Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Do LNs fret about the possibility their conclusions shield complicit parties?  (Read 4201 times)

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."

Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.

What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).

To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 03:24:16 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
Dulles, Hoover and Johnson are bogeymen. And people would cover-up their conspiracy to murder a POTUS? This just gets better. There's Johnson a few months later having to be talked into running in the 1964 election. Dulles has retired to write crime fiction.

A target of opportunity that Oswald could not resist. "Strange right" turn? LOL.

What "smoking gun" have you great CT researchers revealed? The "Mauser"? The "smoke" on the knoll? The storm drain inlet? What "solid" evidence.

For CTs, not suffering from Dunning-Kruger seems to mean asking questions that require time-travel to "prove".

It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)

All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.

But remember, it was just three people.

And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?



« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 08:12:20 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."

Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.

What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).

To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.



It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)

All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.

But remember, it was just three people.

And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?


Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.

It's all black and white for this guy.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.

It's all black and white for this guy.

Against claims so muddied & contradictory that after 54 years CTroll Nation cannot possibly form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.

Probably.
 ;)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 11:57:57 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.

Probably.
 ;)

But Bill, where's your nuance?

As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.

Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?

There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).

I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
But Bill, where's your nuance?

As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.

Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?

There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).

I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.

Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

No. Let's not.... let's examine it closely and see if it really supports the LN claim of guilt.

What's the counter explanation?

Why does there have to be a counter explanation? Can you prove Oswald's guilt conclusively or not?

All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups.

More and more I see LNs going down the shaky path of claiming that people who do not share their opinion (because that's what it is) are anti-government, wish to destroy democracy and/or are a threat to freedom. It's all BS of course, but, and I could be wrong, I am beginning to get the impression that this paranoid LN belief somehow motivates them into clinging to the lone gun man scenario, because a possible alternative scares the sh*t out of them. 

So please be more specific. Who exactly has a grudge against who?

I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.

Is this just something you keep telling yourself to somehow validate your own feelings or do you have some actual evidence for these idiotic claims?

A wise man once said that the biggest fool of them all is the one who thinks others are the fools......
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 12:18:19 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439

Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.

Probably.
 ;)

Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.

I agree. The multitude of opinions and theories amongst the CTs makes it impossible to achieve any kind of united point of view, which btw is exactly why there is no such thing as a CT nation or whatever you want to call it. Your generalizations are simply pathetic.

I also agree that a large part of the CT theories are simply unlikely, stupid, pathetic and/or crazy, but not all of them are. In any event, when you seal the evidence away for many years it is to be expected and inevitable that there will be speculation and some of that will be ideology driven rather than based on fact. Having said that, the CTs don't have the comfort of a prescripted narrative like the LNs do.

Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.  Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest.  Oswald is the assassin.  The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty.  However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group.  He was frankly a kooky guy.  The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap.  His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was.  A murderous nut job.  I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it.  I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt.  There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln.  I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government.  It is simply not the case.  It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn.  Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • SPMLaw
Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be.  That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.  So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened.  That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case.  That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.  Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest.  Oswald is the assassin.  The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty.  However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group.  He was frankly a kooky guy.  The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap.  His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was.  A murderous nut job.  I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it.  I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt.  There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln.  I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government.  It is simply not the case.  It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn. Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.  And round and round we will go.
Well said. While I agree with everything you have stated, LNs are not immune from failing to follow evidence.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.

No need to ask any more since you repeatedly failed, and will fail, to deliver.

Right on cue.  There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt.  It is the most investigated criminal case in history.  The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research."  No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes.  The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations.  What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information?  What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic.  That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out.  There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers.  There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal.  They are true believers in a falsehood.  That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.

 

Mobile View