Conspiracy or Science

[Alan Johnstone]

The Ten Common Sense Rules

1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
2. Never believe anyone who will profit by lying.
3. Exceptions don't prove rules, despite the saying, they break them. ( "prove" in this expression is related to the Italian "provare" which means "test" or "try out", which explains how this sensible maxim has acquired a modern, nonsensical meaning)
4. Even if the structure is logical, the basic assumptions may not be.
5. Beware of the sleight-of-hand known as special pleading, which is essentially a sales tactic
6. Don't be bamboozled or "blinded by science"
7. An idea is not a valid theory unless a way exists of disproving it (falsification).
8. A test result is not valid until and unless it can be recreated.
9. A theory that cannot predict anything is worthless.
10. The most obvious rule is that if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory.

For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.

Believing ourselves to be rational creatures in a supposedly ordered and rational universe, we shy away from the hideous tyranny of randomness, that force of Nature that defies our control and thus denies us our sense of meaning and ‘place’. Thus, JFK, who most Americans believe could not possibly have been assassinated by one lone nut with a rifle and some personal issues but rather good eyesight and good luck.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You forgot one. Never trust anybody who tries to rule your thoughts!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The Ten Common Sense Rules
>
> 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.

This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
indeed exist.

And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
the known evidence.

For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
testimony?

> 2. Never believe anyone who will profit by lying.
> 3. Exceptions don't prove rules, despite the saying, they break
> them. ( "prove" in this expression is related to the Italian "provare"
> which means "test" or "try out", which explains how this sensible
> maxim has acquired a modern, nonsensical meaning)
> 4. Even if the structure is logical, the basic assumptions may not be.
> 5. Beware of the sleight-of-hand known as special pleading, which is essentially a sales tactic

This indeed is what believers in this forum do *ALL THE TIME*.

It's a simple logical fallacy to pretend that the WCR is the
foundational "fact" from which all else precedes.

You violate this principle EACH AND EVERY TIME you pretend that the
WCR was right, and need not be defended.

For although critics have no problems presenting and supporting an
alternative theory... believers virtually NEVER do the same.

> 6. Don't be bamboozled or "blinded by science"

On the other hand, if the science is valid and credible - don't be
caught trying to deny it.

> 7. An idea is not a valid theory unless a way exists of disproving it (falsification).

So when are you going to disprove a second assassin?

>8. A test result is not valid until and unless it can be recreated.

So why can't the SBT be recreated?

>9. A theory that cannot predict anything is worthless.

The critic's theory that this was multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza
would predict the outright lies told by the WCR. (or any
"investigation.")

Quite the success!

>10. The most obvious rule is that if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory.

This is something you provably don't believe. The facts *DON'T* fit a
lone assassin, yet you absolutely refuse to consider any other theory.

James Chaney all by himself shows the weakness of your case.

> For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and
> offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not
> valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.

How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable.

And though Darwin *gave* how to falsify his theory, no evolutionist
acccepts them.

> Believing ourselves to be rational creatures in a supposedly ordered
> and rational universe, we shy away from the hideous tyranny of
> randomness, that force of Nature that defies our control and thus
> denies us our sense of meaning and ‘place’. Thus, JFK, who most
> Americans believe could not possibly have been assassinated by one
> lone nut with a rifle and some personal issues but rather good
> eyesight and good luck.

This is just silly.

[Alan Johnstone]

> "How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable."

Others beg to differ with your assertion

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution

https://ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-about-evolution

Also in my latest post, I offer up an example of a complicated explanation that does not clarify for me any conclusion, other than I can't understand the maths involved in any of the calculations.

I, therefore, personally require to rely upon simpler scenarios within my comprehension and these easier to understand alternatives do exist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:53:19 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
<alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>> "How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable."
>
>Others beg to differ with your assertion

Logical fallacies deleted.

Time and time again, science has run up against issues that would
ordinarily falsify evolution, and time and time again those very
issues have been used to support evolution.

A fairly old example is the fossil record, which Darwin thought would
support evolution when more fossils were found.

It didn't.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:01:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:



In my experience McAdams shills concentrate on useless sophistry because they are trying to avoid the direct evidence of conspiracy...

[Bud]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
> >
> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
> indeed exist.
>
> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
> the known evidence.
>
> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
> testimony?

Non sequitur. Doesn`t speak to the superiority of complex scenario over a simple one at all.

> > 2. Never believe anyone who will profit by lying.
> > 3. Exceptions don't prove rules, despite the saying, they break
> > them. ( "prove" in this expression is related to the Italian "provare"
> > which means "test" or "try out", which explains how this sensible
> > maxim has acquired a modern, nonsensical meaning)
> > 4. Even if the structure is logical, the basic assumptions may not be.
> > 5. Beware of the sleight-of-hand known as special pleading, which is essentially a sales tactic
> This indeed is what believers in this forum do *ALL THE TIME*.
>
> It's a simple logical fallacy to pretend that the WCR is the
> foundational "fact" from which all else precedes.

Ironic. When challenged to present a scenario about this event you can`t stop brining up the WC, even though it didn`t even exist when the assassination took place.

> You violate this principle EACH AND EVERY TIME you pretend that the
> WCR was right, and need not be defended.

They investigated and returned findings. If you don`t like it, do better.

> For although critics have no problems presenting and supporting an
> alternative theory... believers virtually NEVER do the same.

Saying the word "conspiracy" isn`t presenting an alternative theory.

> > 6. Don't be bamboozled or "blinded by science"
> On the other hand, if the science is valid and credible - don't be
> caught trying to deny it.

Are you talking about Myer`s computer modeling? The science that found the BY showed no signs of tampering?

> > 7. An idea is not a valid theory unless a way exists of disproving it (falsification).
> So when are you going to disprove a second assassin?

Can`t be done. Can`t be done in the shooting of Ronald Reagan also.

> >8. A test result is not valid until and unless it can be recreated.
> So why can't the SBT be recreated?

Is that a test result?

The plausibility of the SBT was confirmed by live fire testing.

> >9. A theory that cannot predict anything is worthless.
> The critic's theory that this was multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza
> would predict the outright lies told by the WCR. (or any
> "investigation.")

What does one thing have to do with the other?

> Quite the success!
> >10. The most obvious rule is that if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory.
> This is something you provably don't believe. The facts *DON'T* fit a
> lone assassin, yet you absolutely refuse to consider any other theory.
>
> James Chaney all by himself shows the weakness of your case.

How so?

> > For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and
> > offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not
> > valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.
> How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable.

"Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution

> And though Darwin *gave* how to falsify his theory, no evolutionist
> acccepts them.

He offered one way.

> > Believing ourselves to be rational creatures in a supposedly ordered
> > and rational universe, we shy away from the hideous tyranny of
> > randomness, that force of Nature that defies our control and thus
> > denies us our sense of meaning and ‘place’. Thus, JFK, who most
> > Americans believe could not possibly have been assassinated by one
> > lone nut with a rifle and some personal issues but rather good
> > eyesight and good luck.
> This is just silly.

Obviously true. It shook some peoples sense of order so much that they devoted their whole lives trying to make it fit their view of the world.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:01:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:
>
>
>
> In my experience McAdams shills concentrate on useless sophistry because they are trying to avoid the direct evidence of conspiracy...

Alan Johnstone is a Marxist. John McAdams was...well he certainly wasn't a Marxist. If you think Alan is a "shill" for McAdams and that he doesn't think for himself then you really need to get out more.
It's a bit remarkable that Mr. Johnstone, who is obviously critical towards capitalist systems, understand fully the illogic behind the conspiracy claims, the ignorance on how human beings work, how bureaucracies work, how impossible it is to coordinate all of these smaller conspiracies you people think occurred.
He is skeptical, to say the least, about the US political system. But even he knows what you claim happened is simply not possible.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
> >
> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
> indeed exist.

Of course they do. You can always make a simple explanation more complicated. But if a simpler explanation explains everything as well (or better) than the more complicated one, then you should go with the simpler one.

>
> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
> the known evidence.

According to whom?

>
> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
> testimony?

And we’re three sentences into Ben’s response, and Ben has already twice invoked the logical fallacy of a begged question.

> > 2. Never believe anyone who will profit by lying.
> > 3. Exceptions don't prove rules, despite the saying, they break
> > them. ( "prove" in this expression is related to the Italian "provare"
> > which means "test" or "try out", which explains how this sensible
> > maxim has acquired a modern, nonsensical meaning)
> > 4. Even if the structure is logical, the basic assumptions may not be.
> > 5. Beware of the sleight-of-hand known as special pleading, which is essentially a sales tactic
> This indeed is what believers in this forum do *ALL THE TIME*.
>
> It's a simple logical fallacy to pretend that the WCR is the
> foundational "fact" from which all else precedes.

And this is the straw man logical fallacy of mistaking an opponent’s claim so it is easier to rebut. Ben knows quite well that my claim is the evidence in the 26 volumes convinced me the critics were mistreating the evidence and taking things out of context to build a *false* case for conspiracy. My dispute with CTs arises not from mindless acceptance of the Commission’s conclusions, but from my own independent study of the evidence.

>
> You violate this principle EACH AND EVERY TIME you pretend that the
> WCR was right, and need not be defended.

No, that’s a shifting of the burden of proof. The Commission published not only their conclusions, but a detailed scenario and the evidence supporting each. If someone happens to agree with the majority of the Commission’s conclusions, there is no need for them to restate the Conclusions, the scenario, or the evidence. It is incumbent upon the challenger to state all that, state what they find wrong with it and why, and state the evidence supporting their version. But this obligation you always shirk.

>
> For although critics have no problems presenting and supporting an
> alternative theory... believers virtually NEVER do the same.

Cite one example of you presenting and supporting an alternative theory in the past year.

> > 6. Don't be bamboozled or "blinded by science"
> On the other hand, if the science is valid and credible - don't be
> caught trying to deny it.

You mean like why F= MA is the wrong formula because the bullet was at constant velocity when it struck the President’s head, as you tried to utilize that formula in the recent past?

> > 7. An idea is not a valid theory unless a way exists of disproving it (falsification).
> So when are you going to disprove a second assassin?

Begged and a shifting of the burden of proof. JFK was killed by gunfire, so the null hypothesis is one shooter (zero shooters being ruled out by the manner of death). A second shooter must be ruled in by evidence, not ruled out. This has been explained numerous times to you.

> >8. A test result is not valid until and unless it can be recreated.
> So why can't the SBT be recreated?

How close is close enough?

> >9. A theory that cannot predict anything is worthless.
> The critic's theory that this was multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza
> would predict the outright lies told by the WCR. (or any
> "investigation.")

Begged.

>
> Quite the success!

If you count logical fallacies as a success.

> >10. The most obvious rule is that if the facts don't fit the theory, change the
theory.
> This is something you provably don't believe. The facts *DON'T* fit a
> lone assassin, yet you absolutely refuse to consider any other theory.

Asserted but not proven. Another begged question logical fallacy.

>
> James Chaney all by himself shows the weakness of your case.

Asserted but not proven. Another begged question logical fallacy.

> > For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and
> > offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not
> > valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.
> How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable.

If there was no evolution, viruses and bacteria would not change. COVID and its variants establish evolution. As do the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria we’ve seen in the past half-century.

>
> And though Darwin *gave* how to falsify his theory, no evolutionist
> acccepts them.
> > Believing ourselves to be rational creatures in a supposedly ordered
> > and rational universe, we shy away from the hideous tyranny of
> > randomness, that force of Nature that defies our control and thus
> > denies us our sense of meaning and ‘place’. Thus, JFK, who most
> > Americans believe could not possibly have been assassinated by one
> > lone nut with a rifle and some personal issues but rather good
> > eyesight and good luck.
> This is just silly.

Asserted but not proven. Another begged question logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:14:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
>> >
>> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
>> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
>> indeed exist.
>>
>> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
>> the known evidence.
>>
>> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
>> testimony?
>
> Non sequitur. Doesn`t speak to the superiority of complex scenario over a simple one at all.

When believers have nothing but lies, they know they lost.

When the topic is "explanation" - it's quite relevant to point out
what the WCR's theory doesn't explain.

Snipped the rest of this troll's whining without bothering to read it.
When you start with a lie, nothing else is worth paying any
attention...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:37:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The Ten Common Sense Rules
>> >
>> 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
>>
>> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
>> indeed exist.
>
>Of course they do.

Good of you to agree with me.

Must have been painful...

[Bud]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:06:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:14:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> >> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
> >> >
> >> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
> >> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
> >> indeed exist.
> >>
> >> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
> >> the known evidence.
> >>
> >> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
> >> testimony?
> >
> > Non sequitur. Doesn`t speak to the superiority of complex scenario over a simple one at all.
> When believers have nothing but lies, they know they lost.
>
> When the topic is "explanation" -

It wasn`t. It was "simple explanation" versus "complex explanation".

Your non sequitur didn`t speak to the topic at all.

>it's quite relevant to point out
> what the WCR's theory doesn't explain.
>
> Snipped the rest of this troll's whining without bothering to read it.

Opting to cut and run from all the points I made at once rather cut and run from each point individually. Smart.

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:29:19 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:

> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
the known evidence.

The rule of thumb is "the simplest explanation that explains all of the valid evidence".

This is why prosecutors like Bugliosi and Wade were happy to go after prosecuting one person instead of looking for more who may have been involved - and not just in this case - but as a rule of thumb.

It is a lot less work and clears the case and that is all that matters to them. It is that very thinking in fact, that leads to some being framed.

[Greg Parker]

Just to clarify... if the evidence does not fit a lone suspect, but implicates others, then it is easier to "fix" the evidence so it points to one person, the to go after the others. This may sometimes include using someone who should be a suspect, as a witnss against the peson you have under lock and key.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:44:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:06:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:14:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>> >> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
>> >> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
>> >> indeed exist.
>> >>
>> >> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
>> >> the known evidence.
>> >>
>> >> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
>> >> testimony?
>> >
>> > Non sequitur. Doesn`t speak to the superiority of complex scenario over a simple one at all.
>> When believers have nothing but lies, they know they lost.
>>

>> When the topic is "explanation" - it's quite relevant to point out

>> what the WCR's theory doesn't explain.
>>
>> Snipped the rest of this troll's whining without bothering to read it.

LFD.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:01:24 PM UTC-5, Alan Johnstone wrote:

There was nothing exceptionally difficult about the assassination. JFK's fondness for slow moving motorcades in an open top car made him sitting duck. The choice of the Trade Mart for the luncheon brought the motorcade right past Oswald's workplace. The abandonment of the 6th floor by the rest of the TSBD employees gave Oswald the perfect perch. He selected the eastern most window because that give him a line of fire directly down Elm St. rather than attempting a more difficult cross shot. Oswald would never have won any shooting competitions but he certainly was capable of making those shots. To score Sharpshooter or even Markman he had to be able to hit targets 200 yards away. His longest shot at JFK was 88 yards. The Carcano, while not high on list of battlefield rifles, was certainly capable carrying out the task. The slight misalignment of the scope would have been an aid rather than a hindrance as it would cause the rifle to aim slightly high and right which is exactly the amount of lead Oswald would need to hit his target. We don't know if Oswald was aiming at the head or center of mass but one shot was spot on and one slightly off.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The Ten Common Sense Rules
> >
> > 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
> indeed exist.
>
> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
> the known evidence.

On the contrary, the simple explanation is the only one that does. The complicated ones have to explain away much of the evidence. It isn't the LNs who are forced to claim evidence tampering to make their explanations plausible.

>
> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
> testimony?

A question based on a false pretensee.

> > 2. Never believe anyone who will profit by lying.
> > 3. Exceptions don't prove rules, despite the saying, they break
> > them. ( "prove" in this expression is related to the Italian "provare"
> > which means "test" or "try out", which explains how this sensible
> > maxim has acquired a modern, nonsensical meaning)
> > 4. Even if the structure is logical, the basic assumptions may not be.
> > 5. Beware of the sleight-of-hand known as special pleading, which is essentially a sales tactic
> This indeed is what believers in this forum do *ALL THE TIME*.
>
> It's a simple logical fallacy to pretend that the WCR is the
> foundational "fact" from which all else precedes.
>
> You violate this principle EACH AND EVERY TIME you pretend that the
> WCR was right, and need not be defended.
>
> For although critics have no problems presenting and supporting an
> alternative theory... believers virtually NEVER do the same.
> > 6. Don't be bamboozled or "blinded by science"
> On the other hand, if the science is valid and credible - don't be
> caught trying to deny it.
> > 7. An idea is not a valid theory unless a way exists of disproving it (falsification).
> So when are you going to disprove a second assassin?
> >8. A test result is not valid until and unless it can be recreated.
> So why can't the SBT be recreated?

What shooting has ever been recreated. There are far too many variables to perfectly duplicate any shooting. The elements of the shooting have been created. It has been shown that the Carcano was capable of hitting a target twice in three shots even though Oswald almost certainly had in excess of 8 seconds to fire his three shots. Recreations using animal caracasses have shown a Carcano bullet could pass through two torsos, strike a rib bone and emerge in much the same condition as CE399. There is nothing about the SBT that has been shown to be impossible.

> >9. A theory that cannot predict anything is worthless.
> The critic's theory that this was multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza
> would predict the outright lies told by the WCR. (or any
> "investigation.")

The critics have no credible evidence for multiple shooters in Dealy Plaza.
>
> Quite the success!

Yes it was. The WCR is still the definitive explanation of the assassination 57 years after it was released.

> >10. The most obvious rule is that if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory.
> This is something you provably don't believe. The facts *DON'T* fit a
> lone assassin, yet you absolutely refuse to consider any other theory.
>
> James Chaney all by himself shows the weakness of your case.

It shows you that. The intelligent people aren't persuaded.

> > For a theory to be valid it should accord well with the facts, and
> > offer one a way to disprove it. Thus religion and creationism are not
> > valid scientific theories, whereas evolution and gravity are.
> How silly! Evolution isn't falsifiable.

Neither is the WCR.

>
> And though Darwin *gave* how to falsify his theory, no evolutionist
> acccepts them.
> > Believing ourselves to be rational creatures in a supposedly ordered
> > and rational universe, we shy away from the hideous tyranny of
> > randomness, that force of Nature that defies our control and thus
> > denies us our sense of meaning and ‘place’. Thus, JFK, who most
> > Americans believe could not possibly have been assassinated by one
> > lone nut with a rifle and some personal issues but rather good
> > eyesight and good luck.
> This is just silly.

No, it is the fact. It's the only one available. Truth is not subject to multiple choice. There is only one.

[Steven Galbraith]

Were there ANY JFK supporters in the government at that time? They all went along with this plan, carried it out, covered it up and then remained silent for the rest of their lives? Nobody objected?
It's remarkable (again) that Alan Johnstone, a British Marxist who isn't exactly uncritical of the US government, understands the sheer impossibility of pulling this off. Even he knows how bureaucracies work, of how you can't pull something this complex off. It's not possible. And then keep it quiet?
These conspiracists are even more radical and hostile to the US then a Marxist. Chew that over.
If you read Mark Lane's last book (I suggest not) you can see that even he doesn't believe all of this nonsense. He believed the CIA - alone - carried it out. LBJ wasn't involved. The Secret Service was incompetent and negligent but were not actively involved. If Lane was alive posting here the conspiracists would be calling him a CIA disinformation agent. And a liar liar coward yada yada yada.

[Scrum Drum]

The British (Magda Hassan, James Gordon, Duncan MacRae) are well known for their honesty (eeep)...

[Bud]

A reminder of the points I made that this coward is running from...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/bC0VwxUIgjg/m/97L7gN-HCAAJ

[healyd...@gmail.com]

and was immediately (57 years ago) challenged as bullshit -- the autopsy was botched, CE399 innuendo (SBT)... 1964 WCR and conclusions toilet paper.

[Alan Johnstone]

"The British (Magda Hassan, James Gordon, Duncan MacRae) are well known for their honesty (eeep)"

There is a short ditty about the UK media:

You cannot hope 
to bribe or twist, 
thank God! the 
British journalist.
But seeing what 
the man will do 
unbribed, there’s 
no occasion to.

[John Corbett]

Looks like healy just woke up and hasn't had time to put on fresh adult diapers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:47:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:44:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:44:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:06:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:14:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:01:23 -0800 (PST), Alan Johnstone
>>>>>> <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Ten Common Sense Rules
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. First of all, don't believe a complicated explanation if a simpler one will do.
>>>>>> This is a denial of complicated explanations. Sometimes, they do
>>>>>> indeed exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And in this particular case, a "simpler" one simply doesn't explain
>>>>>> the known evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, why did the WC blatantly lie about their own collected
>>>>>> testimony?
>>>>>
>>>>> Non sequitur. Doesn`t speak to the superiority of complex scenario over a simple one at all.
>>>> When believers have nothing but lies, they know they lost.
>>>>
>>>> When the topic is "explanation" - it's quite relevant to point out
>>>> what the WCR's theory doesn't explain.
>>>>
>>>> Snipped the rest of this troll's whining without bothering to read it.
>> LFD.

>>>> When you start with a lie, nothing else is worth paying any
>>>> attention...

Still nothing worth paying any attention to... Chickenshit simply
demonstrated that all he can do is lie.

[Bud]

The points I made that Ben can only flee from...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/bC0VwxUIgjg/m/97L7gN-HCAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

An EXCELLENT example of Chickenshit's cowardice.

I invite all lurkers to click on the link, and read it.