JFK Assassination: Conspiracy?

  • #61
    Quote from shplft

    It is unfair to group all conspiracy theorists together. Some conspiracy theories are brain-dead, as you point out, but some have been proven.


    As we all know, the lizard person hypothesis is the only provable one. It has such concrete evidence.
    Don't judge me because I'm fabulous.
  • #62
    Quote from TheEvanCat

    As we all know, the lizard person hypothesis is the only provable one. It has such concrete evidence.

    That would be one of the brain-dead ones.

    But if you honestly think the government (or companies) have never lied or covered things up, then you are truly a sheep.
    Last edited by shplft: 8/24/2013 10:35:27 AM
  • #63
    Quote from shplft

    It is unfair to group all conspiracy theorists together. Some conspiracy theories are brain-dead, as you point out, but some have been proven.

    Alright, let's put it this way. Those that are proven are usually hardly conspiracies, things that could be somewhat expected. Illegal wiretapping of specific individuals suspected as terrorists, for example. Others have some kind of actual, reasonable plot and gain, such as Watergate.

    Those I speak of have little reasoning, possibly mountains of evidence against it, and often some ridiculous convoluted plot for some obscure (or even nonexistent) gain. Such as 9/11 truthers.
    What happens when the Universe divides by zero?
    It gets a result.
  • #64
    Quote from FireroseNekowolf

    Alright, let's put it this way. Those that are proven are usually hardly conspiracies, things that could be somewhat expected. Illegal wiretapping of specific individuals suspected as terrorists, for example. Others have some kind of actual, reasonable plot and gain, such as Watergate.


    You know what's worse than conspirators or/vs non-cospirators? Those who marginalize without a backup or counter claim. Person X tells and shows all possible evidence to Person Y about the Z event. Person Y doesn't believe in them and say they're just a bunch of nonsense. Person Y failed to present a counter claim as why these are a bunch of nonsense. Always on assuming or presuming.


    Those I speak of have little reasoning, possibly mountains of evidence against it, and often some ridiculous convoluted plot for some obscure (or even nonexistent) gain. Such as 9/11 truthers.


    Elaborate 'bout those.
    Last edited by Trexmaster: 8/24/2013 1:17:37 PM
  • #65
    Quote from Trexmaster

    You know what's worse than conspirators or/vs non-cospirators? Those who marginalize without a backup or counter claim. Person X tells and shows all possible evidence to Person Y about the Z event. Person Y doesn't believe in them and say they're just a bunch of nonsense. Person Y failed to present a counter claim as why these are a bunch of nonsense. Always on assuming or presuming.

    Lets be honest. There is no valid evidence to support that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
  • #66
    Quote from Trexmaster

    You know what's worse than conspirators or/vs non-cospirators? Those who marginalize without a backup or counter claim. Person X tells and shows all possible evidence to Person Y about the Z event. Person Y doesn't believe in them and say they're just a bunch of nonsense. Person Y failed to present a counter claim as why these are a bunch of nonsense. Always on assuming or presuming.

    Funny, because that's exactly how conspiracy theorists operate. No, wait, they're worse. They don't just assume, they actively manipulate in order to perpetuate a desired outcome. Because it's believed by a bunch of ­ing idiots who have to cram their own bull ­ together to make some kind of mutilated picture; it's like taking a puzzle, cutting the pieces up to make them fit better, and ignoring all the gaps and the fact it looks more distorted than a Picasso.

    Quote from Trexmaster

    Elaborate 'bout those.

    I shouldn't have to. That's the sad part. Not that it'll get anywhere. But fine, I'll play ball just once for now. Let's see, the planes didn't melt the steel beams. Well that'd be great and all, except it ignores thousands of years of smithing. You know, getting metal hot enough to bend. Anyone who understands smithing knows that you don't have to get the metal to melt; you just need it hot enough to be hammered into shape. You smelt ores to extract the metal. Or the fact that it was somehow to get into the Middle East - why bother then? They could have just came up with some other ridiculous idea that didn't involve the incredible risk of a staged terror attack. Like, I don't know, they're in with Saddam holding his nukes or some ­. Or that it was for the oil - great, except China is the biggest buyer of that oil, you know, the country in direct economic competition with us? And besides, Iraq is in with OPEC, which makes things even more messy.

    Quote from toast_burner

    Lets be honest. There is no valid evidence to support that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

    Indeed. Not that that stops the blatant idiocy. Otherwise we'd be over Obama being born in Kenya bull ­.
    What happens when the Universe divides by zero?
    It gets a result.
  • #67
    Quote from toast_burner

    Lets be honest. There is no valid evidence to support that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.


    I take it that the bolt action rifle isn't plausible enough (in 6 seconds), let alone that Oswald was a rookie? Here: watch?v=F6xdXrz7nls ;skip to 24:50 if you don't have enough time.
    If you're a yankee, know this from me, as a foreigner: he was the best "whistleblower" and last true president the US ever had.

    Quote from FireroseNekowolf

    Funny, because that's exactly how conspiracy theorists operate. No, wait, they're worse. They don't just assume, they actively manipulate in order to perpetuate a desired outcome.


    Bud, I've seen plausible and ridiculous conspiracies too. Those ridiculous ones failed to present proof and evidence to their claim: photos, reports, ballistic reports, analyses; something legit that could turn up the wide-accepted conclusions and make it into a solid conspiracy.

    As for the plausible ones, with a solid foundation, I don't recall those "manipulating" or "assumed" as of that nature as you describe them to be with evidence to support their claim. Do you know how you call people who deny everything, even if proof and evidence are presented? Narrow-minded arrogants. Reflect on that by looking in the mirror. If it's the case with what they think it's true and what's not, with irrefutable poof and evidence presented and still deny it, that's pathological already.


    Because it's believed by a bunch of ­ing idiots who have to cram their own bull ­ together to make some kind of mutilated picture; it's like taking a puzzle, cutting the pieces up to make them fit better, and ignoring all the gaps and the fact it looks more distorted than a Picasso.


    Besides making an ad hominem, what pictures are you speaking of?


    But fine, I'll play ball just once for now. Let's see, the planes didn't melt the steel beams. Well that'd be great and all, except it ignores thousands of years of smithing. You know, getting metal hot enough to bend. Anyone who understands smithing knows that you don't have to get the metal to melt; you just need it hot enough to be hammered into shape. You smelt ores to extract the metal.


    Half of it, I agree. On the other half, however, I'll let this boyo talk for himself: watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE
    As a sidenote thought: wouldn't be even more odd, scary and terrifying if it was discovered that the US built all its infrastructure based on sketches & models made by incompetent architect engineers? Pretty sure they wouldn't have entrusted a bunch of bozos in building two huge skyscrapers in the "heart" of NY. That's how I recall it, at least.

    Or the fact that it was somehow to get into the Middle East - why bother then? They could have just came up with some other ridiculous idea that didn't involve the incredible risk of a staged terror attack. Like, I don't know, they're in with Saddam holding his nukes or some ­. Or that it was for the oil - great, except China is the biggest buyer of that oil, you know, the country in direct economic competition with us? And besides, Iraq is in with OPEC, which makes things even more messy.


    When it comes to greed, why do people expect sociopaths and psychopaths to justify their actions?


    Indeed. Not that that stops the blatant idiocy. Otherwise we'd be over Obama being born in Kenya bull ­.


    Okay, let's agree to disagree: where's the birth certificate? He acts like a 20th century commie. If technology wasn't this advanced, he'd be using pseudonyms; just like Bronshtein or Jughashvili did.
    Last edited by Trexmaster: 8/24/2013 3:40:12 PM
  • #68
    Quote from Trexmaster

    Okay, let's agree to disagree: where's the birth certificate?

    Right the ­ here. As for the rest, I know what you're like. I don't give an ass to waste my time on whatever bull ­ you got to justify the ­ing idiots with. It doesn't matter in the end, you, them, are still wrong. And you can't change that. You can bring up whatever twisted fake reality you want - it doesn't change what really happened in the end.
    What happens when the Universe divides by zero?
    It gets a result.
  • #69
    Quote from Trexmaster

    I take it that the bolt action rifle isn't plausible enough (in 6 seconds), let alone that Oswald was a rookie? Here: watch?v=F6xdXrz7nls ;skip to 24:50 if you don't have enough time.
    If you're a yankee, know this from me, as a foreigner: he was the best "whistleblower" and last true president the US ever had.

    Oswald was one of the top sharpshooters in the US military. How was he a rookie?
    A video has already been posted here that proves the "not enough time to make the shot" theory to be false
    Here it is again:

    You have absolutely no evidence to support your theory.
    Last edited by toast_burner: 8/24/2013 4:25:02 PM
  • #70
    Quote from toast_burner

    -snip-

    But how do we know!? It's the media! They could be lying! Maybe none of them were able to hit it, maybe they made up all numbers to cover up what really happened!
    What happens when the Universe divides by zero?
    It gets a result.
  • #71
    Quote from FireroseNekowolf

    But how do we know!? It's the media! They could be lying! Maybe none of them were able to hit it, maybe they made up all numbers to cover up what really happened!


    Basically the fundamental problem with conspiracy theorists. No matter how much evidence you throw at them, they'll just dismiss it as being "part of the conspiracy".
    Last edited by Habanero: 8/24/2013 5:01:36 PM
  • #72
    This anti-conspiracy theory attitude is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the brain-dead conspiracy theory attitude. It is ignorant to assume all conspiracy theories are wrong default and it is ignorant to assume the state is telling you the truth, when they clearly have an interest in hiding it from you. If you don't believe that the state (or companies) have ever hidden anything from the public, then you are the biggest sheep that ever lived.
  • #73
    Quote from shplft

    This anti-conspiracy theory attitude is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the brain-dead conspiracy theory attitude. It is ignorant to assume all conspiracy theories are wrong default and it is ignorant to assume the state is telling you the truth, when they clearly have an interest in hiding it from you. If you don't believe that the state (or companies) have ever hidden anything from the public, then you are the biggest sheep that ever lived.
    True but when people say stuff like "jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt metal, therefore it was the government" I think it's safe to say that person is an idiot. And they make up 99.99999% of conspiracy theorists.
  • #74
    Quote from shplft

    This anti-conspiracy theory attitude is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the brain-dead conspiracy theory attitude. It is ignorant to assume all conspiracy theories are wrong default and it is ignorant to assume the state is telling you the truth, when they clearly have an interest in hiding it from you. If you don't believe that the state (or companies) have ever hidden anything from the public, then you are the biggest sheep that ever lived.

    Oh ­ing please. Some have merit, but they have merit because it makes sense. Most, though, do not, or are in direct opposition of what is demonstrated to actually happen. I would rather be skeptical then be a ­ing half-wit.
    What happens when the Universe divides by zero?
    It gets a result.
  • #75
    Quote from shplft

    This anti-conspiracy theory attitude is just as dumb, if not dumber, than the brain-dead conspiracy theory attitude. It is ignorant to assume all conspiracy theories are wrong default and it is ignorant to assume the state is telling you the truth, when they clearly have an interest in hiding it from you. If you don't believe that the state (or companies) have ever hidden anything from the public, then you are the biggest sheep that ever lived.


    Believing that the government lies about some things is completely different, and far more plausible, than believing that the US government is poisoning people with chemtrails, Sandy Hook being a hoax with actors pretending to be grieving parents, the US staging 9/11 to get oil from the Middle East, that the Holocaust is a complete fabrication, the CIA creating AIDS to kill gay people, FEMA setting up death camps to install a police state, or the world being controlled by malevolent Jews/Illumnati/New World Order/Reptilians. There is no basis for any of these claims. Just saying.
    Last edited by Habanero: 8/24/2013 5:42:42 PM
  • #76
    Quote from FireroseNekowolf

    Oh ­ing please. Some have merit, but they have merit because it makes sense. Most, though, do not, or are in direct opposition of what is demonstrated to actually happen. I would rather be skeptical then be a ­ing half-wit.

    Being skeptical would imply that you are skeptical towards what the state presents as fact too.

    Is it crazy to believe Arafat was murdered? Is it crazy to believe the Iraq War had another motive? What is crazy to believe? What is half-witted?
  • #77
    Quote from shplft

    That would be one of the brain-dead ones.


    But it makes so much sense. I mean, the lizard men didn't want JFK to find their space fleet so they killed him.
    Don't judge me because I'm fabulous.
  • #78
    Quote from shplft

    Being skeptical would imply that you are skeptical towards what the state presents as fact too.

    Is it crazy to believe Arafat was murdered? Is it crazy to believe the Iraq War had another motive? What is crazy to believe? What is half-witted?
    It's crazy because the majority of the theories are based on nothing but peoples hate for the government.
  • #79
    Quote from TheEvanCat

    But it makes so much sense. I mean, the lizard men didn't want JFK to find their space fleet so they killed him.

    Of course! It all makes sense now.

    Quote from toast_burner

    It's crazy because the majority of the theories are based on nothing but peoples hate for the government.

    That is a baseless assumption.
  • #80
    Quote from shplft

    Of course! It all makes sense now.


    See? They did what any reasonable space empire would.
    Don't judge me because I'm fabulous.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes