Historian explains the mind of Conspiracy Nuts - CBS 1967

[Ross Lidell]

This topic has been hijacked.

When discussing evidence: Please do so by referring to the aggregate rather than a single aspect that requires a separate topic.

[John Iacoletti]

This topic has been hijacked.

When discussing evidence: Please do so by referring to the aggregate rather than a single aspect that requires a separate topic.

Well, the problem is that a sweeping generalization like “the conspiracy mindset won’t accept ordinary evidence” cannot be addressed without defining specifically what you think constitutes ordinary evidence.

Unless the topic was just created to insult people.

[Ross Lidell]

Well, the problem is that a sweeping generalization like “the conspiracy mindset won’t accept ordinary evidence” cannot be addressed without defining specifically what you think constitutes ordinary evidence.

Unless the topic was just created to insult people.

Then you must explain why the evidence is ordinary or extraordinary. No-one is doing that.

[John Iacoletti]

Then you must explain why the evidence is ordinary or extraordinary. No-one is doing that.

Depends on what you consider to be evidence.

[Thomas Graves]

Depends on what you consider to be evidence.

Aye, there's the rub. (Or should I say rube?)

Evidently (pardon the pun) circumstantial and photographic and documentary don't qualify as far as you're concerned, especially when collected or handled by any of the hundreds (if not thousands!) of evil, evil, evil frame-up / cover-up participants.

LOL

--  MWT 

[John Iacoletti]

We are all quite aware, Tommy, that you consider your creative blob interpretation to not only constitute evidence, but established fact.

[John Iacoletti]

Good job of avoiding the points I made, Iacoletti.

You have yet to make a valid point. You’re here to disrupt.