No, I didn’t. I said the page that was linked was pretty light on content. I didn’t go back to the main page as suggested because the conversation devolved, thanks in no small part to your sniping. But thanks for adding to the discussion. 
Without even trying to say what you mean by “or not” the statement is as ambiguous as all hell. You want us to openly accept that something other than the official report happened with telling us exactly what you think actually happened-you just keep throwing vague conspiracies at us in hopes that one might stick.
Why don’t you just tell us the most likely scenario in your mind, what you actually think happened…and please note that I said “think”, not know.
I stopped you from pushing a button and linking to a website because…“sniping”??
Excuse is pathetic, come up with another.
It’s no appeal to anything. It just shows that you are not really interested in the answers to your questions. The McAdams research is considered top of the line to all serious researchers. The fact that you dismiss it without having studied it just shows that you will ignore anything that doesn’t have the answers you want. Which is actually near the top of the list in describing CTers.
You’re not really living up to your name in this thread.
Good point, and a great comparison with the Betty White thing. There’s already millions out there that have believed since day one she died from getting a Covid booster. That’s why good polls take time and expertise to set up.
Damn it @Czarcasm ! If it wasn’t for you and your meddling sniping, we could have got him to read the answers for himself! Now he’s escaped our coverup plan!
I state upfront that I am not a JFK assassination aficionado. The following is more about appearances than actual facts:
I personally believe the hit was set up by elements of organized crime eager to see an end to RFK’s anti-mob crusade. Killing Bobby would have left an avenging president with the country united behind him to find and punish the killer(s); that could have been very bad for mob business. Killing JFK follows the old dictum of: cut off the head and the tail dies. I believe it was fairly well-known at the time that RFK and LBJ did not get along and that Bobby would be replaced one way or another in an LBJ administration. RFK’s anti-mob crusade did effectively end about 6 months after JFK was clipped.
Over time, I have come to believe Oswald was the only gunman. I find it very plausible that the echoes from the rifle shots could have been mistaken for a second gun.
Prior to reading this thread, I was inclined to believe Ruby was involved in the conspiracy. After reading this thread and thinking about it some more, I am now disinclined to believe that.
All of which leaves the question of the investigation. Others have mentioned Hoover’s compelling interest in covering up. Similarly, LBJ wanted a swift and decisive verdict blaming everything exclusively on Oswald. I do not believe either Hoover or LBJ was connected to the initial conspiracy (ditto for Castro, the USSR, the military-industrial complex and others frequently mentioned).
The Warren Commission relied on FBI and CIA investigators, ensuring (at the very least) the appearance of a cover up. Many critics have pointed out the unlikelihood of such a cover up given the number of people who would have to have been involved, but I think this criticism is a dodge; those covering things up were not connected in a single conspiracy, but felt they had compelling reasons to cover up, including at the behest of LBJ’s eagerness to avoid having to go to war with the USSR should they have been found – or believed by the public - to be involved in the hit.
I believe certain members of the Commission were tasked with making sure the investigation did not stray from its preconceived conclusion. Among these members were Earl Warren and Allen Dulles.
It has been mentioned that a telltale sign of a conspiracy is people talking about it. Another telltale sign is people dying mysteriously to prevent them from talking about it. The numbers of such people vary and my impression is that most - though not all - of the deaths are not very mysterious.
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - Wikipedia – see under “Witness deaths”
Most prominent here is Dorothy Kilgallen, who interviewed Ruby after his conviction. While her drug-related suicide(?) about two months later occurred with her husband and son in her apartment, the file notes she had concerning her investigation into the hit went missing and have never turned up. This fact stands out in contrast to “Oswald acted alone.”
This article also lists a number of mafia figures who died unnatural deaths shortly after the JFK hit. Mob life can of course be very treacherous.
All of this – and no doubt, more – feeds skepticism about the Warren Report and hope that there is some “smoking gun” among the unreleased material that will finally allow people to feel they know what happened. I’m inclined to believe the still-classified material will fulfill no such hope, but would implicate the FBI and gov’t as having missed clues that could have prevented the assassination. For that reason alone, I think it is likely to stay classified for quite some time.
Propose another framing for the survey question that you think would be less “sloppy”.
Quit taking things I say out of context. I would expect better from you.
I haven’t asked any questions…so please tell me exactly what I’m ignoring? I don’t have a theory of the case. I haven’t invested a shitload of time in going down all these rabbit holes. I haven’t even said that I think there was a conspiracy. You all keep projecting.
I’ve simply said that you anti-CT people aren’t making arguments that are half as ironclad as you think they are (and your attitude in general is super shitty).
So I’m tapping out.
You are the one refusing to view those arguments because…attitude?
It’s a reason, I guess.
According to the start of your post, you never really tapped in.
Didn’t seem to stop you from slinging the shit.
I am not “slinging shit”, and I am not your ready-made excuse to not read links handed to you on a silver platter.
As this thread heats up, one of today’s categories in Jeopardy is “John F. Kennedy.” Coincidence? I think NOT!
How would you know? You dismissed anyone that tried to give you info.
There’s no need to go down any rabbit holes, those are for CTers. The actual facts are feely available and many have been pointed out to you. The fact that you think clicking on a link is more effort than it’s worth to find a fact makes it a little hard to have a conversation with you about this. I don’t hang out in GD much, but I’m pretty sure people supplying cites to explain something to you is the norm here.
Not agreeing with stuff you say is not slinging shit.
That’s too bad. There are a lot of posters in this thread that could help you out with knowledge about this subject. I wish you would reconsider. Just plan out one post with your side of the debate. Put everything you think you need to put in. Maybe with all your points together in one place, it would be easier to understand what your specific objections are, and the reasons you have them. As it stands, your posts are all over the place.
Shhh! We’re not supposed to talk about it!
Then that’s on them. I find that when presented with the same set of facts, people arrive at two different conclusions, it’s useful to take a deeper look at how people arrive at their beliefs. I honestly don’t see what’s “bad faith” about that. Although your response does highlight why its the sort of prolonged exchange that may be difficult to have on a message board.
As a whoosh. From the same guy who talked about a Conspiracy Handbook. Mocking true believers.
Let’s end this once and for all. A conspiracy is not a synonym for a conspiracy theory. The former is a secretive gathering, the latter is shouted from the rooftops.
Conspiracy theories can be proven true, but only in the same way that UFOs can be proven to be alien spaceships. Neither is out of theoretical possibility, but both would take extraordinary levels of evidence. For that same reason, no UFOs have ever turned out to be alien spaceships and no conspiracy theories have ever been proven to be true.
I challenged Omniscient twice in this thread to come up with a single example of a conspiracy theory proven after it’s been let loose into the world. No response. My assumption is that’s because no examples exist. Conspiracies, yes. The world is awash with them. But conspiracies and conspiracy theories are categorically different items. Conspiracies are exposed with actual evidence of and by the conspirators. Conspiracy theories take hold because people do not want to accept actual evidence. They prefer to “ask questions” and “offer alternatives.” No amount of common sense will ever deter flat earthers or moon hoaxes. But neither a global earth or a moon landing (which depends on the earth being round) were ever a conspiracy in the first place. Interestingly, nobody can say with evidence that the Kennedy assassination was ever a conspiracy in the first place either.
I say that conspiracy theories are theoretically true, but never actually true because in decades of looking at them I have yet to find a single example. Unlike actual conspiracy theories, however, my statement can be disproven. I invite disproof. But that requires solid evidence. That secrets exist in the world is a given, but it is not evidence of anything.
This is false. In this thread Project Azorian was cited. It’s a proven true conspiracy theory complete with attempted cover up. Yet, I’m sure you will move the goal posts to claim that this is not a “CT” because it’s just a “conspiracy”.
This silly contrivance that you’ve created in which “conspiracies” are things that happen and “conspiracy theories” are things that didn’t happen is convenient for your argument. No true Scotsman indeed.
To All: Attack the post and not the poster please.
I’m closing this thread for 30 minutes as a cool off.
This topic was automatically opened after 30 minutes.