JFK Assassination Forum

Another of Sirhan’s brothers was later convicted by a federal court for writing letters to Israeli PM Golda Meir, threatening to assassinate her.--Lori Spencer.

Spencer is an authority on the RFK assassination.

She posted this on "X," and I had never heard about it.

AI version:

Sharif Bishara Sirhan, the older brother of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin, was convicted in a federal court in June 1973 for mailing a letter threatening to shoot and kill Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. He was accused of sending the threat to Secretary of State William P. Rogers, in which he called Meir a "dead conscience" and claimed she would be killed by March 1. Following his conviction, Sharif Sirhan was sentenced to six months in jail.

In addition, Sirhan's older brother purchased for Sirhan the handgun with which he murdered RFK. I am not sure if Sharif was the older brother who purchased the gun, or another brother.

PS: You will never read this in the Education Forum. Maybe now that William Niedernut has been neutered, but not before.

Some regard Sirhan, who was valorized all over the Middle East after murdering RFK (not in Israel, obviously) as an early Palestinian terrorist.

Payette keeps hiding behind his juvenile talking point that all conspiracy theorists have warped minds and thus can't deal logically with evidence.

Hello, what? I am entirely open to plausible conspiracy theories. That was the entire point of my thread on that topic. Most of my posts over the past several weeks have been quite CT-friendly. You're simply tilting at straw men.

There is a vast body of psychological and sociological literature dealing with the conspiracy-prone personality. The literature emphasizes that it is not "warped" or pathological per se. At the fringes of conspiracy thinking, however, it borders on pathological. This is true of every area of weirdness in which I have been deeply involved. There is the "weirdness community" and then there is the "lunatic fringe of the weirdness community."

You are well into the fringe. For all of your pontification and publication, I see no evidence that your work is taken seriously even within the CT community. It's just too goofy. Sure, John Armstrong, Doug Horne, et al., have their cult-like followings, but they are just too goofy for rational CTers that demand some level of plausibility. I don't see that you even have such a following. It appears to me that you are the proverbial legend in your own mind.

The very title of this thread is classic crank-speak: Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Photos. Anyone attempting to present a plausible argument knows to avoid this absolutist sort of language that can never deliver what it promises. But not a crank; he really thinks he has "undeniable proof" of "impossible" things.

Plausibility is the enemy of an interesting story.

Still another law journal article questioning the reliability of eyewitness memory:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13657127211031018

This sentence jumped out at me:

"However, research clearly shows that memory does not operate like a video recorder and that a witness's memory will often not be a full and accurate description of an event."

How many times have I said the human brain is not equipped with a DVR?

Another article on the unreliability of eyewitness accounts:

https://lawshun.com/article/is-eyewitness-testimony-reliable-in-the-court-of-law

The last paragraph in this article pretty much sums up my skepticism of eyewitnesses. In fact this single sentence spells out my reasons for not placing blind trust in eyewitnesses:

"While eyewitness accounts can provide valuable insights, they must be treated with caution and corroborated with other evidence whenever possible."

That is exactly what I've been saying on this forum since I first began participating in it earlier this year.