Your “expertise” on the subject is what brings a hearty laugh.
I don’t know what happened, but either do you. To say that Oswald definitely did it in the context of what we know now isn’t necessarily wrong… But it’s not a slam dunk, either. It always amazes me how people that think Oswald was the sole shooter are so sure. Like they were there.
I’m also pretty sure that you have never read any books that look at any of the conspiracy theories. The reason so many of them are still floating around is that just like this program “Mortal Error”, an investigator can round up witnesses that either weren’t interviewed by the WC or their testimony was incomplete. The grassy knoll shooter is another theory that has many “witnesses” to it. People pick and choose what they want out of the information. The WC certainly did this. Anything that pointed away from a lone gunman was dropped. If you cannot see WHY this would have been done, you are naive.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if the Investigation led to Cuba or Russia? More than likely a war. Wouldn’t happen? How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? How many WMD’s did we find in Iraq? And yet, 12 years later, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much proof did we as a country need before we committed our country to two different wars for over a decade?
My point is that the WC was motivated to get a line gunman and wrap up the investigation quickly. And from a practical POV it made sense. It still does. Wrapping it up in a nice neat bow is exactly what the government needed to do. Whether or not this was the truth, no way you could know. This is GQ, so I’ll stop there. Unless you were in Dallas and saw everything that day, your information is coming from sources that may or may not be biased. The truth is, we simply don’t know what happened that day.
That definition is the first one I listed, someone who is blamed for something they didn’t do. And I am aware of the connotation of the patsy being set up for the blame for something he didn’t do. But The Second Stone is throwing out that definition, right? By saying “I’m not suggesting he didn’t do it”, he is eliminating the possibility that Oswald was set up to be blamed for something he didn’t do, because he (The Second Stone) is accepting that Oswald DID do it. One can’t be that sort of patsy if they actually did it, can they?
I think you are suggesting that I’m being dishonest or disingenuous, but maybe you’re suggesting that I’m stupid. Now I’m confused.
Not a CTer, but there are a couple of questions I would like to explore.
In the JFK movie, the only valid points I thought were brought out were that a woman reported the planned attack ahead of time and there was in fact some semblance of a conspiracy between the anti-JFK cubans and some whacko friends of Oswald.
I read the Congressional investigation from the 70’s or early 80’s that seem to confirm the above.
Whackos like Oswald and David Fairey do tend to run in the same circles so that seems perfectly plausible. Anything beyond familiarity with one another seems a stretch and I see no alternative to the fact that Oswald acted alone (it is perfectly fine to have hairbrained schemes, it is entirely another to act on them).
The so called magic bullet theory to my understanding has been demonstrated to be a perfectly plausible and experimentally repeatable theory. Additionally, having been to Dealey Plaza, I can say with no question that the shots were easy to make.
What I don’t get is the insistance that some shadowy conspiracy within the government did anything. Why is it so unbelievable that a nut like Oswald could have pulled it off?
Stinks, I was going to let this slide by, but it occurred to me that you’ve given such a perfect exposition of being completely wrong that it deserves a reply.
All CTs begin by dismissing the Warren Commission report. They have to. It leaves no room for alternate theories about second shooters, conspirators or cover-ups, so claiming the report was fatally flawed has to be step one. It’s been done so many times now and so loudly that the otherwise-uninformed general public believes it.
They believe it because they - and you - have absolutely no idea what the report represents. If the report were what the CTers and you claim, you’d be completely right. We’d have no idea what happened that day, just a bunch of idle anecdotes adding up to whatever we want them to add up to. Unfortunately for you, and the promoters of all the variant Theories - and by the way, there’s no significant book about the JFK assassination I haven’t read - your portrait of the Warren Commission and its report is 100% purified bullshit.
Taking your summary of CT-speak, the report is a brief, hasty whitewash by a group of government-appointed stooges who rushed to a directed conclusion to either cover up the real events or prevent too much investigation into uncomfortable corners. I’d bet that’s the majority public view of the Commission and report, due to the unending howl of the CTers for forty-nine years… and because most people have no idea who the Commission was, what the investigation consisted of and how it reached its conclusions.
The Warren Commission consisted of:
[ul]
[li]Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren[/li][li]Congressman and Minority leader Gerald Ford (R)[/li][li]Senator Richard Russell Jr. (D)[/li][li]Congressman and Majority leader Hale Boggs (D)[/li][li]Senator John S. Cooper (R)[/li][li]John McCoy, emeritus president of the World Bank[/li][li]Allen Dulles, emeritus CIA Director[/li][/ul]
Now, go ahead and look up the biographies of these seven men and tell us which ones were spineless patsies who would overlook law, outrage and honor to cover up the murder of their President in broad daylight. I see at least six, and probably seven who would have insisted on the truth even facing into a firing squad. (I’ll give you that Dulles might be a little slippery… but not a one of the others.)
The Commission examined thousands of pieces of evidence including classified and private material. They called 552 witnesses and examined the testimony of thousands of others as given to police and other investigators. The witness list ran from John Connally down to a nearly anonymous man who rode the bus to Mexico City with Oswald in late 1963.They also staged a number of recreations, re-enactments and tests that, among other things, proved that Oswald and his “crappy” rifle were more than capable of hitting targets under the assassination conditions.
** The dismissed report consists of a nearly 900-page summary and 26 volumes of supporting evidence.**
In other words, Stink, the next time you’re going to blithely wave away the evidence, the investigation and the conclusion, you’d better bring something to the fight besides the tinfoil knife of “nobody really knows what happened” - because we most certainly do. Evidence of this magnitude is not a chain, where one tiny broken link means it’s all invalid. It’s strands in a rope, each of which reinforces and connects the other. There are so many strands in the Warren Commission report “rope” that it’s almost unbreakable - and is inconceivable to those who want to dismiss it as a flimsy whitewash.
We don’t need alternate theories because the astounding, shocking conclusion of the Commission is not only the correct one, but proven many times past the point where in ordinary law the perpetrator would have been found guilty. We don’t need to give weight to shreds of nonconforming evidence (nearly all of it eyewitness, not physical) to try and dismiss a mountain of other valid evidence and find another conclusion.
In a nutshell, Stink, we know what happened in that ten seconds better than we may ever know any other minute of history. It all boils down to not *wanting *to believe… and an unending swarm of those profiting from exploiting that disbelief. You and millions have been suckered out of the truth and $20 by charlatans.
Instead of reading one more shitty CT book by someone who begins by pissing on the original report, **why don’t you go read the report itself - the summary will do **- and get back to us with the specific and credible gaps you see in it. NOT with some anecdote from ten or twenty years later, or a “theory” that flies in the face of copious and inarguable physical evidence, or the rantings of an Oliver $tone - but with the facts that were meticulously collected, examined and judged. START from there and I’ll listen carefully to anything you - or any other CTer so inclined - has to say.
Otherwise, keep spewing the kind of nonsense above knowing you are an ignorant patsy of those who have rewritten history for their own profit.
Sorry. For Iraq, I meant the US, not necessarily troops.
America still has a presence in Iraq. Advisors, consultants, whatever they are called. Did you think we would spend all that money and not get something out of it?
Second, my name is Stink Fish Pot, or SFP. I know why you chose to call me stinks or stink, but it’s immature baiting. If you can’t respect a person’s name, that’s just sad.
Third, to believe you were going to let this slide by is just not credible. I suppose you are going to tell us all that you didn’t have a copy of your opus in a word processing document, and have not been working on it for days? Yeah. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Fourth, I have to ask… Why are you so hostile on this topic? You act as if you know what went down that day. You don’t. Neither do I. You froth through this post like i am the be-all end-all of CT posters out here. The truth is, i don’t know what happened. Just because YOU tell me that the WC is your personal bible to the Kennedy Assassination doesn’t mean that it is mine. Nor does it have to be.
Finally, one of your posts above made me reply to you. Because you claim to know so much about this subject, and yet you got LHO’s age wrong. He was 24, not 26 when he died. You may say that’s no big deal, but it is. You didn’t fat finger that number. You got it wrong. And when you get simple things wrong, it makes me question what else you think you know but you don’t know. You claim to know the answers. I don’t.
This is not accurate. Again, I’m speaking for myself here, not the lump of people you seemed to have put me into. I don’t dismiss the entire WCR. I disagree with its ultimate conclusion. As for the idea that there is no room for an alternative theory if the WC is accepted, i see your point. However, to believe the WC Is correct because the govt. would not lie to the people, or the people on the commission wouldn’t cherry pick the info they wanted to put the rifle in Oswald’s hands is being a bit naive. To believe that is to believe that the govt. is incapable of lying or covering up, or more to the point, even incapable of trying because of some sense of honor, or belief that the truth at any cost is what drives men and governments. If you believe that, you have a very poor or selective memory or very little in the way of American History in your head. You are telling us that no government coverups ever occur? You really want to go there? Because if you do, I’m sure we can come up with a few for you that are real, actual government scandals that were covered up and then uncovered often after it was too late. Let’s see if any of these ring a bell… Gulf of Tonkin? Secret Bombing of Cambodia? CIA LSD testing on unknowing subjects (which didn’t come out for decades), WMD’s in Iraq? Watergate?
Yeah, the government is above suspicion when it comes to ulterior motives.
With that said, I am NOT saying that what the WC did was wrong. I understand it from a big picture perspective. I am also not saying the WC knowingly covered up what exactly happened, protecting the conspirators (if there were any), or anyone else. What i am saying is they went out of their way to prove one person, Oswald, did the shooting. No second gunman, no conspiracy. They did not follow every lead, and they did not pursue any avenue which might have led them to find a second shooter. The reasons are obvious. It was the middle of the Cold War and the consequences could have been tragic.
Lyndon Johnson was behind the Gulf of Tonkin. You think it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the WC was set up to give the public an answer they desperately wanted? Even if the WC was dead on correct, that’s what they were commissioned for. The WC also stemmed any ancillary investigations from getting any traction, specifically in Dallas and the state of Texas.
Seriously? If you don’t mind, list them… Why would you read books that you claim are purified bullshit? This is another claim i find highly improbable. I can’t prove it, of course and you can say all day long that you read everything. But I don’t believe someone as passionate about the WC being correct could waste their time on crap that you think is just written forms of snake oil.
You completely misrepresented my opinion on the subject. Which is not surprising since you are reading everything through the eyes and mind of a zealot. The WR is not brief. The summary is, but the actual report is massive. Was it rushed? I think so. But it had to be. The public demanded to know what happened, and they weren’t going to wait years for it. I never said “government stooges” either. Where do you come up with this stuff? Oh yeah, in that open-minded head of yours. :dubious:
My favorite line…“Most people have no idea who the Commission was, what the investigation consisted of and how it reached its conclusions.” And you do? No, you don’t. All you know is what the official record reflects. The mission statement of the WC is not something that says “complete in 9 months no matter what”. Unless you were there, in the room, you have as much as anyone else does. Why can’t you admit this? Yes, you have the “official” government mission statement. Nothing more. And if you cannot see the benefit in finding a simple explanation to the killing of the President, and doing it quickly, i can’t help you. You will never admit to this being a possibility. And that’s all I’m saying it is. A possibility.
Also, i think to say that people don’t know how the WC reached its conclusions is probably true in a general sense. But all you have to do is read the WCR summary to get this. It is not like the WC pulled everything from thin air. There were witnesses who thought there were 3 shots, and that they came from the TSBD. They have experts that explain the path of the magic bullet. But is it correct? Or is it correct that the bullet wasn’t magic at all, and made all of the wounds ascribed to it because of where Kennedy and Connelly were seated? I don’t recall reading in the WR any discussion about Connelly’s jump seat, and that he sat lower and to the right of the president. No, they talk about a “magic bullet”.
Where did i say spineless patsies? Here’s what I’m telling you… You have no idea what pressure these men were under. If someone said to you that if the investigation drags out, or if there is any hint of a conspiracy that would cause the country to go to war, and hundreds of thousands if not millions could die, you might look at your mission differently.
One thing you fail to take into account is that all of these men were part of the government structure at the time, or were in the past. Nice of you to give me Dulles. Hard to say the head of the CIA fired for the Bay of Pigs would be the best person for the job. But I’m not even going to criticize him. There is a bigger picture involved. A potential nightmare. These men all knew the stakes, and they all had an enormous responsibility. That responsibility extended beyond the WR and the killing of the President. Killing the President is not your average murder. It has consequences that would affect an entire country.
Really? Not one FBI sharpshooter could repeat Oswald’s marksmanship. Not on the first try. Not even on the second try. WC zealots are just as bad as the CT’ers. You pick and choose what makes your story work, and ignore or misrepresent the rest. Oswald’s crappy rifle was crappy. No quotes are needed. The man supposedly paid what, $15 for it through a mail order house? The MC was not exactly known for its fit and finish. This isn’t even debatable.
John Connelly was a witness, sure. And his testimony was dismissed as incorrect. He said he did not get hit with the same shot as the President. He also said he heard the second and third shots almost on top of each other. I guess he was wrong. He must have been, because it didn’t fit what the WC came up with. Was Connelly lying? Why would he?
Oswald’s Mexican trip is an interesting example to pull out. Is this the trip where Oswald was photographed outside the Russian (or Cuban? i can’t remember) embassy? That stocky guy with the mustache? In case you are confused, that guy wasn’t Oswald. How on earth did they track down a guy that sat on a bus next to Oswald on a trip to Mexico anyway? Have you ever been on a plane or a bus? Do you even have a remote clue who the person was that sat next to you? Unless it was a babe, or a guy with BO, you wouldn’t even notice them. And even if you did, you aren’t going to remember someone a year or three later. Come on, now… Seriously? I just came back from a business trip. On an airplane, and i talked to the guy for over 2 hours. That was a week ago, and i couldn’t describe him to a police sketch artist. If he ended up shooting Obama tomorrow, I wouldn’t remember him if I saw him on TV with his name underneath his face. People on buses and planes are part of the scenery, not someone you commit to memory. But yeah. The WC interviewed the nearly anonymous guy who rode with Oswald to Mexico City in '63. If they (and you) say so. Why not?
And the gathering of witness statements from the Police and other investigators is true, but it does make one wonder why no one recorded a word of what Oswald said in his initial interrogation. Remember, when Oswald was brought in, he was a cop-killer not the assassin of the president. Why on earth would that not be standard police procedure? Oops?
It’s not a tinfoil knife. And i don’t have a tinfoil hat. I do know, however, that the american government, like all governments, do things their citizens don’t know about. They also do things that are for the “greater good”. You didn’t bring anything to “the fight” other than a copy of the WR. I could spew the countless hours of investigation that Jim Garrison spent on Clay Shaw, which is also impressive but to you, irrelevant. The documentation in the book “On The Trail Of The Assassins” is also meticulous and yet you would categorically refute his conclusions. Tell me… Would it have made any difference to the jury at the time if Clay Shaw was a member of the CIA, as Garrison alleged? Because Richard Helms confirmed his ties to the CIA in 1977. (And before you go down the Garrison road, don’t bother. I’m not here to defend everything he did. I was only using him for an example).
To suggest that I called it a “flimsy whitewash” is again, putting words in my post that simply aren’t there. You really need to read this post slowly. Believe none of it, some of it, all of it, it doesn’t matter to me. I’m not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. All i said and all i am saying is that anyone, including you, who thinks they know what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and weren’t themselves directly involved in the days events are just repeating whatever theory they read and agreed with.
Have you ever taken a loyalty oath? Signed your name to a piece of paper that said you would keep secret the things you were about to learn? Ever worked for the DoD, CIA, or any other arm of the national intelligence community? Ever been granted a security clearance? If you had, you would understand that things aren’t always neat and tidy. You would also understand that most people take those oaths seriously and do not breech them, even if they don’t agree with everything they’ve seen.
If only this were true. Much of the evidence is in question, and you would know that if you were as well-read on the subject as you claim. Let me ask you… Do you believe in the single bullet theory? Of course you do. But which one? Was it the first or second shot? Theories abound, and even people who agree in principle to the WC conclusions find fault with the evidence.
I have been suckered out of $20 by charlatans? What are you talking about? Didn’t you say you read every book on the assassination? I guess your local library has all the books, and you purchased nothing. Again, why waste your time reading the nonsense. You have your answer in the WC. To tell us that you’ve read every assassination book really doesn’t fit with who you are. You are a WC zealot. Which is fine, by the way. I don’t care. And i mean no offense by the term zealot. It’s a word I use to describe someone that is so sure of something that they cannot admit to the possibility that they might be wrong. I know a lot of religious people who share a similar passion for their chosen story.
I have read the WC report summary. Bought it, in fact, so i guess i’ve been had by your team as well as the other charlatans. I unfortunately cannot find a 26 volume set, and if i did, i would never be able to afford it. But i’d love to see it. But that summary in no way can represent the totality of that massive report. Or do you think it does?
This is also another paragraph with a statement that isn’t credible. You would never listen to me, or anyone else, for that matter that has anything to say if it doesn’t fit your view of this event. To do so would pop a balloon of self-righteousness that you have spent considerable time blowing up… And you would have to admit that you were wrong. Something i honestly believe you are incapable of doing when it comes to this particular topic.
And let’s get this straight. Because i don’t believe that Oswald acted alone doesn’t make me a CT’er, at least by your definition. It also doesn’t mean that the WC is a complete work of fiction. I have my opinion on the subject, and that’s all it is: my opinion. You, in the other hand, remind me of an old roommate I once had who would wave the bible in my face and tell me all the answers are inside. Your WC summary is your bible. And just like my ex-roomie, there isn’t one thing that could be said to convince you of another alternative. You have gone “all in” on the WC. Your personal world view would shatter if you were proven wrong, and you can’t have that.
One thing, though. I kind of understand why my ex-roomie went all in on the bible and God. There is a pay-off for him at the end that he is sure to come his way. What i can’t understand is why you have such passion for something that doesn’t really matter at this point. Even if Kennedy’s brain was found, and there was a pound of shrapnel inside, and we found proof of a second shooter, what difference would it make now? We wouldn’t go to war. No one would go to jail. Why do you care so much? Let people believe what they want, it doesn’t impact your daily life one bit. Or maybe it does… I just can’t imagine how.
Again, why are you so vested in this? If you have all the answers you need to tell you the answer to the question “who killed Kennedy”, then move on. You are free to work on the other cosmic questions of our time. Your pronounced hand-wringing and support for the WC is unexplainable unless you have a vested interest in the WC itself. Was your grandfather Earl Warren?
Please don’t respond to me again by calling me anything other than Stink Fish Pot or SFP. And please don’t expect a reply again. I have no dog in this other than a curiosity that has not been satisfied. And until I come across that argument, theory, whatever that tells “me” what happened that day, I’ll remain interested in the subject. But even if I conclude that LHO was the only guy to shoot, and the WC was dead on accurate, i’m not going to jump from Kennedy assassination thread to Kennedy assassination thread trying to convince people that they are wrong. You have not convinced me of anything other than the fact that you believe in the WC and LHO.
I don’t know why the word “conspiracy” is so verboten. It just means more than one person was involved. It doesn’t mean it was another country, or the CIA, or some rogue generals. It could have been a couple of husbands of women that JFK had affairs with and wanted to fix him once and for all. Or it could have been Oswald and his crazy neighbor Fred. Or his landlady.
I just wanted to post a quick follow-up to my post.
I tried to be as accurate as possible in my post, but I wrote it at one sitting, and I may have made a mistake or two. Any mistake was inadvertent, as it has been a while since i’ve read anything on the assassination. I did see the Mortal Error special, but that’s been it.
One item I am having a bit of a struggle remembering is if the WC pointed out the seating in the limo or not. I said “I don’t recall reading in the WR any discussion about Connelly’s jump seat, and that he sat lower and to the right of the president.” But now that I’m thinking about it, i may have gotten this wrong. I think the WC DID refer to the seating of the president and Connelly. I don’t honestly remember, but I’m sure someone will correct me. And Connelly sat to the right of the president looking at him from the front of the car. From Kennedy’s POV, he would have been lower and to the left, I believe.
This isn’t exactly huge, because i personally think the path of the bullet from the TSBD through Kennedy and Connelly is possible, so it isn’t a point I argue. But it may strike at my credibility with some folks, so I thought it best to note it before I forget.
SFP - you aren’t crazy, but you are wrong. I didn’t read your whole post (no offense - just getting tired), but two points that are easy to dismiss:
Jim garrison was an idiot. I read his book and actually believed it at first. When JFK came out I actually wrote the CIA FOIA requests and they responded and gave me documents he claimed were secret - and they did not say what he said they would say.
He claims stuff like - and I’m paraphrasing “Oswald had jack Rudy’s telephone number in his address book”.
When I read that I was like - wow - the govt is lying - they claim they didn’t know each other and well obviously they did. Except what was actually in the address book - was an address - for someone else - who did exist - and just happened to have the same numerical address as the last four digits of Rubys phone number. Not remotely the same thing. This is just an example (and may have gotten ruby and Oswald reversed as to whose number was in whose book) and whenever I tried to verify claims - they didn’t match up. He is a liar.
The whole “oh sharpshooters couldn’t have made that shot”. Every year this time you’ll find someone claiming this. They are not talking about the same test that a normal person would make - here is another claim like that:
But if you read to the bottom you will see other people were able to make that shot after a few minutes practice.
I actually don’t believe the warren commission was 100% correct. I apologize that I don’t remember the details, but in the book “Conspiracy of One” the author explains a slight flaw in the magic bullet theory, and his correction for why they both claimed it that way - and how it fits better with the evidence. Made sense at the time, but it has been a while.
Anyway - there is no logical reason to believe anyone but Oswald did it. No I wasn’t there.
But at least two of your points I know beyond any doubt are false/misleading (not on purpose).
One - people can and have made that shot - in the time Oswald would have - using HIS EXACT gun.
Two - Jim Garrison is beyond any reasonable standard a liar. The fact that he was right that Clay Shaw was at one time providing info to the CIA is no more relevant than the fact that the govt was covering up something as Roswell (but not aliens).
I have no doubt you wrote what you did in good faith
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
In other words, Stink,
[/QUOTE]
[Moderator Warning]
Amateur Barbarian, insults are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning. Do not do this again. And modifying someone’s username in a deliberately derogatory way is not permitted either.
[Moderator Note]
Even if you’re insulted, it’s best to report the post rather than making personal remarks yourself. No warning issued, but everyone needs to dial it back.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
PS. I have not reviewed all posts in this thread, nor do I have time to do so right now. If anyone feels other remarks deserve moderation attention, please report them rather than responding in kind.
This thread has probably left General Questions territory, so let’s move it over to Great Debates. However, the instructions to dial it back still apply. Everyone needs to discuss this in a civil fashion.
Because it gets really annoying to see otherwise reasonable people fall for such blatant misinformation and turn into conspiracy theorists. To have to correct misinformation like this:
Again and again and again, reading through gigantic slogs of misinformation and bullshit… It’s incredibly tiresome, and your evidence is extremely lacking.
Stink Fish Pot did a good job in defending his side, at least on the very narrow subject of whether the Warren Commission report was the last word on the subject.
But he is wrong on the larger issue. In short: yes, there are conspiracies, inside the government and out, yet it is still true that all Conspiracy Theories are wrong.
To be very brief, all CTs feature a similar style of wrong reasoning. The answer is assumed and then evidence is compiled to “prove” it, while all confounding evidence is ignored. Evidence is assumed, or conjectured, or “must be,” or made up. This is also accompanied by a challenge to answer every question raised, so that any one that remains unanswered is proof that the conventional side must be wrong. Anecdotes and memories are given more credence than formal reports. The ability of large groups to work in complete silence and not speak ever after is a major feature.
Because all CTs are the same, it has become the norm to see the same names popping up defending seemingly disparate CTs, presumably because the same animus against the pronouncements of official experts props them up. They support aliens or Shakespeare alternates or Norse in America or the Bilderburg group, not merely the truth of 9/11 or the moon hoax. It is an infection that poisons understanding.
I don’t know what Amateur Barbarian thinks, but I would guess that his position is much like mine. The real issue is not whether Oswald killed Kennedy but the conspiracy theory that the Cubans did, or the Mafia, or LBJ, or the Secret Service, or anything and anyone except that a lone nut did. Showing that the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist is faulty works not only on all these but also serves to discredit all the other CTs.
The true bane of a CT is not bad facts but bad thinking. Yes, pointing out the bad facts is useful but that’s treating the symptom, not the disease. We don’t need to be able to answer every last conceivable question about history to posit that the larger understanding is correct. It’s similar to the state of physics today. The standard theory answers 99% of what we want to know and 99.99% of what we need everyday. It isn’t Right, but it is right. And because we know how science works we can instantly dismiss the amateurs who put together screeds on what Right might be. You don’t need to work through them line by line to prove that every assertion is work. You can tell just by a quick glance. This infuriates them. Well, sorry. That’s the way the world works.
Same for CTs. When you start just asking questions or complain that we don’t know everything you undermine your credibility. We know in advance that nothing - literally nothing - we ever say will satisfy you.
And that’s why we hate CTs so much. Or at least why I do. Bad thinking. It’s the worst problem we face, and the cause of most of the others.
Bingo. It doesn’t help that a lot of this same bad thinking has a remarkable effect on things like, say, medicine. Conspiracy theorists are a lot more likely to support ludicrous alt-med thinking.
19 seconds to fire three rounds, and cycle the bolt twice? Were they handloading each round instead of using the magazine, or what? That’s insane, my five-year-old cousin could match that time.