5 ms·
They are completely falsifiable. You would just need to have the intelligence agencies actually cooperate with the investigation and release all their informat
by timewizard 1y ago
They are completely falsifiable. You would just need to have the intelligence agencies actually cooperate with the investigation and release all their information on it.
We know for a fact they didn't do that. They intentionally obstructed several investigations. They knowingly lied to congress. They destroyed records they were ordered to preserve. These facts are all part of the released documents and they're all plain as day. They tried to keep this all locked up until 2060 for a reason.
At the very least we can retrospectively look at the actions of CIA, FBI and USSS and see their corruption. That they've never been held responsible is unconscionable. I'm glad you're somehow capable of defending them with this lazy nonsense.
- Almondsetat 1y agoEvery piece of evidence an intelligence agency produces you can always claim to be manufactured or altered, so no, it's unfalsifiable
- mardifoufs 1y agoI don't think anyone is claiming the CIA documents that were released recently were fake so I don't think that's the case. In fact, a lot of people, even the conspiracy types, give documents from intelligence agencies a lot of weight. They just don't trust random press releases or official public statements.
- etchalon 1y agoThe intelligence agencies have said Oswald acted alone. Multiple times. Across nearly 5 decades now. Conspiracy theorists give weight to anything which confirms their worldview, and dismiss anything that does not. It is an unfalsifiable belief system.
- kelipso 1y ago> The intelligence agencies have said Lol. Please take yourself seriously. You don’t have to be anywhere near a conspiracy nut to laugh at this phrase.
- etchalon 1y agoThe point isn't "I believe what intelligence agencies have said". The point is "it does not matter what intelligence agencies say or release. Conspiracy theorists will not trust it." Their beliefs are unfalsifiable.
- kelipso 1y agoIt’s called critically analyzing your sources. It’s done by tons of people including scientists and journalists. It does matter what intelligence agencies say and release, you need to know how to critically analyze what they say and release in order to intelligently distinguish between the truth and the lies. Saying “their beliefs are unfalsifiable” is just a boring accusation. Like looking at the worst scientists and accusing all scientists that their research is bs.
- etchalon 1y agoThe nature of a conspiracy theory is that it is a belief not-backed by facts in evidence, but one requiring the theorist to assume alternative information based on their own intuition and a distrust of official data. Saying their beliefs are unfalsifiable is not a "accusation". It is a statement of fact. If you arrive at your conclusion despite the evidence, then you are already relying on a process by which new evidence can be discounted. The goal post can always be (and generally will always be) moved.
- kelipso 1y agoI would describe it as filling in the blanks when there is a lack of evidence. Some people do it badly, others do it well. Some people move goalposts, others don’t. You’re clearly just randomly accusing without thinking it through. I hope you see the fallacy in your thought process here.
- mardifoufs 1y agoAs I said, there's a big difference between them saying something, and them actually publishing internal documents about the case. I mean they can always lie about the documents themselves or modify them, but there's a very long history of intelligence agencies outright lying, even in front of Congress. There's less of a history of them modifying or altering documents that they are forced to release. Fwiw, I believe that Oswald did it, and that there's almost no evidence for any other shooter.
- etchalon 1y agoThere are Kennedy theorists who believe the CIA altered the Zapruder film.
- etchalon 1y agoI didn't defend them.