Poll claims Oswald seen as ......


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......  (Read 7694 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6439
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #208 on: October 02, 2022, 04:53:05 PM »
BY pictures was PR to name LHO as DH


BC


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #208 on: October 02, 2022, 04:53:05 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #209 on: October 02, 2022, 05:04:31 PM »
They merely have to conclude that Oswald didn't do it to be a CTer because there would have to be a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the crime etc.

Hilarious! According to Richard, you don't have to have a theory about the conspiracy (if there was one) and you can still be a Conspiracy Theorist

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theorist

Conspiracy theorist noun

plural conspiracy theorists

Definition of conspiracy theorist
: a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory

It's utterly beyond me how somebody can propose or believe in a conspiracy theory that he hasn't got.   :D

The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
  • someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
  • One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:

    "A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
     to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
     opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
     scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5892
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2022, 05:25:11 PM »
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
  • someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
  • One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.


And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:

    "A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
     to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
     opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
     scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."

This is just plain stupid. It's a logical conclusion that if Oswald wasn't the lone gunman, there must have been a conspiracy. By this definition everybody who does not believe or simply doubts that Oswald was the lone gunman would be a CT. The fact that they do not propose, support or even believe in a particular theory somehow doesn't matter. That's wacky!

Quote
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
  • someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
  • One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.

Hilarious.

I'm not sure where you got those definitions but I suggest you read them again before you say something else stupid.

You may not have noticed it but they clearly state that you have to believe in, follow or advance a conspiracy theory.

So, pray tell, in which theory do I believe in or have I ever followed or advanced?

Quote
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:

    "A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
     to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
     opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
     scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."

your aversion to practically-all LN evidence,

Oh please, stop whining! This is just a variation of the idiotic "your standard of evidence is too high" argument all over again.

I have an aversion to all the BS assumptions and speculations the LNs call evidence as well as the weakness of their arguments when they try to attach far more evidentiary value to a piece of evidence than is really there.

Along the same lines, I have a similar aversion to most CT arguments when they are not supported by conclusive evidence.

"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."

Pathetic. The classic appeal to authority fallacy again.... It's the biggest demonstration there is that somebody hasn't got a mind of his own and is happy to take anything they tell him at face value (that would be you, Jerry)

Translation; you have to believe what we say because we say it, no matter how incredible and unsupported by evidence it is what we say. If you disagree with us, you are a CT....

Counter argument; you can be an expert as much as you like, but if you have an agenda or get questionable evidence to work with (or both) your conclusions are going to be equally questionable.

The only book I have ever read about the Kennedy case is the WC report. Prior to reading it, I was just one more of those shallow minds who didn't give Oswald's alleged guilt a second thought. Once I finished reading the book it was beyond clear to me that whatever really happened on 11/22/63 it wasn't what the WC reported. The question for me was not if Oswald was innocent or if there had been a conspiracy. I came away from reading the report wondering if they simply wrapped this case around Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2022, 10:18:34 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2022, 05:25:11 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9926
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #211 on: October 02, 2022, 07:18:31 PM »
Jerry, how do you leap from “aversion to LN evidence” (which is all either not evidence at all, or is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way) to “a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event“?

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #212 on: October 02, 2022, 10:32:01 PM »
Jerry, how do you leap from “aversion to LN evidence” (which is all either not evidence at all, or is weak, circumstantial, and tainted in some way) to “a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event“?

How do you get from LNers presenting what they see as substantial evidence accepted by a Presidential Commission, a Select Committee, the Ramsey Panel, federal agencies, police, authors like Vincent Bugliosi and TV shows like NOVA and Frontline to: "You promote the official fantasy narrative like it’s gospel."?

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9926
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #213 on: October 03, 2022, 05:32:55 AM »
I take that to mean that you can’t explain how you make that giant leap.

And it’s a fantasy narrative no matter who “accepts” it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #213 on: October 03, 2022, 05:32:55 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6439
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #214 on: October 03, 2022, 12:04:25 PM »
Oswald created his own mess and got what he deserved


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #215 on: October 03, 2022, 05:28:20 PM »
I take that to mean that you can’t explain how you make that giant leap.

Any explanation I would offer would be something "you would take to mean". Not interested in feeding the Troll.

I would hardly call it a "giant leap" that someone who rejects nearly all the LN evidence (at times, claiming some covert element could have been forging or manipulating certain items) can't therefore be a JFK Conspiracy Theorist?

Well gee, I'm not an LNer because I'm not promoting a specific LN Theory. I'm just an honest person who sees the evidence for what it is. I'm a "Skeptic" when it comes to weak CT claims. At the same time, I acknowledge the agencies did some self-serving coverup, such as the Hosty Note being destroyed.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Poll claims Oswald seen as ......
« Reply #215 on: October 03, 2022, 05:28:20 PM »


 

Mobile View