What is a CT?
Robert Harris
A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
water.
Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
has been that they are in a distinct minority.
In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
have studied the case.
Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
they came to that conclusion. The head of the HSCA and others on the
committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
theory.
And that brings me to the primary point of this article. Why do LN
advocates label everyone who disagrees with them as "CT's", when only a
few meet the criteria?
Many people in fact, do not even have a "theory". They simply don't
believe the WC's conclusions make sense, and are looking for answers.
Many more believe the mafia was responsible, based on little things
like, the mob's admission that they were.
Others think Russia or Cuba was responsible.
But only a relatively small percentage of WC critics and doubters
believe in the "cast of thousands" theory that LN advocates have such an
easy time bashing.
So, what is the real reason people around here stereotype their
adversaries this way??
Could it be for the same reason that bigots everywhere call their
adversaries names and ridicule them for beliefs they don't really hold??
Could it be that calling their adversaries names which imply that they
are mentally deficient, relieves them of having to deal with legitimate
evidence and analysis? After all, we aren't obligated to refute
arguments made by lunatics, are we:-)
Now, I don't expect for an instant that this insulting and demeaning
form of name-calling will be restricted by the "moderators". But I do
hope that people will be aware that when they or someone else is called
a "CT", they are listening to someone substituting an ad hominem attack
for honest analysis and evidence.
For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
labels, what is wrong with that? Or better yet, why bother with labels
at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
evidence, than we are, each other??
Robert Harris
Bud
> A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
> much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
> grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
> refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
> from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
> water.
>
> Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
> majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
> has been that they are in a distinct minority.
>
> In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
> of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
>
> First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
> minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
> have studied the case.
How many people do you think have studied this case? I find the
average person I talk to to who profess a belief in conspiracy to be
largely ignorant of the case.
I`m not sure why the majority has bought into the idea of
conspiracy, they seem to have a vague idea that something fishy went
on and that all isn`t as it seems, but nothing really tangible or
specific. It could be that the smoke generated by conspirists have
convinced many that there must be a fire somewhere.
> Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
> the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
> indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
> they came to that conclusion.
Sure it is. They would not have concluded there was a conspiracy on
the strength of the other things they had. How could they?
>The head of the HSCA and others on the
> committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
> murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
> arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
> Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
>
> In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
> JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
> theory.
Is this significant. What weight should be given to the opinions of
the largely ignorant of the case masses? If someone doesn`t know who
JD Tippit is, what does it matter what their opinions about the case
are?
> And that brings me to the primary point of this article. Why do LN
> advocates label everyone who disagrees with them as "CT's", when only a
> few meet the criteria?
>
> Many people in fact, do not even have a "theory". They simply don't
> believe the WC's conclusions make sense, and are looking for answers.
Yah, who would think that the person seen in photos holding the
murder weapon, owner of the murder weapon, seen shooting, seen
shooting a cop, and attacking arresting officers could be guilty?
Anyone who looks past all that is not looking for answers or sense,
they are looking for a reality that suits them.
> Many more believe the mafia was responsible, based on little things
> like, the mob's admission that they were.
> Others think Russia or Cuba was responsible.
>
> But only a relatively small percentage of WC critics and doubters
> believe in the "cast of thousands" theory that LN advocates have such an
> easy time bashing.
If what is in evidence is reliable, than Oswald is guilty. If it
isn`t reliable, it took the efforts of many, many people to make it
appear so. CTers seem to like to pretend that there is another option
available, but they don`t produce it.
> So, what is the real reason people around here stereotype their
> adversaries this way??
>
> Could it be for the same reason that bigots everywhere call their
> adversaries names and ridicule them for beliefs they don't really hold??
>
> Could it be that calling their adversaries names which imply that they
> are mentally deficient, relieves them of having to deal with legitimate
> evidence and analysis? After all, we aren't obligated to refute
> arguments made by lunatics, are we:-)
Who could? By their nature lunatics would be beyond reasoning with.
> Now, I don't expect for an instant that this insulting and demeaning
> form of name-calling will be restricted by the "moderators". But I do
> hope that people will be aware that when they or someone else is called
> a "CT", they are listening to someone substituting an ad hominem attack
> for honest analysis and evidence.
<snicker> I know I would consider it an insult if someone called me
one.
> For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
> labels, what is wrong with that?
It isn`t meaningful. Many LN are critical of the WC. No
investigation could be immune to criticism, especially one that
returned findings that many are loath to accept.
> Or better yet, why bother with labels
> at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
> evidence, than we are, each other??
Grouping like things has it purposes.
> Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
>
>
> For forty years, WC doubters were labelled as "critics". If we must use
> labels, what is wrong with that? Or better yet, why bother with labels
> at all? Why aren't we all infinitely more interested in the case and the
> evidence, than we are, each other??
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
I kind of always looked at it like a person with out a theory waiting
for a assassintion or disaster to happen .
tl
Walt
I believe the government controlled media has derided WC critics since day
one..... Labeling them as kooks and weirdos.......I suspect that many of
those "kooks" and "weirdos" were actually government agents posing as a
"critic" with a far out theory that the government knew would be seen as
nutty by rational people. Since nobody wants to be allied with a nut,
most rational people have taken a low profile approach when voicing any
opinion about the crime of the century..... Just what the government
wanted.
Thalia
I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
the evidence.
Peter Fokes
It's their job.
Creating and ferreting out conspiracies.
Also many politicians. Spend their days plotting.
Just a sample.
Silly question really.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sandy McCroskey
Lone Nutters have all the evidence on their side, and eliminating
conspiracy theories is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Not much sport to it, but what can we do...
/sm
claviger
From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining. Of the two, Nutter
sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin) is more applicable,
because we don't know what his state of mind was. LHO acted calm and
cool after his arrest and played the poor little patsy very well. He
obviously enjoyed being the center of worldwide attention. Our gut
reaction is LHO must be a mental case to murder a man he had no grudge
against, although that too is disputed. At some point he decided to
become a martyr, as the only way to make an impact on the society he
despised. While this may or may not be true, it is an instinctive
reaction in our culture to assume that anyone who would murder the
leader of our democracy is either a paid assassin or mentally
unstable.
claviger
> I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
> the evidence.
No way, because that definition would make you a Lone Nutter! And we
know that ain't right!!
David Von Pein
>>> "I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
the evidence." <<<
The above quote by "Thalia" is now nominated for the "Pot/Kettle
Statement Of The Year".
Make room on the mantel, Thalia.
bigdog
>
The physical evidence is ALL on the LN side. The only evidence of a shot
from the GK is earwitness testimony which is contradicted by other
earwitness testimony. There is no physical evidence of a shot from
anywhere except the TSBD. The medical evidence indicates the shots were
fired from the rear. The ballistic evidence indicates the shots were fired
from the rear. The pattern of the blood and brain splatter scene in the
Z-film indicates the head shot was fired from the rear. A paper trail
clearly establishes Oswald as the owner of the murder weapon. Fiber
evidence links the shirt he was wearing when arrested to the murder
weapon. An eyewitness identified Oswald as the shooter. The evidence
clearly establishes Oswald's guilt and there is no evidence that indicates
he was acting on behalf of anyone except himself. Now do you care to list
the evidence that Oswald was not acting alone.
cdddraftsman
BTW since you don't have a unified tenative / working hypothesis let
alone a theory , it can be defined as "one who frequently" argues from
a disavantageous position , which has gotten worse as the years have
passed . Hoax's have a tendency to do that .
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
The bottom line is this -- IF you don't accept and profess the
government's (or controlling faction's point of view) you will always be
ostracized by being called a "kook", "nutcase" or a "CTer" to name just a
few.
Labels are designed to keep everyone in harmony with the lie or point of
view of the controlling power (and in many cases these points of views are
lies) by making it so painful to express different views. Humans basically
want to be accepted, not outcasted and they use this to their advantage.
IF simple words or labels don't work they move to more serious measures
and some of the early CT authors in the JFK case can enlighten you on some
of these tactics better than I can.
It is all about control and power.
Glenn Sarlitto
>
G'day Mate!
Regarding your post....
>
> I personally think many Lone Nutters are in this for the sport, not
> the evidence
Sport? Well, Tie Me Kangaroo Down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu-C5vvzU4&feature=related
As far as this Google Group is concerned, it sure seems at times to be a
Cyberspace Marathon of Literary Gymnastics.
Just think, one more year and people will be posting...
FOUR SCORE and SEVEN YEARS AGO!
Catch ya 'round !
Glenn Sarlitto
tomnln
Dallas Police Chief Disagrees with you ! ! !
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61607581-b996-4383...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-865E0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
cdddraftsman
wrote:
They sure can .
Roger Craig said that his car had a bomb in it .
No evidence , no tow bill , no police report , no medical report of
injuries .
No nutten !
tl
Anthony Marsh
> Robert,
>
> From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
> as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining. Of the two, Nutter
Some WC defenders have complained and loudly about being called names.
Some even object to being identified as WC defenders.
> sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin) is more applicable,
AH, but Lone Assassin leave the door open just a little for you WC
defenders to think that he was doing it on behalf of someone else.
> because we don't know what his state of mind was. LHO acted calm and
> cool after his arrest and played the poor little patsy very well. He
So, according to your logic any time someone professes innocence that
proves the person's guilt. Great idea. I wonder why the cops and
prosecution don't use that all the time to prove their cases when they
don't have any evidence.
> obviously enjoyed being the center of worldwide attention. Our gut
> reaction is LHO must be a mental case to murder a man he had no grudge
> against, although that too is disputed. At some point he decided to
Ok, I see. So someone has to have a personal grudge to murder. Like the
guy was sleeping with his wife or something. No one can ever murder for
strictly political reasons. That should make the job of law enforcement a
lot easier.
> become a martyr, as the only way to make an impact on the society he
> despised. While this may or may not be true, it is an instinctive
He already tried and failed with Walker.
> reaction in our culture to assume that anyone who would murder the
> leader of our democracy is either a paid assassin or mentally
> unstable.
>
>
Duh! Maybe because most cases fall into those categories. I don't think
there are many high-profile cases where the motive was because the victim
owed the killer $10.
Anthony Marsh
The term of art is agent provocateur and the government has used them
against every organization which they see as a threat.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 17, 6:14 pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
>> conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
>> holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>>
>> I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
>> much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
>> grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
>> refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
>> from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
>> water.
>>
>> Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
>> majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
>> has been that they are in a distinct minority.
>>
>> In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
>> of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
>>
>> First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
>> minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
>> have studied the case.
>
> How many people do you think have studied this case? I find the
> average person I talk to to who profess a belief in conspiracy to be
> largely ignorant of the case.
>
SO what? So are you. But that doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
> I`m not sure why the majority has bought into the idea of
> conspiracy, they seem to have a vague idea that something fishy went
> on and that all isn`t as it seems, but nothing really tangible or
> specific. It could be that the smoke generated by conspirists have
> convinced many that there must be a fire somewhere.
They may think it is a conspiracy because people like you argue it is not.
>
>> Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
>> the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
>> indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
>> they came to that conclusion.
>
> Sure it is. They would not have concluded there was a conspiracy on
> the strength of the other things they had. How could they?
>
They were preparing to endorse the WC when the acoustical evidence found
the extra shot.
>> The head of the HSCA and others on the
>> committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
>> murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
>> arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
>> Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
>>
>> In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
>> JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
>> theory.
>
> Is this significant. What weight should be given to the opinions of
> the largely ignorant of the case masses? If someone doesn`t know who
> JD Tippit is, what does it matter what their opinions about the case
> are?
>
Nice talk. As if the majority should be ignored.
Yes, most WC defenders can not be reasoned with. They refuse to look at
the evidence.
Robert Harris
<e58d5e7e-9f63-4ef3...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sandy, the simple truth is that you have NO evidence on your side.
Oswald was certainly involved in the attack, in one way or another, but
show me a single piece of evidence that isolates him as the ONLY shooter??
I have asked this question more times than I can count, and have yet to be
shown that evidence.
If you want to talk about legitimate evidence, look at this video which
demonstrates that shots were fired, which could not have all come from
Oswald.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've posted this article on the subject in the past, cuz it's jolly good!
>
> http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm
Hehe, good article.
I honestly don't know to what degree all this crap is planned, but a major
part of the smoke 'n mirrors is their effort to make people believe that
the LN theory is what normal people believe and that only kooks dispute
the WC.
The reality is that ONLY the evidence matters. That is the only factor
that anyone needs to consider.
Robert Harris
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b047636$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
That Depends on what neighborhood you come from.
Bud
> On 11/17/2009 11:59 PM,Budwrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 6:14 pm, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
> >> conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
> >> holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
>
> >> I think the correct definition as the term is most commonly used, is
> >> much more derogatory. It is someone who frequently goes against the
> >> grain, or contradicts the government. And almost without exception, it
> >> refers to people who blame the government for pretty much everything,
> >> from covering up UFOs to causing 9/11, to putting weird stuff in the
> >> water.
>
> >> Now, I am quite sure there are people like that amongst the large
> >> majority of Americans who dispute the WC's findings. But my experience
> >> has been that they are in a distinct minority.
>
> >> In fact, I think most people who are critics of the WC do not match any
> >> of the criteria we commonly associate with "CT".
>
> >> First, the belief that Oswald did not act alone (or at all) is hardly a
> >> minority opinion. It is supported by the large majority of people who
> >> have studied the case.
>
> > How many people do you think have studied this case? I find the
> > average person I talk to to who profess a belief in conspiracy to be
> > largely ignorant of the case.
>
> SO what?
Apparently you are not going to contest what I said. Smart move.
>So are you.
No, I`m really not. I`d be in the upper 90 percentile of the
population if questioned about the assassination. You think the
general public knows who was in the car with Kennedy when he was shot?
I bet not 1% of the public could tell you. Many couldn`t tell you the
name of the Plaza he was shot in.
>But that doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
I have an informed opinion. The general public had an uninformed
opinion.
> > I`m not sure why the majority has bought into the idea of
> > conspiracy, they seem to have a vague idea that something fishy went
> > on and that all isn`t as it seems, but nothing really tangible or
> > specific. It could be that the smoke generated by conspirists have
> > convinced many that there must be a fire somewhere.
>
> They may think it is a conspiracy because people like you argue it is not.
I doubt I enter into their thought processes, but I appreciate that
you think I have that much clout.
> >> Second, it is not at all in contradiction to the US government. In fact,
> >> the last federal investigation concluded that the assassination was
> >> indeed, a conspiracy. And the acoustics evidence is not the only reason
> >> they came to that conclusion.
>
> > Sure it is. They would not have concluded there was a conspiracy on
> > the strength of the other things they had. How could they?
>
> They were preparing to endorse the WC when the acoustical evidence found
> the extra shot.
>
> >> The head of the HSCA and others on the
> >> committee, were convinced that organized crime was involved in the
> >> murder. Blakey went on to write an excellent book on the subject,
> >> arguing that Carlos Marcello ordered the assassination, even before
> >> Marcello admitted that he did exactly that.
>
> >> In fact, I think a very good case can be made, that conspiracy in the
> >> JFK case, is the status quo, and that the fringe position is the LN
> >> theory.
>
> > Is this significant. What weight should be given to the opinions of
> > the largely ignorant of the case masses? If someone doesn`t know who
> > JD Tippit is, what does it matter what their opinions about the case
> > are?
>
> Nice talk. As if the majority should be ignored.
All information need to be viewed in the proper perspective. You
may think it makes a great deal of sense to give a lot of weight to
the opinions of the majority whether they are informed opinions or
not, just because they are the majority, but I don`t.
The WC`s findings have been on the table for decades. I`ve yet to
see one CT put a contender on the table so we can compare the two.
Robert Harris
<27479a9a-bcd1-4a57...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
> as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
that term.
> Of the two, Nutter
> sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin)
Well, technically, that sounds like we are accusing them of murder:-)
But, why do we need labels at all?
LN advocates can never prove that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, they
cannot with integrity, ever assume a more certain position than that of
agnostic.
So, if you must have a label, why not something like, "Somebody looking
for the answers"??
That way, I could at least think that I had some company on "my side" :-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Every day you show that you don't know basic facts about the
assassination. Your bet is on.
>
>> But that doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
>
> I have an informed opinion. The general public had an uninformed
> opinion.
>
No, you don't. You have a biased opinion.
You may THINK you are part of the ruling elite, far above the unwashed
masses, but you are not.
Because you have not been paying attention.
Sandy McCroskey
> In article
> <e58d5e7e-9f63-4ef3-8326-5f0c38f2b...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
There you go with Nellie Connally again! You don't remember what I said
last time you hauled out this video? (Or one just like it?) No, I don't
want to talk about "legitimate evidence" or anything else with you, as
it's clearly like talking to a wall.
But if I did, we'd be discussing *physical* evidence, not one person's
recollection of an overwhelmingly terrifying event. The notion that one
witness's testimony is proof of anything at all is ridiculously
fallacious.
I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that Oswald had any
help, let alone that there was a second shooter.
/sandy
claviger
Robert,
That is a good thought. Just because we all have different ideas doesn't
mean we can't be on the same team. Problem is this case generates more
than curiosity. It has evolved into a competitive debating society where
politics and emotion get involved. If you don't believe in at least one of
several conspiracy theories then you must be a political enemy of JFK.
From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
suspicions. Logic says you can't prove a negative, so it may be impossible
to prove there was not a conspiracy afoot. All we can say is there is no
evidence LHO was part of a team effort. Maybe he was but went solo. If
true, then technically the conspirators are not guilty. Even if someone
like a good friend planted the idea in his head and channeled LHO's
frustration and resentment toward an authority figure like the President
or the Governor, I'm not sure they could even be prosecuted. It LHO acted
alone only he can be held responsible.
Anthony Marsh
Not true. It is very rare that a conspiracy believer is a Kennedy hater,
but quite typical for a WC defender to be a Kennedy hater. Not ALL are and
there is no MUST, but it is common.
> From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
They PRETENDED to be conspiracy believers to deceive people.
> now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
> reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
> their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
Almost all the neocons started out as Liberal Democrats, then greed and
hubris took over.
> but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
> billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
> up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
>
> I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
No, you don't. You refuse to look at facts.
> is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
> because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
So what? They had a lot of enemies. Doesn't mean all the enemies got to
them first.
> but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
> scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
> or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
Cover-up is a normal human instinct. Don't rock the boat. Conform. Don't
ask questions.
Gerry Simone
question, that's supposed to be crazy.
Poppycock!
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-06CED...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Robert Harris
<9f4c2a47-e16a-41c4...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hehe, I don't think you do either, unless you were using a different
alias then - at least that's what Google says.
Why don't you post a link to that message?
> (Or one just like it?) No, I don't
> want to talk about "legitimate evidence" or anything else with you, as
> it's clearly like talking to a wall.
I don't think so Sandy. I think there is a much different reason why you
won't discuss the evidence:-)
>
> But if I did, we'd be discussing *physical* evidence, not one person's
> recollection of an overwhelmingly terrifying event. The notion that one
> witness's testimony is proof of anything at all is ridiculously
> fallacious.
I totally agree with that. But what does that have to do with the shot
at 285?
It sounds like you are a bit confused Sandy. Are you thinking about
someone else and a totally different topic? Take a look at that video.
It is hardly about "one person's recollection".
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
>
> I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that Oswald had any
> help, let alone that there was a second shooter.
Sandy, don't you really mean that you refuse to look at evidence that
proves there were other shooters??
I will tell you a secret though. Once you have it right, you will never
again have to be afraid of ANY question or ANY evidence. You will never
again have to dodge another question with phony, lame excuses.
That alone, should make it worth your while to examine this evidence.
Robert Harris
>
> /sandy
WhiskyJoe
Hello Bud
> I`m not sure why the majority has bought
> into the idea of conspiracy, they seem to
> have a vague idea that something fishy
> went on and that all isn`t as it seems,
> but nothing really tangible or specific.
> It could be that the smoke generated by
> conspirists have convinced many that
> there must be a fire somewhere.
I think the side with the more interesting
story has an advantage. The CT stories are
just flat out better stories than the
depressing truth, that Oswald opened the
newspaper one day and saw a chance to become
a historical person, as others had done
before him and since.
The Apollo Landing Hoaxes have a tougher go
of it simply because the truth is a pretty
interesting story, a bunch of determined
and smart people overcame all the challenges
and managed to land a man on the moon before
the decade was out.
But also, some CTers, perhaps through trial and
error, have discovered effective arguments.
In general, the easily disproven lies, seem
to be the most effective. It they were not,
they would not use them.
* The Anti SBT diagrams which show a bullet
through JFK's neck wounds missing Connally
entirely.
* Claiming Oswald couldn't possibly get from
the sixth floor window to the second floor
lunchroom in time to be confronted by
Officer Baker when in truth, Baker had
farther to travel. Arguing Baker did not
have enough time to reach the lunchroom to
confront anyone there would make more
sense than claiming Oswald did not have
enough time.
* Claiming the Warren Report concluded that
all three shots were definitely fired within
5.6 seconds and that is impossible with that
kind of rifle, an obvious lie on both accounts.
Logically, one would think CTers would stick
with harder to disprove lies, like no bullet
could wound JFK and Connally and come out
pristine. One would have to own a rifle
and do some experiments to prove or
disprove that.
But the easily disprovable lies are their
most effective lies precisely because they
are obvious lies. We can intuitively judge
if a claim, if false, is easily disprovable.
And so we tend to accept as true these claims.
The Big Lie is just a very effective technique.
For most people, getting them convinced of
an overall theory is all important. Yes,
it is useful to get people to believe the
SBT is impossible because of the positions
of JFK and Connally. But the real value is
that this claim gets people convinced that
the Warren Commission was lying and there
definitely were multiple shooters.
Later, when they find out the CTers were
lying, it doesn't effect them much. They
just figure that these lies are just a
quirk. What really matters is that they
"know" the Warren Commission was lying
and there were multiple shooters.
Typically, when I tell people that the
diagram in the JFK movie is a big lie,
they don't react by saying "I see. You
don't have to tell me any more. I know
what it means when people lie." Instead,
they say, "Well, what about this or that."
Learning prominent CTers felt compelled to
use obviously false Anti SBT diagrams time
and time again has little effect on them.
This victory in convincing the majority has
taught CTers some valuable lessons. With the
9/11 CTs, they quickly figured out that,
in general, the more spectacular lies
work the best.
Occasionally this strategy hurts them.
Saying the telephone calls from the planes
were faked did not work. I think the key
was that these telephone calls are a pretty
interesting detail of 9/11. The stories of
these phone calls were not just true, but
compelling and really touch people's
hearts.
But, in general, the Big Lies have worked
well for 9/11 truthers, just as they did
for the JFK CTers.
Bud
> On 11/19/2009 10:30 AM,Budwrote:
I am much, much more informed about the assassination than the
average person. I know how you hate facts, but this is just a fact. I
would smoke the general public in any kind of general information test
concerning the assassination. They are just ignorant about the case
for the most part.
>Your bet is on.
Fine. Show a test that was given to the general public concerning
the assassination, submit the same test to me, and my results will
land in the upper 90 percentile, no doubt.
> >> But that doesn't stop you from having an opinion.
>
> > I have an informed opinion. The general public had an uninformed
> > opinion.
>
> No, you don't.
Yah, I really do. I am informed about this case. I`ve read about it
and studied it for years now. Most of the general public would be
stumped by the most rudimentary questions regarding the case. The
general public`s opinions about the case are meaningless because they
generally ignorant about it.
>You have a biased opinion.
Not at all. I don`t need Oswald guilty, it is just an obvious fact
that he was. Bias is what drives conspiracy theorists to ridiculous
lengths..
You may THINK that a lot of weight should be given to the opinions
of people ignorant of a subject, but really you should not.
Produce it.
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <27479a9a-bcd1-4a57...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger<histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
>> as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
>
> Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
> that term.
>
>
It may be just a technicality, but I prefer to not call them lone nutters
because they really don't believe it was done by a lone nut. I call them
WC defenders because they love to support the lies of the Warren
Commission.
Bud
> HelloBud
Hello Joe...
Yah, the conspiracy folks are shooting fish in a barrel by attacking the
WC, and the public isn`t looking that closely at the fish to see whether
they are hitting them or not.
> Later, when they find out the CTers were
> lying, it doesn't effect them much. They
> just figure that these lies are just a
> quirk. What really matters is that they
> "know" the Warren Commission was lying
> and there were multiple shooters.
>
> Typically, when I tell people that the
> diagram in the JFK movie is a big lie,
> they don't react by saying "I see. You
> don't have to tell me any more. I know
> what it means when people lie." Instead,
> they say, "Well, what about this or that."
It`s the mythical hydra, you cut off one head, another bites at you.
Eventually the ones you cut off grow back.
> Learning prominent CTers felt compelled to
> use obviously false Anti SBT diagrams time
> and time again has little effect on them.
You`d think using a false sales pitch would hurt their credibility, but
you are right, it doesn`t seem to. Once suspicion is aroused, it`s hard to
put it back to sleep. that was the daunting task of the WC, but it doesn`t
seem likely they ever had a chance (no more chance than the 9-11
investigation had of stopping the suspicions of people in that event).
Perhaps the government should not even bother trying to convince the
public of the truth, just say "think whatever you want".
> This victory in convincing the majority has
> taught CTers some valuable lessons. With the
> 9/11 CTs, they quickly figured out that,
> in general, the more spectacular lies
> work the best.
>
> Occasionally this strategy hurts them.
> Saying the telephone calls from the planes
> were faked did not work. I think the key
> was that these telephone calls are a pretty
> interesting detail of 9/11. The stories of
> these phone calls were not just true, but
> compelling and really touch people's
> hearts.
What always gets me is the complexity they add into the mix when they
advance these ideas. You need all kinds of people lying saying they got
the calls, plus whatever technical support, plus actors playing the parts
of the callers. They just casually throw in dozens of people into the
conspiracy, not once realizing that the more complex you make it, the less
likely the story you are telling can be true.
> But, in general, the Big Lies have worked
> well for 9/11 truthers, just as they did
> for the JFK CTers.
The JFK CTers paved the way.
tomnln
I refer to LN's as WCR "Supporters".
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b062693$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Robert Harris
<aa5310ab-bea4-44cf...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:17?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <27479a9a-bcd1-4a57-ba03-ffae6c1f0...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Robert,
> >
> > > From what I can tell CTs are proud of that handle. They refer to LNs
> > > as "Nutters". I don't see any LNs complaining.
> >
> > Well, actually, they did. In fact, for awhile, mcadams banned the use of
> > that term.
> >
> > > Of the two, Nutter
> > > sounds somewhat pejorative. LA (Lone Assassin)
> >
> > Well, technically, that sounds like we are accusing them of murder:-)
> >
> > But, why do we need labels at all?
> >
> > LN advocates can never prove that Oswald acted alone. Therefore, they
> > cannot with integrity, ever assume a more certain position than that of
> > agnostic.
> >
> > So, if you must have a label, why not something like, "Somebody looking
> > for the answers"??
> >
> > That way, I could at least think that I had some company on "my side" :-)
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Robert,
>
> That is a good thought. Just because we all have different ideas doesn't
> mean we can't be on the same team.
Well, I'm not even suggesting that we all have play nice or share group
hugs:-) I am only suggesting that there is no logical or honest
justification for an unyielding LN position.
That would still leave them free to tell the opposition that their
arguments and evidence sucks.
> Problem is this case generates more
> than curiosity. It has evolved into a competitive debating society where
> politics and emotion get involved. If you don't believe in at least one of
> several conspiracy theories then you must be a political enemy of JFK.
> From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first.
Hehe, that's usually not an admission. It's just part of the pitch.
> They are
> now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
> reaction.
Those who really did change their views undoubtedly did so because there
are so many old school conspiracy beliefs that really are crap. I can see
how someone who was conned by the "badgeman" theory or something like
that, got disgusted when he learned it was false and then decided that
Oswald must have done it alone.
But I think a lot of them then decided that if some conspiracy arguments
are false, then they must all be.
> Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
> their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
> but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
> billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
> up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
Sadly, there are a lot of people like that on both sides of the debate.
>
> I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
> is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
> because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
> but where are the facts?
The easiest way to approach this crime is to first determine if it was
possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. Fortunately, it is
ridiculously easy to prove that he couldn't.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
> In article
> <9f4c2a47-e16a-41c4-b426-5ba8b4588...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2c3f0cb4ff457e76/29ce726de0d3d73d?lnk=raot&fwc=1
Google says it was Oct. 3 of this year that you posted this to me,
with the same utterly unjustified confidence you evince today:
« BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not
have been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
« I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
« http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s »
Yes, the URL is different, but it's the same video.
"JFK Assassination - the shot at frame 285."
Sorry, it's *still* worth diddly-squat as "evidence."
/sandy
Peter Fokes
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nellie's testimony is worth "diddly-squat"?
She's gonna get you in the next world!
Bud
Most of the CTers think Kennedy could walk on water. They actually
have themselves convinced that had Kennedy lived, everything would
have been better. Everything.
> > From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
>
> They PRETENDED to be conspiracy believers to deceive people.
One of the stranger claims CTers commonly make (along with thinking
that people who disagree with them are disinfo agents on the payroll
of the government, a dead give-away to their mindset). As if nobody
can change their minds about this case after looking past conspiracy
claims.
> > now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
> > reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
> > their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
>
> Almost all the neocons started out as Liberal Democrats, then greed and
> hubris took over.
Almost all conspiracy theorists would push old ladies down flights
of steps for their catfood money.
> > but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
> > billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
> > up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
>
> > I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
>
> No, you don't. You refuse to look at facts.
Conspiracy theorists in general wouldn`t know a fact if it bit them.
> > is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
> > because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
>
> So what? They had a lot of enemies. Doesn't mean all the enemies got to
> them first.
Or at all. Powerful enemies are powerful with Kennedy in office. Why
do they need to risk their status on a risky venture like
assassination? What did Saddam Husein get out of his adventure in
Kuwait? A rope.
> > but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
> > scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
> > or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
>
> Cover-up is a normal human instinct. Don't rock the boat. Conform. Don't
> ask questions.
Then you admit their really isn`t widespread believe in conspiracy.
Peter Fokes
> Most of the CTers think Kennedy could walk on water.
Profound insight, Bud!
Just the other day, I was talking to a BCer (who was originally a
TOer) about an MDer who was a PhDer and linguist. Of course, since
this person has been described as a BCer, TOer, MDer, PhDer -- we can
fairly accurate make broad generalizations about his character and
beliefs, eh?
And of course, I believe wholehearted JFK could walk on water, that
Jesus rose from the dead, and there has never been a conspiracy by any
government in the world except in the minds of CTers!
What we do without overgeneralization. Life would be so booooring.
Carry on.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sandy McCroskey
> >Google says it was Oct. 3 of this year that you posted this to me,
> >with the same utterly unjustified confidence you evince today:
>
> >« BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not
> >have been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
>
> >« I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
>
> >«http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s»
>
> >Yes, the URL is different, but it's the same video.
> >"JFK Assassination - the shot at frame 285."
> >Sorry, it's *still* worth diddly-squat as "evidence."
>
> Nellie's testimony is worth "diddly-squat"?
>
> She's gonna get you in the next world!
>
> >/sandy
>
> >> > I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that Oswald had any
> >> > help, let alone that there was a second shooter.
>
> >> Sandy, don't you really mean that you refuse to look at evidence that
> >> proves there were other shooters??
>
> >> I will tell you a secret though. Once you have it right, you will never
> >> again have to be afraid of ANY question or ANY evidence. You will never
> >> again have to dodge another question with phony, lame excuses.
>
> >> That alone, should make it worth your while to examine this evidence.
>
> >> Robert Harris
>
> >> > /sandy
Why doesn't her ghost come get me right now, as long as we're talking
about a "next world"?
That video is worth diddly-squat. It takes her testimony and other things
as well out of context.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
I replied to you, that time, on October 6. Here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2c3f0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
« Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
cut it. And you should know that by now!»
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Well, almost no conspiracy believers are Kennedy Haters. Many WC
defenders are Kennedy haters.
>
>>> From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
>>
>> They PRETENDED to be conspiracy believers to deceive people.
>
> One of the stranger claims CTers commonly make (along with thinking
> that people who disagree with them are disinfo agents on the payroll
None of us said ALL WC defenders work for the government. But some of
them do and some of them have, even as CIA officers or DIA agents.
> of the government, a dead give-away to their mindset). As if nobody
> can change their minds about this case after looking past conspiracy
> claims.
>
>>> now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
>>> reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
>>> their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
>>
>> Almost all the neocons started out as Liberal Democrats, then greed and
>> hubris took over.
>
> Almost all conspiracy theorists would push old ladies down flights
> of steps for their catfood money.
>
The WC defenders don't need to do that because they are so well funded
by the CIA. They sell their souls for a buck.
>>> but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
>>> billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
>>> up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
>>
>>> I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
>>
>> No, you don't. You refuse to look at facts.
>
> Conspiracy theorists in general wouldn`t know a fact if it bit them.
>
Like the fact that the Zapruder film is authentic or are you disputing
that? And I am the person who proved that fact.
>>> is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
>>> because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
>>
>> So what? They had a lot of enemies. Doesn't mean all the enemies got to
>> them first.
>
> Or at all. Powerful enemies are powerful with Kennedy in office. Why
> do they need to risk their status on a risky venture like
> assassination? What did Saddam Husein get out of his adventure in
> Kuwait? A rope.
>
Then why would anyone ever pull off a coup? To change policy, to push
their own agenda. Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam. His replacement
went all in.
When Kennedy was asked about the book 7 Days in May he said that he knew
some Generals like that.
>>> but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
>>> scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
>>> or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
>>
>> Cover-up is a normal human instinct. Don't rock the boat. Conform. Don't
>> ask questions.
>
> Then you admit their really isn`t widespread believe in conspiracy.
No. About 3/4 of the public do believe it was a conspiracy, down from a
high of 89%.
Robert Harris
<81db153d-7c85-4a94...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> � Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> cut it. And you should know that by now!�
> /sandy
LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
testimony.
I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
without all the ad hominem bullshit??
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<c3aacd7e-4098-4408...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ? BTW, would you like to see very clear proof that Oswald could not
> have been responsible for all the shots that were fired that day??
>
> ? I knew you would! Check this out, if you have the courage:-)
>
> ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s ?
>
> Yes, the URL is different, but it's the same video.
> "JFK Assassination - the shot at frame 285."
> Sorry, it's *still* worth diddly-squat as "evidence."
> /sandy
Yes, the URL is the same but you haven't watched the video. If you had,
you wouldn't have claimed that it was about "one person's" testimony.
It is about the analysis of Dr. Luis Alvarez, the simultaneous reactions
of five different people, all within the same 1/6th of a second. It's not
just about Nellie's testimony Sandy. It is about the fact that we can see
both her reaction and Mrs. Kennedy's, in perfect unison with each other
and the others, at exactly the same point in time in which they both
thought their respective husband's were hit.
And we can determine that point in time because they each described a
sequence of events prior to that shot, which we can also corroborate in
the film.
Sandy, if a witness said he stood up and scratched his head, you might
doubt him. But if you also have a movie of him standing up and scratching
his head, then wouldn't you be a bit more likely to believe him?
Go to John Mcadams website, Sandy. He has a rebuttal there to just about
every JFK conspiracy theory on the planet.
Except one.
Robert Harris
Walt
> > 0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
> > « Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > cut it. And you should know that by now!»
> > /sandy
>
> LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
>
> In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> testimony.
>
> I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> all the shots.
Oswald could NOT have fired the Mannlicher Carcano three times in 5.6
seconds......and hit a eight inch tatget. NOBODY can ACCURATELY fire a
Mannlicher Carcano at a moving target in 5.6 seconds. This is true
because the rifle cocks on the upstroke of the bolt......and this unusal
cocking action pulls the muzzle off target each time the bolt is opened to
eject the spent shell. This action requires the shooter to realign the
sights with the target and makes it impossible to fire the rifle
accurately at a moving target three times in 5.6 seconds.
The Mannlicher Carcano with a serial number that was tracable to Oswald
was hidden beneath a pile of heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
assassination. It was never fired that day!!
And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> without all the ad hominem bullshit??
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy McCroskey
> > 0cb4ff457e76/021d452bef76749d
> > « Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > cut it. And you should know that by now!»
> > /sandy
>
> LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
>
> In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> testimony.
>
> I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> without all the ad hominem bullshit??
>
> Robert Harris
You know, when you point your finger at me for "ad hominem" bullshit, your
other fingers are pointing back at you. I'm not refusing to look at
anything. It's just old hat, Harris. Seen it all before. How many times do
I need to see it?
Sandy
Bud
They do him a disservice by covering up for his murderer.
> Many WC
> defenders are Kennedy haters.
I`m not. I am an Oswald hater, though.
> >>> From what I can tell a number of LNs admit to being CTs at first. They are
>
> >> They PRETENDED to be conspiracy believers to deceive people.
>
> > One of the stranger claims CTers commonly make (along with thinking
> > that people who disagree with them are disinfo agents on the payroll
>
> None of us said ALL WC defenders work for the government.
But it is common for conspiracy believers to make this claim about
people with opposing viewpoints. Shows the mindset.
> But some of
> them do and some of them have, even as CIA officers or DIA agents.
>
> > of the government, a dead give-away to their mindset). As if nobody
> > can change their minds about this case after looking past conspiracy
> > claims.
>
> >>> now LNs only because their cognitive function overcame emotional gut
> >>> reaction. Just because of an initial visceral reaction they did not unplug
> >>> their brain. Some CTs seem to motor on along down the highway with nothing
>
> >> Almost all the neocons started out as Liberal Democrats, then greed and
> >> hubris took over.
>
> > Almost all conspiracy theorists would push old ladies down flights
> > of steps for their catfood money.
>
> The WC defenders don't need to do that because they are so well funded
> by the CIA. They sell their souls for a buck.
Another common CT myth. Shows the mentality.
> >>> but intuition, no matter how many signs to the contrary, like so many
> >>> billboards they would rather not look at. It's the old "I've already made
> >>> up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts!" syndrome.
>
> >>> I can easily believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy but I need facts. It
>
> >> No, you don't. You refuse to look at facts.
>
> > Conspiracy theorists in general wouldn`t know a fact if it bit them.
>
> Like the fact that the Zapruder film is authentic or are you disputing
> that? And I am the person who proved that fact.
Even a broken clock is right sometimes.
> >>> is logical someone might be planning a way to get rid of the Kennedys
> >>> because Jack and Bobby had some powerful enemies. There is motive aplenty,
>
> >> So what? They had a lot of enemies. Doesn't mean all the enemies got to
> >> them first.
>
> > Or at all. Powerful enemies are powerful with Kennedy in office. Why
> > do they need to risk their status on a risky venture like
> > assassination? What did Saddam Husein get out of his adventure in
> > Kuwait? A rope.
>
> Then why would anyone ever pull off a coup? To change policy, to push
> their own agenda. Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam. His replacement
> went all in.
> When Kennedy was asked about the book 7 Days in May he said that he knew
> some Generals like that.
>
> >>> but where are the facts? Suspicion is a normal human instinct, but from a
> >>> scientific, legal, and intellectual standpoint facts must either confirm
> >>> or disprove suspicion. So far there are no facts to confirm numerous
>
> >> Cover-up is a normal human instinct. Don't rock the boat. Conform. Don't
> >> ask questions.
>
> > Then you admit their really isn`t widespread believe in conspiracy.
>
> No.
It wasn`t your contention that it`s normal human instinct for people
to go along?
Robert Harris
<11bec28d-98da-43c4...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > ? Your video (eye/ear-witness testimony, years after the fact) doesn't
> > > cut it. And you should know that by now!?
> > > /sandy
> >
> > LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
> > whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
> > about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
> >
> > In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
> > testimony.
> >
> > I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
> > all the shots. And I can prove that to you, to your own satisfaction. Do
> > you have the courage and objectivity to listen and discuss the facts
> > without all the ad hominem bullshit??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> You know, when you point your finger at me for "ad hominem" bullshit, your
> other fingers are pointing back at you. I'm not refusing to look at
> anything. It's just old hat, Harris. Seen it all before. How many times do
> I need to see it?
You couldn't have seen it or you wouldn't have claimed it was about one
witness's statements. And you would be prepared to tell us specifically,
why you rejected it.
But to do that, you would need to explain why five people all reacted
within the same 1/6th of a second.
You also wouldn't have claimed I was relying on testimony that was "years
after the fact". Every significant citation in the article (except
Alvarez's) was from the day of the assassination or during the WC
investigation.
I'm sure you are an honest fellow, so I have to assume that you were
thinking of someone else's video.
Why else would you say things like that?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>>> cut it. And you should know that by now!?
>>> /sandy
>>
>> LOL!! Sandy, in that posting, you don't even address the issue of
>> whether Oswald could have fired all the shots. All you did was rant
>> about me, claiming that I am closed minded or whatever.
>>
>> In fact, you never mentioned even a single piece of evidence or
>> testimony.
>>
>> I think I can show you that it was not possible for Oswald to have fired
>> all the shots.
>
> Oswald could NOT have fired the Mannlicher Carcano three times in 5.6
> seconds......and hit a eight inch tatget. NOBODY can ACCURATELY fire a
> Mannlicher Carcano at a moving target in 5.6 seconds. This is true
> because the rifle cocks on the upstroke of the bolt......and this unusal
> cocking action pulls the muzzle off target each time the bolt is opened to
> eject the spent shell. This action requires the shooter to realign the
> sights with the target and makes it impossible to fire the rifle
> accurately at a moving target three times in 5.6 seconds.
>
You are on the right track, but you reach the wrong conclusion. You ASSuMe
that the shooter MUST make three hits with three shots. But we know one
shot missed and more likely two shots missed their target. So ANYONE can
fire a Mannlicher-Carcano in 10 seconds and get one hit.
> The Mannlicher Carcano with a serial number that was tracable to Oswald
> was hidden beneath a pile of heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
> assassination. It was never fired that day!!
>
>
The two large fragments found in the limo were fired during the
assassination from Oswald's rifle.
Sandy McCroskey
I was merely referring to Connally's witness testimony as an example of
the type of "evidence" the video presents. I gave the whole thing a
cursory look and realized that I'd heard all these fallacious arguments
before. Yes, it is indeed nothing new, just as you say.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
If you have proof that Oswald wasn't the only shooter in your little
video, Harris, why do you care what I think?
You're the man who's cracked the case, after so many years! All anybody
has to do is watch your video (which, clearly, I must not have done) and
they will be convinced. Therefore, your name will very soon be a household
word, and what a fool you will have made of me.
Ha ha.
Sandy
Anthony Marsh
Is there anybody here who can read English? I specified "a" normal human
instinct. One of several. Not THE only one. And in answer to your NEXT
question, YES many people go along with known conspiracies.
Coondog
> went all in.
If the purpose of killing Kennedy was to change policy in Vietnam then
why did his “replacement” wait almost a year and a half to change the
policy? Johnson didn’t want to be in Vietnam any more than Kennedy
did.
Bill Clarke
Robert Harris
<d653750a-4db4-42c0...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sandy, you really don't need me for that, do you:-)
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
Seriously, you sound like a man who is trying to convince himself more
than anybody else.
Robert Harris
<e74a5f05-0bc2-42f9...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:21?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d653750a-4db4-42c0-8b48-3f7cbf24b...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 22, 7:08 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <11bec28d-98da-43c4-b940-09be37d3e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 22, 9:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <81db153d-7c85-4a94-a164-402c0d279...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <aa5310ab-bea4-44cf-8064-890416418...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.c
There is not even the tiniest shred of doubt in my mind that this crime
was a conspiracy. Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
acted alone.
And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
Isn't that why you prefer to talk about me?
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
I don't know you, so I can't talk about you, per se, I can only respond to
what you present here.
You very stridently insist that this video proves your point, and anybody
who can't see that must be hiding from the truth. Yet I just don't see,
sorry, how anybody can be so sure of anything as you claim to be, based on
the quality of the "evidence" you offer in that video. Which I *have*
looked at, believe it or not.
Witness accounts (e.g., "a flurry of shells") and yours and/or Alvarez's
subjective interpretations of what can be seen on the Z film do not amount
to "proof." You yourself, on the video, admit to speculating "what might
have happened."
So it seems to me that the most you can claim is that these are the
grounds on which you question the evidence that says Oswald did it alone,
which (the physical evidence) still seems to me much more solid. It is, at
any rate, simply wrong to say that anyone intellectually honest would be
compelled to believe your theory on such grounds.
Sandy
ShutterBun
about convincing OTHERS that they have NO DOUBT than they are about
prodiding justification for such doubt. Why? Because reasons for doubt
are so darn subjective, and they know it. Even the most die- hard CT'er
will not proclaim he has acual EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. It's all about
statements like "come on, it's obvious!" or "of course, how gullible are
you?"
When dealing with a CT'er, notice how reticent they are to any sort of
"definition of terms" or even "points we can agree on." (which, to me,
are cornerstones of ANY kind of scientific investigation.)
Before you even attempt to address a CTer, define your terms. He must
certainly fall into one of the three categories:
1. Oswald is 100% innocent of any wrongdoing related to the
assassination
2. Oswald was invovled, but did not shoot
2b. Oswald was the only shooter, but he had backers
3. Oswald was a shooter, but not the only one.
I have yet to hear a competent defense of ANY of these scenarios. Granted,
scenario 3 has gotten the most press, but can anyone convince me, or even
the average juror that this was the case?
Hate to bring up a sore subject, but the Warren Commission (who never
concluded there wasn't a conspiracy, by the way) was correct when they
said that they found "no evidence" of a conspiracy. Note to CT'ers: if
you think you have actual "evidence" of a conspiracy, I humbly submit that
you are mistaken.
Anthony Marsh
> Seems to me that conspiracy theorists (hereafter "CT's") are much more
> about convincing OTHERS that they have NO DOUBT than they are about
> prodiding justification for such doubt. Why? Because reasons for doubt
> are so darn subjective, and they know it. Even the most die- hard CT'er
> will not proclaim he has acual EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. It's all about
> statements like "come on, it's obvious!" or "of course, how gullible are
> you?"
>
> When dealing with a CT'er, notice how reticent they are to any sort of
> "definition of terms" or even "points we can agree on." (which, to me,
> are cornerstones of ANY kind of scientific investigation.)
>
I've been over this before. We already voted on this. We've already
settled on points of agreement. Lifton is the only one who claims no
shots came from the TSBD.
> Before you even attempt to address a CTer, define your terms. He must
> certainly fall into one of the three categories:
>
Don't tell us what we MUST believe.
Bud
Probably felt that way from day one, right?
> Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
> acted alone.
<snicker> All the time you`ve devoted to this, and you can`t even
determine whether Oswald was involved for sure? You`re off the fucking
case, Harris.
> And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
> to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
You didn`t want to face the facts and evidence that conflicted with your
beliefs about the gunshots that I brought up. Why was that?
jas
I keep telling him to get his video to the DOJ toot sweet as he has
solved the case.
Funny how that never happens...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>A CT (Conspiracy theorist) should not be defined as one who believes in
>conspiracies. We ALL believe in numerous conspiracies, ranging from the
>holocaust to Watergate, to countless acts of organized terrorism.
True.
And of course a CT is also someone who recognizes that not all events
are conspiracies.
Some LNs would prefer folks forget that fact.
I am sure some LNs still believe Watergate was a conspiracy by
Liberals and leftists to remove Nixon from office!
lol
(although LNs who believe that might be afraid to admit it for fear of
being called CTs!)
Regards,
Peter Fokes
Robert Harris
<2a5168da-6c3e-4eff...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:47 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e74a5f05-0bc2-42f9-a339-378f6ca6c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 25, 6:21?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d653750a-4db4-42c0-8b48-3f7cbf24b...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 22, 7:08 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <11bec28d-98da-43c4-b940-09be37d3e...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Nov 22, 9:31 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <81db153d-7c85-4a94-a164-402c0d279...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> > > > > > > > m>,
> > > > > > > > ?Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 11:42 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <aa5310ab-bea4-44cf-8064-890416418...@j24g2000yqa.googlegrou
Not really. Before I entered the old CompuServe forum in '94, I had just
finished reading Case Clased, and before that, "Conspiracy of One" by Jim
Moore. I had also read another nutter book by a WC member (can't remember
the title atm).
Prior to that, I had read several conspiracy books, but at that time, I
guess I was an agnostic, leaning slightly to the LN side.
>
> > Oswald may have been involved but he could not have
> > acted alone.
>
> <snicker> All the time you`ve devoted to this, and you can`t even
> determine whether Oswald was involved for sure? You`re off the fucking
> case, Harris.
Nope. But there is no shortage of people who will lie and tell you they
have.
>
> > And the ONLY way you can believe otherwise is to make a conscious effort
> > to evade the facts and evidence related to the gunshots.
>
> You didn`t want to face the facts and evidence that conflicted with your
> beliefs about the gunshots that I brought up. Why was that?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I quit the last thread I had with you when you failed to entertain me.
But if you think you have debunked me, then don't be shy. Post your
arguments in a new thread and let's talk about it. Post it in AAJ so you
will have plenty of allies:-)
Robert Harris