3 ms·

> I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. Doubts like

by derleth 14y ago

> I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. Doubts like what? Do you believe foreign government agents killed him? Do you believe domestic government agents killed him? Do you believe he's still alive? Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. > There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. > just saying "I do not know enough to have an opinion about it" Except I can do research, which conspiracy theory believers seem incapable of.

ekianjo 14y ago
> Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. That's the evidence I am talking about. And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions, then I wonder which one is really the conspiracy theory in the end? You are not the only one capable of doing research. > This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. It's just that there were too many people who did not believe the lie and did not want to walk into it, and foreign powers involved who did not want to be trapped in another war. But the US and UK governments did try to fool people with false evidence as long as they could. > conspiracy theory believers Classic fallacy. It's not because some believers are morons that all believers are. And the other fallacy is the put all the theories in the same bag no matter how much research is done on them : some are obviously ridiculous, some other deserve more attention. It's too easy to dismiss everything.
- derleth 14y ago
  > The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. No, it doesn't. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/Oattes--Fatal_shot.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_fi... > And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions Another lie: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm > Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. You're confusing the issue by bringing up an irrelevant matter. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has a definite definition in English and it isn't just a theory that involves a conspiracy. It's a theory about a massive conspiracy involving many people over a long span of time. Words (and a noun phrase is a 'word') have meanings based on usage, not logic.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    This is clearly becoming out of topic, but there's not only the Zapruder film that attests of the front shot. Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas. Do you mean to say they are all part of conspiracy fools ? And if that was not enough, Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best: he was never known to be good shot in the army, and the rifle he supposedly used could not allow rapid-fire such as shown in the Warren Report. And he would have been firing perfect shots through dense tree leaves. Yeah, the official version make total sense, for sure. Oswald himself said he was a patsy - why is that not considered a possibility ?
    - jpxxx 14y ago
      I just realized I get an internet point every time this thread gets a reply. ~Keep going!~
    - Ntrails 14y ago
      I don't like to get involved, but.. >Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas Eye witnesses are beyond useless at everything. Gunshots echo. No one 'saw' gunfire. Everyone filled in their own blanks. For example, big aircraft crash at an English airshow. Of the hundreds of people asked what they saw only one remembered correctly. There have also been more scientific studies into this. (eg something about a video of a speeding car, some participants were told there was a barn in the video, there was not. 3 days later when asked about the barn a significantly higher % of people who had been told there was a barn said they saw one.) Anyway. I have no opinion on the assassination - but if I was trying to make an argument for anything the last thing I would take as true is the statements of witnesses.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best The man was a Marine. He was a trained rifleman making a shot that, for him, was close range. > he would have been firing perfect shots No. He missed once. You claim to do research, and to know things, but you get basic facts wrong. This is a common thing to find among conspiracy theorists: Their conspiracies rest on factual inaccuracies.

by derleth 14y ago

ekianjo 14y ago

> Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. That's the evidence I am talking about. And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions, then I wonder which one is really the conspiracy theory in the end? You are not the only one capable of doing research. > This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. It's just that there were too many people who did not believe the lie and did not want to walk into it, and foreign powers involved who did not want to be trapped in another war. But the US and UK governments did try to fool people with false evidence as long as they could. > conspiracy theory believers Classic fallacy. It's not because some believers are morons that all believers are. And the other fallacy is the put all the theories in the same bag no matter how much research is done on them : some are obviously ridiculous, some other deserve more attention. It's too easy to dismiss everything.

derleth 14y ago
> The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. No, it doesn't. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/Oattes--Fatal_shot.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_fi... > And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions Another lie: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm > Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. You're confusing the issue by bringing up an irrelevant matter. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has a definite definition in English and it isn't just a theory that involves a conspiracy. It's a theory about a massive conspiracy involving many people over a long span of time. Words (and a noun phrase is a 'word') have meanings based on usage, not logic.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  This is clearly becoming out of topic, but there's not only the Zapruder film that attests of the front shot. Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas. Do you mean to say they are all part of conspiracy fools ? And if that was not enough, Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best: he was never known to be good shot in the army, and the rifle he supposedly used could not allow rapid-fire such as shown in the Warren Report. And he would have been firing perfect shots through dense tree leaves. Yeah, the official version make total sense, for sure. Oswald himself said he was a patsy - why is that not considered a possibility ?
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    I just realized I get an internet point every time this thread gets a reply. ~Keep going!~
  - Ntrails 14y ago
    I don't like to get involved, but.. >Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas Eye witnesses are beyond useless at everything. Gunshots echo. No one 'saw' gunfire. Everyone filled in their own blanks. For example, big aircraft crash at an English airshow. Of the hundreds of people asked what they saw only one remembered correctly. There have also been more scientific studies into this. (eg something about a video of a speeding car, some participants were told there was a barn in the video, there was not. 3 days later when asked about the barn a significantly higher % of people who had been told there was a barn said they saw one.) Anyway. I have no opinion on the assassination - but if I was trying to make an argument for anything the last thing I would take as true is the statements of witnesses.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best The man was a Marine. He was a trained rifleman making a shot that, for him, was close range. > he would have been firing perfect shots No. He missed once. You claim to do research, and to know things, but you get basic facts wrong. This is a common thing to find among conspiracy theorists: Their conspiracies rest on factual inaccuracies.