JFK conspiracy... yes or no?

[DanBlather]

@Crotalus

Will you please, please try to acquire even a slight understanding of the terms you are copying from somewhere else? The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of African-American fliers during WWII.

Yeah, but they could fly. The pieces are starting to come together.

[Jackmannii]

@Crotalus

Will you please, please try to acquire even a slight understanding of the terms you are copying from somewhere else? The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of African-American fliers during WWII. The Tuskegee Experiment involved using black people as experimental subjects by not treating them for venereal disease to see what would happen. These are different things.

I corrected him about this several pages ago, but apparently it didn’t register any more than corrective information about Dallas.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DanBlather

Yeah, but they could fly. The pieces are starting to come together.

Yeah, maybe they crashed the planes into the WTC… Syphillis makes people crazy, after all…

[Jackmannii]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yeah, maybe they crashed the planes into the WTC… Syphillis makes people crazy, after all…

Or the Tuskeegee Airmen sprayed syphilis bacteria over Dallas in the first known instance of chemtrail poisoning, causing several people including Oswald to wig out and shoot President Kennedy from different locations including the grassy knoll.

Multiple shooters acting independently - the CT’ers heads will explode*.

*I’ll see if I can think of more appropriate phrasing during the edit window.

[Crotalus]

@Jackmannii

I corrected him about this several pages ago, but apparently it didn’t register any more than corrective information about Dallas.

I remember reading this mistake somewhere on SDMB recently, but didn’t realize it was in this thread.

To me, it’s just further evidence that he is cutting and pasting stuff from some wing-nut site without understanding what the content says. Does this mean that the internet is helping to create an army of idiots who think that the Tuskegee Airmen were the victims of a nefarious government plot?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Crotalus

I remember reading this mistake somewhere on SDMB recently, but didn’t realize it was in this thread.

To me, it’s just further evidence that he is cutting and pasting stuff from some wing-nut site without understanding what the content says. Does this mean that the internet is helping to create an army of idiots who think that the Tuskegee Airmen were the victims of a nefarious government plot?

Well, they were being programmed to put themselves into a war zone and not all of them survived.

It’s like Kent Brockman said (more or less): Just miles from your home, men are being given guns and trained to kill. The government calls it “the army”, but a more alarmist name could be… The Killbot Factory!

[jakesteele]

Mr. Miskatonic;11433942]I really would like to know the source of that. Truzzi might have resembled that remark once, but In the last 25 years of his life? I think he demonstrated anything but that remark.

I don’t know what he did for the last 25 yrs., do you? And what is your criteria for “doing something”? I know he represented skepticism which is very different than pseudo-skepticism

He stood for this:
Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

He stood against this:
A pseudo-skeptic is a person with an priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and it’s just a matter of figuring out a way to debunk it.

It is not an ad hominem to point out why being a ‘Truzzi Skeptic’ is a poor choice.

Maybe I got it wrong with ad hominem. Let’s call “namby pamby” a character assassination and guilt by association.

I have seen this many with CSIOPtics. When the other guy does it, it’s a fallacy, but when you
do it, it’s not. Why? Because it’s true, and it’s true because it’s self evident to “right thinking” people.

Here’s what we’ve got:

Argument from Law of Immaculate Perception – “right thinkers” are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

[jakesteele]

Lemur866;11434045]Jake, there’s a reason people are willing to believe some of these examples of government conspiracies and malfeasance.

You miss my point with those examples. People don’t believe, they know these things are real because they have been exposed and by de facto you have to acknowledge it. My point is that before they were exposed you would have poo hooed these as being the paranoid delusions of a CTer.

You complain that we don’t even consider the possibility of a conspiracy in the Kennedy case. But that’s, you know, wrong. There’s a difference between not considering the possibility of a conspiracy, and considering the possibility of a conspiracy and then rejecting it.

No, I don’t care if you consider it a conspiracy or not. I said I remain somewhat agnostic on the issue because of several things I’ve already listed a number of times.

That is my position, and it is the position of all the other right-thinking folks in this thread. Maybe there was a conspiracy. But we have no evidence of one. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald was the lone shooter, and none that he wasn’t. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald was a nut, and since there is no evidence that anyone helped him, it is justified to assert that he was a lone nut.

When I hear someone say something like “right-thinking” individuals it makes me think of Scientologists, only they use the term “Clears”. When someone has such a fixation in their heads that they are right and anybody who disagrees is therefore wrong, it’s called Argument from Law of Immaculate Perception – “right thinkers” are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

However, just because I have reached the conclusion that Oswald was a lone nut, that doesn’t mean you can’t change my mind. But since I’ve been around the block on this a few times, you probably won’t change my mind by trotting out evidence that I’ve already considered. You’re going to have to do more. Evidence that security was lax around Kennedy isn’t new evidence. Security was lax because lax security happened all the time in that era, and nobody ever noticed, because most times nobody ever tried to take a shot at the president.

I don’t know what part of my statements you’re not getting. I said it “stuck in my craw”, my uncle, who protected Truman, who came before Kennedy, thought that it was highly suspicious and went against protocol. I said I take an agnostic stance due to the fact of too many conflicting things. I listed some. I never said I believed Oswald was Lone Gunman or if he was a dupe for a conspiracy. You don’t seem to grasp that.

To give an analogy, suppose you find that someone had a fatal car crash, and then find they weren’t wearing a seat belt. They disregarded proper procedure and ended up dead. Suspicious, no? Why did they disregard proper procedure on the one day that it mattered? Except, it turns out this person regularly drove without a seat belt. And if they had been wearing a seat belt we wouldn’t even be talking about it because the accident wouldn’t have been fatal.

So of course security was lax, if it wasn’t lax Kennedy wouldn’t have wound up dead. That’s a tautology.

[jakesteele]

@Crotalus

Will you please, please try to acquire even a slight understanding of the terms you are copying from somewhere else? The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of African-American fliers during WWII. The Tuskegee Experiment involved using black people as experimental subjects by not treating them for venereal disease to see what would happen. These are different things.

Please try to acquire an understanding of what they were examples of when I cut and pasted them from somewhere else.

[jakesteele]

@tomndebb

See! Proof that there was a conspiracy! They have confused jakesteele regarding the actual event!

(Besides. How do you know that the Tuskegee Airmen were not part of a vast conspiracy to show that blacks were competent humans. Maybe that was the conspiracy to which he alludes.)

You seem a little slow on the uptake: the govts. sordid history of showing no moral compunction and a depraved indifference to human rights, crimes against humanity and crimes against the constitution:

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

Please try to acquire an understanding of what they were examples of when I cut and pasted them from somewhere else.

Were they examples of poor compilation skills?

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

Is anyone here doing that, or are you just wanting to rant about your perception of others? People here for the most part have considered all this evidence, then when you bring it out as if it’s something we haven’t seen before, we understandably aren’t swayed by it. But what we have done, is to explain why we’ve rejected it, when this has happened.

It seems that you’ve gone from talking about the actual event, to ranting about the personalities of people who aren’t even posting here. If you ask me, that’s a pretty good indicator of the kind of evidence you have.

Let’s cut to the chase. Since you think I am trying to prove something, what is it you think I am trying to prove?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’ll give it a shot:

You’re trying to prove that you are wiser than us because your mind is supposedly open to possibilities and ours are supposedly not. I figure you’ve so far demonstrated the opposite, though, because you seem eager to believe things that have no hard evidence while we require it.

[tomndebb]

@jakesteele

You seem a little slow on the uptake: the govts. sordid history of showing no moral compunction and a depraved indifference to human rights, crimes against humanity and crimes against the constitution:

You seem to have a problem completing your thoughts.

On the other hand, my point is clear: regardless whether people acting in the name of the U.S. govewrnment have done terrible things–they clearly have–each event nees to be judged on evidence and in the case of those events that have turned into CT fantasies, the evidence is lacking. Your attempt to claim that the mere fact that the U.S. has done evil is, itself, a reason to look on every event as a possible example of evil is silly.

[CurtC]

@jakesteele

Please try to acquire an understanding of what they were examples of when I cut and pasted them from somewhere else.

So you’re sticking by your claim that the Tuskegee Airmen were an example of an out-of-control, conspiratorial government?

Is your mind open enough to learn something new? You may try looking up the Tuskegee Airmen on teh Intertubes (as well as learning how to properly use the “quote” tag).

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

So you’re sticking by your claim that the Tuskegee Airmen were an example of an out-of-control, conspiratorial government?

Is your mind open enough to learn something new? You may try looking up the Tuskegee Airmen on teh Intertubes (as well as learning how to properly use the “quote” tag).

“the govts. sordid history of showing no moral compunction and a depraved indifference to human rights, crimes against humanity and crimes against the constitution:”

What part of that statement do you not get? You have turned a statement about “no moral compunction about doing terrible things to its own citizens” into me somehow claiming it was an out-of-control, conspiratorial government.

Jeez, I guess the out-of-control part is the strawman and the total topic change is what, a train conductor straw man shunting the train down a side rail?

What exactly do you think my stance is? Are you claiming that I’m claiming that JFK was a govt. conspiracy?

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

So you’re sticking by your claim that the Tuskegee Airmen were an example of an out-of-control, conspiratorial government?

Is your mind open enough to learn something new? You may try looking up the Tuskegee Airmen on teh Intertubes

(as well as learning how to properly use the “quote” tag)

.

I’m not all that good at 'puters. Please tell me what I’m doing wrong. A lot of times when I do quotes from certain segments it won’t let the post go through: Requires 2 characters or more.

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’ll give it a shot:

You’re trying to prove that you are wiser than us because your mind is supposedly open to possibilities and ours are supposedly not. I figure you’ve so far demonstrated the opposite, though, because you seem eager to believe things that have no hard evidence while we require it.

Nope, didn’t get it right. Try again.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@jakesteele

“the govts. sordid history of showing no moral compunction and a depraved indifference to human rights, crimes against humanity and crimes against the constitution:”

What part of that statement do you not get?

How the ‘Tuskogee Airmen’ fit in to that statement, in my case.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

Nope, didn’t get it right. Try again.

No, I’ll stand by my answer. If you care about changing my impression (and I admit you have no particular reason to), the onus is on you to supply evidence I can use in forming my opinion to counter the existing evidence I’ve already compiled, i.e. pretty much all of your posts in this thread.

As for fixing quote problems, just hit GO ADVANCED and then PREVIEW POST before submitting and give your post a once-over. Make sure all text you wish to quote is enclosed by the following pair of tags, though replace curly brackets with square brackets:

{quote} text text text {/quote}

If you wish to use a nested quote, simply put a pair of tags inside another pair. You can also change the opening tag to “quote=name” for clarity, i.e.:
{quote=bryan}
{quote=jake} something jake said {/quote}
something bryan said in response
{/quote}

Will appear as (if the brackets are changed to square form):

@bryan

@jake

something jake said

something bryan said in response

If you’re not getting the correct result, make sure every {quote} tag has a matching {/quote} tag and that all tags have the proper brackets and (a mistake I make often) be sure “quote” is not incorrectly spelled “qoute”. Keep previewing until you get the desired result.