JFK conspiracy ?Rush to Judgement? back in the mid 1960?s. They arranged for certain European newspapers to publish pro conspiracy articles in 1964. Once the JFK conspiracy industry got well started, they backed off.
Is the Kremlin not to be considered an enemy of democracy?
-
There is nothing wrong with the phrase ?Conspiracy Theorist?. It is an accurate description. One who believes in a conspiracy theory. In this case, a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
CTers don?t like this term because it links to other believes in a Large Secret Conspiracies that successfully keep the secret of their existence from a large segment of the population for a long period of time. Like the Believers in a worldwide Jewish Conspiracy. Or believers in the Illuminati. Or a worldwide conspiracy among the Freemasons. Or the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax.
It's not that I find the term bothersome but relatively simplistic and lacking in sophistication. Personally I would prefer the label sceptic or "WC sceptic". In contrast Lone Nut is a term that immediately defines that sides position. You all suffer from monorchism 8).
People who believe in a false theory sometimes hope to adopt the name or part of the name from the rational side. Creationists like to call themselves ?Scientific Creationists? or believers in ?Scientific Creation?. Giving themselves a label similar to the label the ones on the other side of the debate give themselves ?Scientists?.
Skeptics, or at least the bulk of Skeptics, don?t hold with any Large Secret Conspiracy that has some success with maintaining secrecy for a long period of time. Hence, the spokesmen for Skeptics, like Michael Shermer, argue against the Holocaust Deniers, the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax believers and the JFK conspiracy theorists. So, it would be misleading and confusing if CTers adopted the name ?WC sceptic?. At least until the bulk of the true skeptics adopt similar views.
-
As we regularly see the term CT thrown about in the forum, (sometimes kook is used interchangeably by some), I wonder if the LN's cohort that resides here could agree a definition that describes their understanding of what a CT is and thinks.
Once this is agreed to the rest here can determine whether they belong to that group or not. I am going to ask non-LN's to refrain from joining this debate (this may be a forlorn hope I know).
So go to it LN's......what do CT's believe and think?
From what I have observed so far on this site is, there are no CTers here. There are a bunch of people who want to walk the fence without ever really saying which theory. Colin I have lost track of how many conspiracy theories there are now. So, which theory do you believe? But my answer for your post is, we can add "fence walkers."
-
From what I have observed so far on this site is, there are no CTers here. There are a bunch of people who want to walk the fence without ever really saying which theory. Colin I have lost track of how many conspiracy theories there are now. So, which theory do you believe? But my answer for your post is, we can add "fence walkers."
There is a clue in our nickname. Wes. Its i.e.,. "conspiracy theorists." We believe there was a conspiracy but the evidence is so tainted, and the investigation by the Warren Commission was so poor, that it is almost impossible to say who was responsible.
Just because you don't have answer to a question doesn't mean you discount it.
Do you believe in God?
-
There is a clue in our nickname. Wes. Its i.e.,. "conspiracy theorists." We believe there was a conspiracy but the evidence is so tainted, and the investigation by the Warren Commission was so poor, that it is almost impossible to say who was responsible.
If the investigation by the WC was so poor why do you characters misrepresent it
-
If the investigation by the WC was so poor why do you characters misrepresent it
We don't misrepresent it. We resent it.
-
There is a clue in our nickname. Wes. Its i.e.,. "conspiracy theorists." We believe there was a conspiracy but the evidence is so tainted, and the investigation by the Warren Commission was so poor, that it is almost impossible to say who was responsible.
Just because you don't have answer to a question doesn't mean you discount it.
Do you believe in God?
Whether I believe in god or not is not relevant. I agree that any evidence that is cited by CTers is tainted.
-
We don't misrepresent it. We resent it.
'We resent it'
Exactly. That's why you misrepresent it.
-
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I have no problem with WC Defender instead of LN because apart from some disagreement about Oswald?s motive those who align with the findings of the WC are consistent in their belief. The events happened in a particular way and no other. I am seeing CT used here as a term that is undefined and therefore interpreted differently depending on the members view. What a CT is becomes more like beauty, dependant on the mind of the beholder.
Personally I don?t have a theory that explains the events at this stage. However from what I have read and interpreted I am sceptical about the WC version. I do believe man landed on the moon, that Bigfoot does not exist, that creationism is merely a religious belief and that evolution is scientifically based. I do not believe in the illuminati or conspiracies involving the Freemasons, New Word Order, Skull and Crossbones, that climate change is real.....
I am a sceptic.....someone who is trained to be....that?s how scientific method works.
Good. But it is common for CTers (in regard to the JFK assassination) to be CTers in other fields.
** James Fetzer - the leading spokesman for the ?Zapruder film was faked? (at least until he made his anti-Semitism public) also believes in a multi generation world-wide Jewish conspiracy and has become essentially a Holocaust Denier. Also, a proponent of other Large Secret Conspiracies that have remained hidden, like the U. S. Government planning of the 9/11 attacks. And also, behind an attack on an Elementary school.
** Jim Marrs ? whose book was used as a basis for the movie JFK was also a believer in UFOs and the U. S. Government?s conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs. Indeed, I would suppose he believed that many or most of the world?s governments were involved in this conspiracy.
** Mark Lane ? a leading CTer over the decades who also argued the U. S. Government was behind the Jonestown tragedy. I think he carried more responsibility for this than the U. S. Government although it was Jones?s own paranoia that was mostly to blame. But Lane did a lot to feed this paranoia.
** Michael T. Griffith ? CTers go to authority on arguing against the Neurological Spasm Theory for explaining how JFK?s head could move backwards after z314 due to a shot from the front. And Griffith became this authority by checking with doctors, without telling them of the existence of films showing goats being shot in the brain, until he found a doctor who thought such a theory must be false. I be curious to know if the doctor would have thought so if Griffith was honest with him and showed him this film.
In any case, Griffith also believes in Scientific Creationism and that the Theory of Evolution is false. He also argues that the North was wrong to fight the Civil War and that the Confederacy was right to secede from the Union and it was wrong for the North to prevent this.
While none of this (necessarily) shows a belief in large conspiracies, it does show evidence of wacky thinking by Mr. Griffith.
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.
In any case, there does seem to be a strong correlation between people believing in the JFK conspiracy and also believing in other large secret conspiracies. Not all CTers are like this, but a lot are, including major spokesmen for the CT case. This is to be expected. If one shows a tendency to believe in one large secret conspiracy, one is probably more susceptible to a belief in others.
And so, believers in any large secret conspiracy theory, whether it is on the JFK assassination, or UFO?s, or Holocaust Denial or whatever, should not refer to themselves as ?Skeptics?, of any sort. Any more than believers in Creationism should refer to themselves as Scientific Creationists.
-
You like to refer to Michael Shermer a lot......
"Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but ceased to believe in the existence of God during his graduate studies. He accepts the labels agnostic,[5] nontheist,[6][7] atheist and others.[8][9][10] He has expressed reservations about such labels for his lack of belief in a God, however, as he sees them being used in the service of "pigeonholing", and prefers to simply be called a skeptic."
From Wiki......
How ironic.
-
Skeptics and scepticism
Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?
Rebekah Higgitt @beckyfh
Wed 14 Nov 2012 00.12 AEDT First published on Wed 14 Nov 2012 00.12 AEDT
I was somewhat disconcerted to see something completely erroneous appear in Guardian Science's own Notes & Theories blog. It was this:
"A word about the distinction between sceptics and skeptics. A generic "sceptic" questions accepted beliefs. In this way, we have "man didn't go to the moon" sceptics. (Some people won't believe anything.) Skeptics are different: they espouse the evidence-based approach ? and find the world wanting in many respects."
Yikes! As an early commenter rightly pointed out, the sceptic/skeptic spellings are simply UK and US variants, although later commenters denied this and continued to perpetuate the error. Somehow the British spelling now denotes "bad" scepticism (i.e. questioning scientific consensus on topics as varied as vaccination, lunar landings and climate change) and the US spelling is identified only with "the evidence-based approach" to ? something-or-other.
It is true that the capital "S" Skeptic movement uses the US spelling even in the UK, but that is an extremely circumscribed use of the word. It is one that is not widely known or understood outside particular communities. Before about 2010, when I started blogging and using Twitter, it's something I had never come across (and I say that as someone who has an interest in science, is an atheist and attempts to make decisions rationally and based on evidence).
To compound matters, this was written by Deborah Hyde, editor of The Skeptic magazine. To not understand the meaning and history of the title of your own publication is a worry.
Scepticism, or skepticism, is neither denialism nor a movement. Based on the Greek skeptomai, which means to think or consider, it usually means doubt or incredulity about particular ideas, or a wider view about the impossibility of having certain knowledge. This uncertainty is a philosophical position, and philosophical scepticism includes attempts to deal with it, through systematic doubt and testing of ideas.
So, let's be clear. In the US you can be a climate skeptic. In the UK you might consider yourself a Skeptic and approach knowledge in a sceptical way. It also appears that it is possible to be a Skeptic and yet not be a sceptic. Hyde's parenthetical "Some people won't believe anything" dismissal of "bad" sceptics suggests very little understanding of what scepticism really means.
This goes to the heart of much recent criticism of Skeptics, often coming from within the movement itself. The charge is that many self-identified Skeptics are not properly sceptical (or skeptical) of the positions that they or their leading figures take up. Rather, a tribalism or group-mentality develops in which ? unthinkingly ? certain positions are condemned or approved.
It would be wrong to tar every self-identified Skeptic with the same brush. However, all too often what comes over to those on the outside is a rather narrow and repetitive focus on particular topics and, more importantly, a condescending, over-confident tone in engaging with those who disagree or who have given such things little thought.
These things matter if Skeptics are really interested in changing or opening minds rather than getting together and having a good laugh about whacky beliefs. Hyde's article suggests it is the former that now takes precedence:
Many skeptics retain a hobbyist's level of delight in debunking psychic powers or ghost stories, and that's where the movement started. But the subject matter has become more serious and political. In the last decade, the most formidable opponents of alternative medicine have not been government regulators, but skeptics.
She adds vaccination, the teaching of evolution in schools, gay rights and abortion rights. Her claim is that Skeptics, or nerds (or geeks) are "the people with the best intellectual tools to rebut the traditional postulates". I would query that, if her "nerdocracy" means the self-selected (and not necessarily experienced or qualified) group that might identify with the term. As it stands, they also may not be the best (and should certainly not the only) group to attempt to communicate the issues to the broader public.
I'll end simply with a reminder that the etymology of scepticism implies enquiry and reflection, not dismissiveness.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2012/nov/13/history-science (https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2012/nov/13/history-science)
-
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*
Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.
K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Sherlock = Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs
-
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*
Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.
K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Sherlock = Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs
On the contrary Bill.......
You can all become more sophisticated by providing a simple definition of what you deem CT'ers to be. A task so far has yet to be reached by your group.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' - Clare Luce Booth*
Luce's statement ironically renders Colin's plea for a more sophisticated description of CTers somewhat contradictory.
K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Sherlock = Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
*misattributed to Apple, Leonardo da Vinci, and Steve Jobs
By the way Bill simplicity is not the same as simplistic.....
-
Specifically, CTer, here, means someone who believes that there was a successful conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
In general, CTer means someone who believes in any large conspiracy that successfully kept a secret for a long time, however unlikely this would be. Examples are:
** A worldwide Jewish conspiracy to do evil things to non-Jewish races.
** illuminati
** Freemason?s
** Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
** UFO coverup
A sign of such a conspiracy theory is if the proponents do not provide a list of all the people involved because the list would be too large and make it too obvious that they believe in a large conspiracy.
You've omitted the most obvious....The US Government.....
-
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I have no problem with WC Defender instead of LN because . . .
And I have no problem with LN or ?Lone Nutter?. There is a tradition of supporters of Democracy adopting the derisive name the other side gave to them. Like ?Yankee Doodle? or Yankees.
Personally I don?t have a theory that explains the events at this stage. However from what I have read and interpreted I am sceptical about the WC version. I do believe man landed on the moon, that Bigfoot does not exist, that creationism is merely a religious belief and that evolution is scientifically based. I do not believe in the illuminati or conspiracies involving the Freemasons, New Word Order, Skull and Crossbones, that climate change is real.....
I am a sceptic.....someone who is trained to be....that?s how scientific method works.
It doesn?t matter which Large Secret Conspiracy you believe in, which amazingly enough, has kept its secret for a long period of time. If you believe in any of them, Freemasons, New World Order, JFK conspiracy, you are not a skeptic. Or sceptic. No matter what you call yourself.
Holocaust Deniers can call themselves ? ?Conventional History Skeptics?
Moon Landing Hoaxers can call themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?
JFK CTers can call also themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?
None of them are skeptics. Anymore than ?Scientific Creationists? are a type of scientist.
It?s no good to say the JFK conspiracy has not successfully kept its secrets, at least to any thinking man. Because the World Wide Jewish Conspiracy believers will say the same thing.
-
And I have no problem with LN or ?Lone Nutter?. There is a tradition of supporters of Democracy adopting the derisive name the other side gave to them. Like ?Yankee Doodle? or Yankees.
It doesn?t matter which Large Secret Conspiracy you believe in, which amazingly enough, has kept its secret for a long period of time. If you believe in any of them, Freemasons, New World Order, JFK conspiracy, you are not a skeptic. Or sceptic. No matter what you call yourself.
Holocaust Deniers can call themselves ? ?Conventional History Skeptics?
Moon Landing Hoaxers can call themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?
JFK CTers can call also themselves ? ?U S Government Skeptics?
None of them are skeptics. Anymore than ?Scientific Creationists? are a type of scientist.
It?s no good to say the JFK conspiracy has not successfully kept its secrets, at least to any thinking man. Because the World Wide Jewish Conspiracy believers will say the same thing.
So if I don?t consider the conspiracy to assassinate was neccessarily large scale what does that make me?
I hope you appreciated the quote from Shermer regarding the use of labels as pigeonholing....
-
In any case, Griffith also believes in Scientific Creationism and that the Theory of Evolution is false. He also argues that the North was wrong to fight the Civil War and that the Confederacy was right to secede from the Union and it was wrong for the North to prevent this.
I'm not sure why you included that. Is there something conspiratorial in that stance of his? Is he denying science with it? It seems to me that he's merely expressing a political-like ideology with it.
-
(https://preview.ibb.co/hWMBFH/poll.jpg)
Taken from https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/ (https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/)
-
Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy, or was there some larger conspiracy at work?
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone ??????? 25%. WC defenders (LNs)
There was some larger conspiracy at work. 51%. CT's
Not sure ???????????????????.... 24%. This includes me.....sceptical
-
On the contrary Bill.......
You can all become more sophisticated by providing a simple definition of what you deem CT'ers to be. A task so far has yet to be reached by your group.
Thanks for proving my point.
To me a CTer is a person who insists, beyond a reasonable standard of proof, that Oswald needed help
-
So now we LNers are facsists with a missing testicle. Good one.
;)
If the shoe fits! ;)
-
From what I have observed so far on this site is, there are no CTers here. There are a bunch of people who want to walk the fence without ever really saying which theory. Colin I have lost track of how many conspiracy theories there are now.
So which is it then? Either people are coming with so many theories that you can't keep track of them or they are refusing to come up with any theory. It can't be both.
-
If the investigation by the WC was so poor why do you characters misrepresent it
Why do you?
-
Good. But it is common for CTers (in regard to the JFK assassination) to be CTers in other fields.
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.
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.
You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy". A conspiracy could be two people.
-
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
-
You keep assuming that a conspiracy is necessarily a "large secret conspiracy". A conspiracy could be two people.
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.
-
But the conspiracy that CTers really mean is not a conspiracy of two people but a much large conspiracy.
Good thing they have a spokesman like you to define what they "really mean".
-
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?
I don't believe anybody did any of these things.
Next question?
-
I don't believe anybody did any of these things.
Next question?
What exactly is it that you believe John? You question most of the evidence related to Oswald. So what exactly are you saying you believe happened? You really have no opinion? You just question the evidence against Oswald? You really have no opinion other than you question the evidence? I don't believe you. You have called me lazy John and that is just what you are. At least I'm not hesitant to state that I believe the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved. And I'll save the the trouble of asking what that evidence is, because you have accused me of not stating it. I believe the rifle C2766 a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm MADE IN ITALY rifle was linked to one Lee Harvey Oswald, I believe that the bullet CE399 was linked to said rifle C2766 to the exclusion of all others. I believe the fragments recovered from the limo were matched to that bullet. Clear enough for you John? And I know all of your lame information to try and prove otherwise and I will save you some typing John. I do not believe any information has shown the evidence in the case to be false. Now can you tell me what you think happened?
-
What exactly is it that you believe John?
I believe that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.
You have called me lazy John and that is just what you are. At least I'm not hesitant to state that I believe the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved.
What's lazy is that you refuse to explain how "the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved" proves that Oswald did it.
I believe the rifle C2766 a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm MADE IN ITALY rifle was linked to one Lee Harvey Oswald,
Why? And what does "linked to" mean, exactly?
I believe that the bullet CE399 was linked to said rifle C2766 to the exclusion of all others.
Why do you believe that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination?
I believe the fragments recovered from the limo were matched to that bullet.
To what bullet? CE 399? Not even Robert Frazier claimed that. But what does any of that have to do with Oswald?
Clear enough for you John?
What's clear is that you really don't have any idea why you think Oswald did it.
-
I believe that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.
What's lazy is that you refuse to explain how "the evidence gathered by all of the agencies involved" proves that Oswald did it.
Why? And what does "linked to" mean, exactly?
Why do you believe that CE399 had anything to do with the assassination?
To what bullet? CE 399? Not even Robert Frazier claimed that. But what does any of that have to do with Oswald?
What's clear is that you really don't have any idea why you think Oswald did it.
Not going to play your game John. I've stated what I believe. Now one more time, what other choices are there for you in the case?
-
Not going to play your game John. I've stated what I believe.
As you wish. I like to have good reasons before I'll believe something.
-
I don't believe anybody did any of these things.
Next question?
If none of the evidence is bogus then Oswald must be guilty. He ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.
Where is the website, or post, that lists what evidence is faked and (hopefully) lists the names, or at least the number of various CIA agents, FBI agents, Dallas police agents, autopsy doctors and other experts who must have been in on the conspiracy. So, I can judge if the CTers really believe in a small conspiracy or an unbelievably large secret conspiracy. The impression they give me is that they believe in a large secret conspiracy. Otherwise they would freely give out such lists.
-
If none of the evidence is bogus then Oswald must be guilty. He ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit. It doesn't. At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt. You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.
-
That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit. It doesn't. At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt. You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.
How is it this evidence does not prove this?
Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?
Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.
In any case you seem not the least bit interested in producing a list of the evidence that is most likely faked, and the people needed to fake this evidence. This is one would likely do if they do not want to expose the fact that they believe in a large conspiracy.
You seem to use the cover ?Well, I?m not saying for certain there was a large secret conspiracy, so technically I am not a large secret conspiracy believer? while suggesting that there was.
-
How is it this evidence does not prove this?
Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?
Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.
In any case you seem not the least bit interested in producing a list of the evidence that is most likely faked, and the people needed to fake this evidence. This is one would likely do if they do not want to expose the fact that they believe in a large conspiracy.
You seem to use the cover ?Well, I?m not saying for certain there was a large secret conspiracy, so technically I am not a large secret conspiracy believer? while suggesting that there was.
Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?
Why would the entire paper trail be faked and why would there be a need to insert fake documents in some location? In case of the rifle all it took to create the entire papertrail was a small order form (with only a few words written on it) and a money order, right?
For the revolver there was even less paperwork.
Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.
To answer your question first; I don't know if Oswald was carrying a fake ID or not. All I know is that there is no day 1 report from any of the arresting officers, including Paul Bentley who took a wallet from Oswald in the car, that mentions something as significant as a fake ID. Can you give a reasonable explanation for why that is?
-
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
That would only follow if the evidence actually showed that Oswald ordered the rifle and handgun and used the rifle to murder the President and used the handgun to murder Officer Tippit. It doesn't. At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt. You're confusing conclusions based on the evidence (along with a whole lot of speculation and conjecture) with the evidence itself.
At least not by anything approaching a reasonable doubt.
This is where you fail, isn't the criteria "reasonable doubt by a reasonable person" and you have repeatedly shown yourself not to be a reasonable person, therefore in my estimation you would not be picked to be on a jury and thus your repeated use of "reasonable doubt" is simply self serving nonsense!
JohnM
-
This is where you fail, isn't the criteria "reasonable doubt by a reasonable person" and you have repeatedly shown yourself not to be a reasonable person, therefore in my estimation you would not be picked to be on a jury and thus your repeated use of "reasonable doubt" is simply self serving nonsense!
JohnM
Anybody can play this stupid game, Johnny
In my estimation you are not a reasonable person, so your opinion can not be considered anything else but nonsense.
-
Anybody can play this stupid game, Johnny
In my estimation you are not a reasonable person, so your opinion can not be considered anything else but nonsense.
Huh? You're attempting to make a comparison where none exists, the evidence is solid and tangible and my influence of being reasonable has absolutely no impact on this Mountain of Evidence but on the other hand people like you and Iacoletti continually attempt to dispute virtually every piece of evidence and this blatant illogical paranoia can only be seen as "unreasonable" which makes my original point even more valid.
JohnM
-
Huh? You're attempting to make a comparison where none exists, the evidence is solid and tangible and my influence of being reasonable has absolutely no impact on this Mountain of Evidence but on the other hand people like you and Iacoletti continually attempt to dispute virtually every piece of evidence and this blatant illogical paranoia can only be seen as "unreasonable" which makes my original point even more valid.
JohnM
The mere fact that you keep calling it a "mountain of evidence" proves that you are not a reasonable person.
-
Because the paper trail is faked? Who faked it? How many people would it take to fake this? Who was in a position to assign the people to produce and insert the fake paper work in the appropriate location, to make it appear that this rifle was ordered by the same ?person? whose fake ID Oswald was found carrying?
Why would the entire paper trail be faked and why would there be a need to insert fake documents in some location? In case of the rifle all it took to create the entire papertrail was a small order form (with only a few words written on it) and a money order, right?
For the revolver there was even less paperwork.
But only the CIA, the FBI or the police would not know what form to recreate. They don?t know how Klein's Sporting Goods stores its records. They don?t know where in the Klein?s Sporting Goods records to insert such paperwork.
Even if the CIA did insert this paperwork, they wouldn?t know if that company keeps an index list of purchases. It would look bad if there was paperwork for other rifle orders, which also appeared on the index list. But not Oswald?s order.
No, to pull this off, to have the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company to go through it?s records and find this paperwork, you would need the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company involved with the conspiracy. If not the entire company, the CIA would somehow have to make inquires to identify the key people who know what paperwork is kept and then recruit them.
Since Oswald had a rifle and seemed to be obeying the orders of this alleged conspiracy (be sure to bring a long object wrapped in a paper bag on the morning the President drive by) it would seem simpler to just instruct Oswald to order himself a rifle, rather than recruit the Klein?s Sporting Goods company into the conspiracy and have them create a fake paper trail.
Or do you believe that Oswald was not really carrying a fake ID? Even if this is so, officers would be needed to plant the fake ID on him and go along with the story, and other people would be needed to produce the fake paper trail that seems to lead to a P. O. Box associated with this alias.
To answer your question first; I don't know if Oswald was carrying a fake ID or not. All I know is that there is no day 1 report from any of the arresting officers, including Paul Bentley who took a wallet from Oswald in the car, that mentions something as significant as a fake ID. Can you give a reasonable explanation for why that is?
Can you provide me with link to the paperwork Paul Bentley filed that day? I would be curious to know what else was missing from that paperwork.
I don?t know how through the Dallas Police department was with immediate paperwork. And what need is there since the fake ID is being stored? I don?t know of any need, unless Bentley was afraid that people were suspecting that they were creating a false case against Oswald and so he needs to carefully itemize everything to help deflect this. But I don?t know if that had ever occurred to him on that day.
And all this seems to be nothing more than needlessly postulating a conspiracy that does everything at the last second. Planning this assassination for weeks and it isn?t until immediately after the assassination that it occurs to them that they need to make a fake ID and get some fake paperwork from Klein?s Sporting Goods before the weekend is over.
But so far, Martin, you are dodging my main question. Why can?t a CTer provide a list of the evidence that was probably fake and a rough count of who was involved?
Had you attempted such a list, would you have remembered to include the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company?
I can only think that CTers don?t provide such a list because it would be like providing a list of all the grains of sand to be found on a certain beach.
-
So, are you a CTer or not?
Questions:
If you are a CTer, can you provide a list of the evidence that was faked?
Can you provide a rough list of all those involved in this alledged conspiracy?
And by doing so argument that you are not a believer in Large Secret Conspiracies.
Please define a CTer as requested. Why is this task impossible for your group?
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.
Lee Henry Oswald did.
Or Harvey Lee Oswald did.
I can never keep them straight.
Steve Thomas
-
But only the CIA, the FBI or the police would not know what form to recreate. They don?t know how Klein's Sporting Goods stores its records. They don?t know where in the Klein?s Sporting Goods records to insert such paperwork.
Even if the CIA did insert this paperwork, they wouldn?t know if that company keeps an index list of purchases. It would look bad if there was paperwork for other rifle orders, which also appeared on the index list. But not Oswald?s order.
No, to pull this off, to have the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company to go through it?s records and find this paperwork, you would need the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company involved with the conspiracy. If not the entire company, the CIA would somehow have to make inquires to identify the key people who know what paperwork is kept and then recruit them.
Since Oswald had a rifle and seemed to be obeying the orders of this alleged conspiracy (be sure to bring a long object wrapped in a paper bag on the morning the President drive by) it would seem simpler to just instruct Oswald to order himself a rifle, rather than recruit the Klein?s Sporting Goods company into the conspiracy and have them create a fake paper trail.
Can you provide me with link to the paperwork Paul Bentley filed that day? I would be curious to know what else was missing from that paperwork.
I don?t know how through the Dallas Police department was with immediate paperwork. And what need is there since the fake ID is being stored? I don?t know of any need, unless Bentley was afraid that people were suspecting that they were creating a false case against Oswald and so he needs to carefully itemize everything to help deflect this. But I don?t know if that had ever occurred to him on that day.
And all this seems to be nothing more than needlessly postulating a conspiracy that does everything at the last second. Planning this assassination for weeks and it isn?t until immediately after the assassination that it occurs to them that they need to make a fake ID and get some fake paperwork from Klein?s Sporting Goods before the weekend is over.
But so far, Martin, you are dodging my main question. Why can?t a CTer provide a list of the evidence that was probably fake and a rough count of who was involved?
Had you attempted such a list, would you have remembered to include the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company?
I can only think that CTers don?t provide such a list because it would be like providing a list of all the grains of sand to be found on a certain beach.
But only the CIA, the FBI or the police would not know what form to recreate. They don?t know how Klein's Sporting Goods stores its records. They don?t know where in the Klein?s Sporting Goods records to insert such paperwork.
Even if the CIA did insert this paperwork, they wouldn?t know if that company keeps an index list of purchases. It would look bad if there was paperwork for other rifle orders, which also appeared on the index list. But not Oswald?s order.
You don't get it. There wouldn't be a need to recreate and/or insert paperwork anywhere. Anybody can fill out a faked order form and send it by mail. The normal business procedure by Klein's would do the rest.
No, to pull this off, to have the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company to go through it?s records and find this paperwork, you would need the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company involved with the conspiracy. If not the entire company, the CIA would somehow have to make inquires to identify the key people who know what paperwork is kept and then recruit them.
That's only what you want to believe so you can hang on to your strawmen argument. Fact of the matter is that the rifle purchase basically only required a faked order form. The order would be processed by Klein's in the normal manner, producing the remainder of the paperwork, which would lay dormant in their files for whenever it would be needed. If there was a conspiracy at the highest level they could have done the same thing for several people all over the country and we would only ever find out about the one concerning the individual ultimately selected as the patsy.
Since Oswald had a rifle and seemed to be obeying the orders of this alleged conspiracy (be sure to bring a long object wrapped in a paper bag on the morning the President drive by) it would seem simpler to just instruct Oswald to order himself a rifle, rather than recruit the Klein?s Sporting Goods company into the conspiracy and have them create a fake paper trail.
True, that's more or less the same as what I am saying, but if Oswald was manipulated in doing it himself even the order form wouldn't be fake. It would just be the story behind it that would need to change to morph into the official narrative.
Can you provide me with link to the paperwork Paul Bentley filed that day? I would be curious to know what else was missing from that paperwork.
I don't think he filed any paperwork that day at all. After arresting Oswald he went to the hospital for his injury. The first time he re-appears in public is the next day when he gives a television interview. My take on this is that had Bentley filed a report that mentioned finding the Hidell alias, we would have known about it by now. As it stands he wasn't even called to testify for the WC.
I don?t know how through the Dallas Police department was with immediate paperwork. And what need is there since the fake ID is being stored? I don?t know of any need, unless Bentley was afraid that people were suspecting that they were creating a false case against Oswald and so he needs to carefully itemize everything to help deflect this. But I don?t know if that had ever occurred to him on that day.
So, by your reasoning, there was no need to file a report about finding a fake ID in Oswald's wallet, yet other officers filed extensive reports about all sorts of everything. Remarkable.
And all this seems to be nothing more than needlessly postulating a conspiracy that does everything at the last second. Planning this assassination for weeks and it isn?t until immediately after the assassination that it occurs to them that they need to make a fake ID and get some fake paperwork from Klein?s Sporting Goods before the weekend is over.
Where did you get the idea that a conspiracy did everything at the last second. They could have been planning for months, having all sorts of scenarios in place and selecting at short notice which scenario to impliment.
But so far, Martin, you are dodging my main question. Why can?t a CTer provide a list of the evidence that was probably fake and a rough count of who was involved?
Had you attempted such a list, would you have remembered to include the Klein?s Sporting Goods Company?
Why should a CT provide such a list? When you, as LN, present a piece of evidence it's on you to show it is authentic. But if I had made such a list (which I haven't and won't) I most certainly would have no reason at all to include Klein's in it.
I can only think that CTers don?t provide such a list because it would be like providing a list of all the grains of sand to be found on a certain beach.
Of course you would think that. That's why you asked to question to begin with. Another strawmen argument to be shot down!
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.
Lee Henry Oswald did.
Or Harvey Lee Oswald did.
I can never keep them straight.
Steve Thomas
A bitter, mentally-deranged pipsqueak wanted to make a name for himself
Smith, Wesson, and Lee: Dirty Harvey.
-
Colin, I'm
have no idea curious as to why this is being asked? What's the purpose here?
CT is simply short hand - an acronym - used for those who believe/theorize/know that JFK was killed in a conspiracy. CT = conspiracy theorist.
It's clearly inaccurate in that it includes people who both theorize or believe there was a conspiracy as well as people - like the late Gaeton Fonzi - who say they "know" there was one.
But LN is inaccurate too since there are people who think Oswald acted without help but he that wasn't "nuts."
CT and LN are just figures of speech, shorthand that we use.
At least that's what my paymasters at Langley tell me to say.
-
To me a CTer is a person who insists, beyond a reasonable standard of proof, that Oswald needed help
That's your problem. A CTer is a person who looks at all the circumstantial evidence re the JFK assassination and leans toward Oswald likely not acting alone. CTers represent the majority of the world who give a damn. And for that the fringe LNers label CTers as tin foil hat wearing kooks. Go figure.
-
How is it this evidence does not prove this?
Because the only part of your "paper trail" that connects Oswald personally to a Klein's rifle order is unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photograph of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.
No fakery is necessary -- just a questionable conclusion based on the actual available evidence.
-
This is where you fail, isn't the criteria "reasonable doubt by a reasonable person" and you have repeatedly shown yourself not to be a reasonable person, therefore in my estimation you would not be picked to be on a jury and thus your repeated use of "reasonable doubt" is simply self serving nonsense!
The problem is that you define "reasonable person" as someone who agrees with your unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. Your position has nothing to do with reason.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy.
Lee Henry Oswald did.
Or Harvey Lee Oswald did.
I can never keep them straight.
Steve Thomas
What about Lee Harold Oswald? Let's not forget him.