3 ms·
I do like, unbeknownst to OP, that this statement could be speaking for either side at this point.
by beepbooptheory 4y ago
I do like, unbeknownst to OP, that this statement could be speaking for either side at this point.
- ceejayoz 4y agoNo, there's a significant difference between "prove something happened" and "prove something didn't happen". If there's a document in there detailing a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK, and it gets released someday, a lot of people are going to be convinced. It's less true in the other direction.
- highwaylights 4y agoI think it’s more “I’ll believe you if you say what I already believe, otherwise you must be a liar”.
- seanw444 4y agoHave you seen the documents they released in the past? There are so many redactions. They are undoubtedly hiding something deemed too sensitive for the public.
- beepbooptheory 4y agoI guess I don't understand your distinction here on purely logical terms, why the uneven burden of proof? The Warren Report is just that, a report written by humans. Even if you firmly want to believe it, if you read it you'd understand its not really doing anything differently than the tin-foil heads and their books (of the better ones at least). It did not create the reality of its hypothesis along with it, it can't really know what Oswald was thinking.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> I guess I don't understand your distinction here on purely logical terms, why the uneven burden of proof? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot It's possible that "yep, it was a conspiracy" will be confirmed if new data is found/released. That's something it's possible to prove. It's not possible to prove there wasn't a conspiracy.