View Full Version : THE DUMP TO END ALL DUMPS
Gangland
10-25-17, 05:02 PM
As the remainder of the JFK files are dumped tomorrow (hopefully), I figured I would create a thread to discuss just in case any fellow Mofo's plan on checking out some of these declassified docs. I'm not expecting any bombshells of any kind, but interesting information of how our government responded to JFK's assassination. If this turns out like the last dump of info earlier this year, the National Archives servers are going to crash on the first few days of the release.
One file in particular I'm looking forward to getting a glance at is the CIA's file on Jack Wasserman, the long time, bow tie wearing attorney of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello (and his brother Joe Marcello in the bottom left photograph). Since it's illegal (back then anyway) for the CIA to spy on American citizens, the documents in this file could shed new light on the U.S. Department of Justice's illegal(ish) deportation of Carlos Marcello to Guatemala in 1961.
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22728797_2112813538744830_7658671944349411861_n.jpg?oh=9589476a02639c45a36609c7b0d29f0d&oe=5A7DA684
I think anyone who believes in a conspiracy about this now is just going to go right on believing it no matter what does (or doesn't) come out. It might even be a mix: any detail that could be used to reinforce an existing theory will be seized on, but the fact that nothing more damning has come out will be met with "well, of course they can't release such-and-such."
It's not been my experience that many people believe in conspiracies on a case-by-case, evidentiary basis. I think conspiracy theorism is more a mode of thought, a general method of interpreting facts and applying skepticism selectively. If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter if you add a few more facts to the mix, since they were never the cause. It's a process that works whether you have very few facts ("what are they hiding?") or very many ("look at all the coincidences").
Doolallyfrank
10-25-17, 05:42 PM
Well I was expecting to see either someone in tears after splitting up with their significant other or a gargantuan turd in a bowl
Total click-bait ;)
I posted this in the Trump thread the other day and now there's a Bush Sr controversy/thread, if that doesn't 100% confirm it was him then you just have to wake up sheeple!
It's gonna be hilarious when the JFK files confirm the George Bush Sr killed JFK with a ray gun theory :laugh:
Well I was expecting to see either someone in tears after splitting up with their significant other or a gargantuan turd in a bowl
Total click-bait ;)
LMAO, Dooo. Are you in the correct thread, my dear man?
Yes I will be checking out the documents with the lights off and coffee on the go. Looking forward to it for a morning read.
Gangland
10-25-17, 06:21 PM
Well I was expecting to see either someone in tears after splitting up with their significant other or a gargantuan turd in a bowl
Total click-bait ;)
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I don't want to be accused of false advertisement, so here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtMuhAcEhBk
cat_sidhe
10-25-17, 06:53 PM
Well I was expecting to see either someone in tears after splitting up with their significant other or a gargantuan turd in a bowl
Total click-bait ;)
Snap.
I thought FINALLY a thread about poo.
Doolallyfrank
10-25-17, 07:20 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I don't want to be accused of false advertisement, so here:
I just thought that someone finally challenged Randy Marsh's record
https://youtu.be/jbVgeSnCjBE
The Gunslinger45
10-25-17, 08:01 PM
Well I was expecting to see either someone in tears after splitting up with their significant other or a gargantuan turd in a bowl
Total click-bait ;)
Snap.
I thought FINALLY a thread about poo.
I thought the same thing!
cat_sidhe
10-25-17, 08:03 PM
I thought the same thing!
Guys? I think we're gonna get judged for this. :lol:
The Gunslinger45
10-25-17, 08:05 PM
I thought the same thing!
Guys? I think we're gonna get judged for this. :lol:
Ain’t my fault “dump to end all dumps” reminds me of post Taco Tuesday beer s**ts!
cat_sidhe
10-25-17, 08:09 PM
Ain’t my fault “dump to end all dumps” reminds me of post Taco Tuesday beer s**ts!
Nor is it mine I got all happy about it.
I feel cheated, yet happy I'm not the only one.
Doolallyfrank
10-25-17, 08:14 PM
Ain’t my fault “dump to end all dumps” reminds me of post Taco Tuesday beer s**ts!
Nor is it mine I got all happy about it.
I feel cheated, yet happy I'm not the only one.
Turds of a feather flock together
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I don't want to be accused of false advertisement, so here:
I just thought that someone finally challenged Randy Marsh's record
https://youtu.be/jbVgeSnCjBE
THAT is where thought this thread was going before even reading top post.
"SHARON!! GAH! You just wouldn't understand..."
<3
Doolallyfrank
10-25-17, 08:21 PM
THAT is where thought this thread was going before even reading top post.
"SHARON!! GAH! You just wouldn't understand..."
<3
"They're Europeans Sharon"
cat_sidhe
10-25-17, 08:24 PM
Ain’t my fault “dump to end all dumps” reminds me of post Taco Tuesday beer s**ts!
Nor is it mine I got all happy about it.
I feel cheated, yet happy I'm not the only one.
Turds of a feather flock together
We could always Whatsapp sploosh text one another. :lol:
Rate your last poo 4
:lol:
Doolallyfrank
10-25-17, 08:55 PM
We could always Whatsapp sploosh text one another. :lol:
Rate your last poo 4
:lol:
So..... WhatsCrapp?
cat_sidhe
10-25-17, 08:58 PM
We could always Whatsapp sploosh text one another. :lol:
Rate your last poo 4
:lol:
So..... WhatsCrapp?
Oh my god...MAKE THAT APP!
The Gunslinger45
10-25-17, 09:41 PM
We could always Whatsapp sploosh text one another. :lol:
Rate your last poo 4
:lol:
So..... WhatsCrapp?
Oh my god...MAKE THAT APP!
I’m sure Germany already has one.
Best.
Thread title.
Ever.
gandalf26
10-26-17, 06:06 AM
I think anyone who believes in a conspiracy about this now is just going to go right on believing it no matter what does (or doesn't) come out. It might even be a mix: any detail that could be used to reinforce an existing theory will be seized on, but the fact that nothing more damning has come out will be met with "well, of course they can't release such-and-such."
It's not been my experience that many people believe in conspiracies on a case-by-case, evidentiary basis. I think conspiracy theorism is more a mode of thought, a general method of interpreting facts and applying skepticism selectively. If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter if you add a few more facts to the mix, since they were never the cause. It's a process that works whether you have very few facts ("what are they hiding?") or very many ("look at all the coincidences").
I think you have a tendency to paint all conspiracy theorists with the same brush. There are wacko's out there who literally believe EVERY conspiracy, but there are also those who only believe a few and for good reason.
Even though you are a lone gunman theorist I think you can understand quite well why there is a massive belief in the JFK conspiracy;
-JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X assassinations around that time period.
-Vietnam War and all the unrest
-Watergate leading many to take a damning view of the establishment
-Events of the day, difficulty of the shoot, many elite marksmen pouring doubt on Oswald's ability. "The Grassy Knoll", Kennedy's head flying backward. No record/recording of most important interrogation in American history(although a record was put together from "memory"). The bizarre shooting of Oswald.
It's also important to point out that being a lone gunman theorist puts you in the minority on this one, in that the majority of Americans believe there were others involved.
gandalf26
10-26-17, 07:01 AM
Some things to look out for. Will be interesting to say the least, I don't expect anything Earth shattering to happen but who knows.
JFK asssassination: | Key documents to watch
E Howard Hunt: 400 pages of documents on the low-level CIA officer and Watergate burglar are expected to be released. He claimed to be involved in a plot to kill Kennedy on his death bed.
James Jesus Angleton: The CIA counterintelligence chief tops the list of those suspected of a conspiracy. Worked with the Mafia to take out Fidel Castro. 100 pages of testimony to be released.
Carlos Marcello: A New Orleans mafia boss who held a grudge against the Kennedys after being deported. Oswold spent the 1963 summer in the city. Documents about his attorney to be published.
Jackie Kennedy: A personal note from Kenedy’s wife, who was by his side in the convertible car when he was shot, is one of the most hotly anticipated documents.
J Edgar Hoover: The all-powerful FBI director is said to have gone to extraordinary lengths to defend the agency – which had an open file on Oswold – after the murder. A letter linked to him will be released.
Trump called the files "so interesting" lol.
I think you have a tendency to paint all conspiracy theorists with the same brush.
Oh, I definitely do! :laugh: But only because so many of the arguments, regardless of which conspiracy is being discussed, end up sounding the same and/or making the same logical errors.
There are wacko's out there who literally believe EVERY conspiracy, but there are also those who only believe a few and for good reason.
I'm sure this is true, but I think there's a lot more overlap than makes sense if believing in conspiracies were truly case-by-case, rather than the result of a general posture towards facts. Case in point, don't you believe in several? JFK, 9/11, Bilderbergs? And I'm guessing there are a couple more lesser-known ones.
-JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X assassinations around that time period.
-Vietnam War and all the unrest
See, it's interesting that you think of these as two arguments for the conspiracy, when it makes just as much sense to say that they explain each other, to some degree.
-Watergate leading many to take a damning view of the establishment
The problem (and this is a problem with virtually every conspiracy) is applying this selectively. In this case, you're using government incompetence to say we shouldn't trust government, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is simultaneously saying that same incompetence would not preclude the government from effectively orchestrating a massive cover-up.
As I pointed out the last time we discussed this, most conspiracies fall into this mutual exclusivity trap: simultaneously arguing that there's so much evidence for it, but explaining any gaps or contradictions away as being an example of how elaborate and effective the conspiracy is. The Powers That Be morph from really good at hiding things to really terrible at random, as the needs of the argument demand.
It's also important to point out that being a lone gunman theorist puts you in the minority on this one, in that the majority of Americans believe there were others involved.
"Others involved" is a very vague claim that encompasses everything from "the CIA did it" to "maybe some other Communists were egging him on," so I don't think that matters too much (and that belief is at a 50-year low (http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx), which makes sense, since every day that goes by without anyone definitively proving it lowers the probability that a conspiracy took place).
That said, I don't have any issue with the idea that the official line probably isn't 100% correct. It couldn't be, not in every little detail. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the elaborate conspiracies we're actually talking about here.
Gangland
10-26-17, 04:28 PM
Still waiting on that DUMP like......
Now you do plan on eventually declassifying all the JFK documents on the deadline to declassify all the JFK documents? Yes? Hello?
http://cdn.hark.com/images/001/117/592/1117592/eventually-you-do-plan-to-have_clink_large.jpg
gandalf26
10-26-17, 05:18 PM
Oh, I definitely do! :laugh: But only because so many of the arguments, regardless of which conspiracy is being discussed, end up sounding the same and/or making the same logical errors.
Believe it or not I was making fun of a friend on Fbook who was peddling the "Titanic was sunk on purpose to kill a few industrialists on board" or a theory along those lines. Think I said something along the lines of "was the iceberg part of the plan then".
I'm sure this is true, but I think there's a lot more overlap than makes sense if believing in conspiracies were truly case-by-case, rather than the result of a general posture towards facts. Case in point, don't you believe in several? JFK, 9/11, Bilderbergs? And I'm guessing there are a couple more lesser-known ones.
JFK-yes
Diana-yes
9/11-fairly sure
Aliens-just a cover story for advanced aircraft testing.
Moon Landing-nope
Bilderberg Group-Well they meet annually in total secrecy. Not a conspiracy, just what they discuss is unknown, do they "conspire" to influence the World?? who knows.
See, it's interesting that you think of these as two arguments for the conspiracy, when it makes just as much sense to say that they explain each other, to some degree.
My point was that quite historic events over that decade or so led people to distrust the Government and provided the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy to blossom. You evaded the question as well which was I'm sure you can understand "why" a JFK conspiracy has happened and been believed.
The problem (and this is a problem with virtually every conspiracy) is applying this selectively. In this case, you're using government incompetence to say we shouldn't trust government, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is simultaneously saying that same incompetence would not preclude the government from effectively orchestrating a massive cover-up.
As I pointed out the last time we discussed this, most conspiracies fall into this mutual exclusivity trap: simultaneously arguing that there's so much evidence for it, but explaining any gaps or contradictions away as being an example of how elaborate and effective the conspiracy is. The Powers That Be morph from really good at hiding things to really terrible at random, as the needs of the argument demand..
There are a large number of inconsistencies with JFK though. Plans can be put together that are all encompassing, and made by very intelligent people but they don't have control over every little thing, or foresight to envisage every problem.
"Others involved" is a very vague claim that encompasses everything from "the CIA did it" to "maybe some other Communists were egging him on," so I don't think that matters too much (and that belief is at a 50-year low (http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx), which makes sense, since every day that goes by without anyone definitively proving it lowers the probability that a conspiracy took place).
That said, I don't have any issue with the idea that the official line probably isn't 100% correct. It couldn't be, not in every little detail. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the elaborate conspiracies we're actually talking about here.
It is vague because the who and the why are difficult to know. Lots of parties had a vested interest in Kennedy going down.
Sounds like this was delayed coz the CIA are asking for redactions - https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/release-jfk-assassination-file-delayed-deadline-looms-n814691
“There’s a mad scramble going on in the executive branch to get this done,” one official told NBC News.
The CIA is asking only for some redactions, not for all the documents to be held, the official said. But the other agencies involved in the process have not yet finished their submissions.
So only a handful of documents were expected to be released on Thursday, not the entire batch, officials told NBC News.
gandalf26
10-26-17, 05:34 PM
Not like they've had 25 years to sort this out, I mean cmon.
Does Trump have the authority to just say "**** it" release the lot.
What Is there 7 hours before this has to be sorted out?
gandalf26
10-26-17, 05:39 PM
CIA argument: "Can you just wait a few years till Bush snr and all others involved who are still alive have died then we will just admit the whole thing and promise to never do it again".
JFK-yes
Diana-yes
9/11-fairly sure
Aliens-just a cover story for advanced aircraft testing.
Moon Landing-nope
Bilderberg Group-Well they meet annually in total secrecy. Not a conspiracy, just what they discuss is unknown, do they "conspire" to influence the World?? who knows.
I'd be interesting in hearing why you don't believe in the Moon Landing conspiracy.
My point was that quite historic events over that decade or so led people to distrust the Government and provided the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy to blossom. You evaded the question as well which was I'm sure you can understand "why" a JFK conspiracy has happened and been believed.
"Evaded" makes it sound like it was some kind of argument that I needed to address. I took it as a rhetorical question. Kinda thought it was answered when I said it was reasonable that those things made people more skeptical of government, too. But just in case any of it wasn't clear: yes, I understand why scandals might lead people to more easily entertain conspiracies. But it shouldn't change how they weigh evidence or assess facts.
And frankly, you can make a good argument that it ought to have the opposite effect: if they can't even keep that secret, it makes you wonder how they're supposed to keep much bigger secrets, involving many more people, from coming out.
There are a large number of inconsistencies with JFK though. Plans can be put together that are all encompassing, and made by very intelligent people but they don't have control over every little thing, or foresight to envisage every problem.
The problem is that, with this standard, the claims of a conspiracy are basically unfalsifiable.
There's an old joke I like: A dog only barks on two occasions:
1. When some one is at the door.
2. When no one is at the door.
This is kinda like that: every fact can either be seized on as evidence of the conspiracy coming to light, or an example of how good the conspirators are at stopping evidence from coming to light. It sounds like two simple claims, but they conveniently cover 100% of possibilities.
It is vague because the who and the why are difficult to know.
That's fine, but the point is that a majority thinking something was going on doesn't really demonstrate that conspiracy theorists are a majority. And as I mentioned, it's been dropping for decades.
Maybe that should be my question, then: can you understand why belief in this kind of thing is going down over time? Or why someone who might have entertained the possibility of a conspiracy is less willing to, given that decades have past without someone definitively spilling the beans? Do you agree that, the more time that passes without that happening, the less likely it is?
Lots of parties had a vested interest in Kennedy going down.
Lots of parties have a vested interest in literally any world leader going down at literally any time.
gandalf26
10-26-17, 07:55 PM
Well it looks like only some of the files will be released today. Some may be held for 6 months for redaction. How disappointing!
I guess the % believing the conspiracy set to rise again Yoda?
I mean what could need to be hidden after 54 years??
Trump you are no longer my boy if you don't follow through on this one.
Well it looks like only some of the files will be released today. Some may be held for 6 months for redaction. How disappointing!.
What's the point of that. It's not like he makes money from subscribers. Pretty lame.
Gangland
10-26-17, 09:13 PM
THEY OUT! GET YOSELF SOME DOCS
Of course they pushed back to releasing a lot of the documents until next year.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release
Gangland
10-26-17, 11:31 PM
Impressions of the released docs thus far:
1.) Lots of memos/documents from the New Orleans FBI, will be going through those first.
2.) Some memos on the Garrison investigation
3.) McNamara giving testimony on something
4.) Files on Marilyn Monroe
5.) Obviously a lot of stuff on Mexico and Cuba.
6.) Lots of new HSCA stuff
7.) Two files labeled "Soviet Technology."
8.) Nothing labeled on Jack Wasserman or Marcello, which was probably held back until next year's dump.
gandalf26
10-27-17, 05:51 AM
Impressions of the released docs thus far:
1.) Lots of memos/documents from the New Orleans FBI, will be going through those first.
2.) Some memos on the Garrison investigation
3.) McNamara giving testimony on something
4.) Files on Marilyn Monroe
5.) Obviously a lot of stuff on Mexico and Cuba.
6.) Lots of new HSCA stuff
7.) Two files labeled "Soviet Technology."
8.) Nothing labeled on Jack Wasserman or Marcello, which was probably held back until next year's dump.
There is a bizarre file about a call placed to a British newspaper 25 minutes before the shooting telling the reporter to "contact the US embassy for big news", the claim was investigated by MI5 and deemed to be legitimate and to have indeed occurred 25 minutes before Kennedy was shot.
So if this could be explained away as some sort of coincidence, why keep it secret for 54 years?
Strong indication of others being involved or in the know.
So if this could be explained away as some sort of coincidence, why keep it secret for 54 years?
This question makes no sense. "Could be explained away as some sort of coincidence"? Calling something a coincidence is, by definition, not explaining it. And if they had said it was, the coincidence would be seized on as evidence (which you do in the very next sentence).
Like I pointed out earlier, conspiracy theorism likes to employ a "heads I win, tails you lose" logic that treats both evidence and lack of evidence as the same thing. This is another example of that. Coincidences are really suspicious, but it's somehow also suspicious that they don't want to call something a coincidence.
Strong indication of others being involved or in the know.
To say it's a "strong indication," you'd have to have some kind of sense of how often people make vague anonymous tips that don't pan out. Do you?
gandalf26
10-27-17, 12:12 PM
This question makes no sense. "Could be explained away as some sort of coincidence"? Calling something a coincidence is, by definition, not explaining it. And if they had said it was, the coincidence would be seized on as evidence (which you do in the very next sentence).
Like I pointed out earlier, conspiracy theorism likes to employ a "heads I win, tails you lose" logic that treats both evidence and lack of evidence as the same thing. This is another example of that. Coincidences are really suspicious, but it's somehow also suspicious that they don't want to call something a coincidence.
To say it's a "strong indication," you'd have to have some kind of sense of how often people make vague anonymous tips that don't pan out. Do you?
Whats your take on the anonymous phonecall, rather than a load of waffle about the wording of my post?
Whats your take on the anonymous phonecall, rather than a load of waffle about the wording of my post?
Heh. A couple of posts ago I was apparently "evading" a mostly rhetorical question by not explicitly answering it. I didn't realize I had the option to just call it "waffle" and ignore everything else (only the first paragraph is about wording).
Re: the phone call. I'd want to hear more about it, but I assume there are lots of vague, anonymous tips that amount to nothing, so that any time something happens, you can retroactively find some. I specifically asked a question about this, too:
To say it's a "strong indication," you'd have to have some kind of sense of how often people make vague anonymous tips that don't pan out. Do you?
Asking ourselves questions like this is what actual skepticism looks like.
And frankly, you can make a good argument that it ought to have the opposite effect: if they can't even keep that secret, it makes you wonder how they're supposed to keep much bigger secrets, involving many more people, from coming out.
Honestly, this is probably my biggest obstacle to any of these conspiracy theories. The minute Tillerson calls Trump an idiot we find out yet I am supposed to buy that presidential assassinations and collapsing bldgs on top of citizens happened and God knows how many people just sit tight lipped. Don't buy it for a second.
A dog only barks on two occasions:
1. When some one is at the door.
2. When no one is at the door.
I just wanted to quote this as well because it's awesome.
Honestly, this is probably my biggest obstacle to any of these conspiracy theories. The minute Tillerson calls Trump an idiot we find out yet I am supposed to buy that presidential assassinations and collapsing bldgs on top of citizens happened and God knows how many people just sit tight lipped. Don't buy it for a second.
I'm open to JFK conspiracies more than pretty much any other major conspiracy but yeah this is a major obstacle to me to. I think a big reason so many holes pop up in these sorts of things and why the government is often so secretive is because they regularly dismiss warning signs for whatever reason. They must get an absurd amount and it's impossible to act on everything so you've got to judge what is and isn't worthy intel, think they are often wrong. Of course Conspiracy Theorists will say they dismissed the intel because they were in on it, which is cool that could be true. I'm not completely convinced that Oswald was a lone shooter, but i'm not convinced by most of the theories either, think lots of them are ridiculous/incoherent and everyone seems to combine and dismiss arbitrary ones for reasons that their own conspiracies can be dismissed. IMO anyway.
Thought about buying Reclaiming History since that seems to be the definitive Oswald Lone Wolf book followed buy a major Conspiracy one: again there's no unified theory so you'd have to read several Conspiracy Theory ones to attempt to scope it all out and i've not got enough interest in it for that. Reclaiming History is 1600 Goddarn pages though, like well done for being extensive Bugliosi but you've just talked yourself out of a sale buddy!
Think 9/11 the government Conspiracies have been conclusively debunked, think the government messed up in regard to that but i don't believe they did it or allowed it to happen. I also don't personally believe the Diana ones but i fully admit there's weird stuff there and understand why people buy into that one. Like Yoda my main problem is people who buy into everything, Infowars listeners basically. Not saying anyone here is like that and obviously i don't believe the government is always telling me the truth.
Also Gangland if you make a Blog Post/Blog Posts about this link them in this thread if you weren't already going to.
I'm open to JFK conspiracies more than pretty much any other major conspiracy but yeah this is a major obstacle to me to. I think a big reason so many holes pop up in these sorts of things and why the government is often so secretive is because they regularly dismiss warning signs for whatever reason. They must get an absurd amount and it's impossible to act on everything so you've got to judge what is and isn't worthy intel, think they are often wrong. Of course Conspiracy Theorists will say they dismissed the intel because they were in on it, which is cool that could be true. I'm not completely convinced that Oswald was a lone shooter, but i'm not convinced by most of the theories either, think lots of them are ridiculous/incoherent and everyone seems to combine and dismiss arbitrary ones for reasons that their own conspiracies can be dismissed. IMO anyway.
Thought about buying Reclaiming History since that seems to be the definitive Oswald Lone Wolf book followed buy a major Conspiracy one: again there's no unified theory so you'd have to read several Conspiracy Theory ones to attempt to scope it all out and i've not got enough interest in it for that. Reclaiming History is 1600 Goddarn pages though, like well done for being extensive Bugliosi but you've just talked yourself out of a sale buddy!
Think 9/11 the government Conspiracies have been conclusively debunked, think the government messed up in regard to that but i don't believe they did it or allowed it to happen. I also don't personally believe the Diana ones but i fully admit there's weird stuff there and understand why people buy into that one. Like Yoda my main problem is people who buy into everything, Infowars listeners basically. Not saying anyone here is like that and obviously i don't believe the government is always telling me the truth.
Also Gangland if you make a Blog Post/Blog Posts about this link them in this thread if you weren't already going to.
I hear you. If someone's conspiracy goes as far as Oswald wasn't alone and they never figured out who is partner or two was, I might be able to get down with that. A multiple agency big brother cover up? I'm out. No way that many people stay quiet.
I hear you. If someone's conspiracy goes as far as Oswald wasn't alone and they never figured out who is partner or two was, I might be able to get down with that. A multiple agency big brother cover up? I'm out. No way that many people stay quiet.
Yeah, i'm with you mate. I know this means alot to you guys in a genuine way so i don't like talking to you about it. If i'm honest alot of my leniency with JFK Theories compared to others is really loving the time all of this happened.
I don't have a nationalist bone in my body but i totally get you guys love some of your leaders and JFK's assassination meaning alot to you guys.
I'm definitely not well equipped to discuss this; i mean i think i know more about JFK (The President) than 99% of people but that's mostly irrelevant i think.
gandalf26
10-27-17, 08:00 PM
I'd be interesting in hearing why you don't believe in the Moon Landing conspiracy..
From recollection I think it's been proven that we've been there. Telescopes can look at the landing site/stuff left behind, even tracks from buggy are still there etc, and no one has come up with any believable evidence to the contrary.
However I think it's possible that shenanigans went on. Can I just say that again "possible". The US was after all under massive pressure to catch up/overtake the Soviets in this field by the end of the decade, a promise made by Kennedy.
What do I mean shenanigans?
-possible that Apollo 11 didn't make it but later missions did.
-possible that an alternate was filmed in the event of failure, maybe involving Kubrick.
-possible that the alternate was used but Apollo 11 was successful also.
"Evaded" makes it sound like it was some kind of argument that I needed to address. I took it as a rhetorical question. Kinda thought it was answered when I said it was reasonable that those things made people more skeptical of government, too. But just in case any of it wasn't clear: yes, I understand why scandals might lead people to more easily entertain conspiracies. But it shouldn't change how they weigh evidence or assess facts.
And frankly, you can make a good argument that it ought to have the opposite effect: if they can't even keep that secret, it makes you wonder how they're supposed to keep much bigger secrets, involving many more people, from coming out...
Yes I concede it's a good point, if they can't keep Watergate secret how can they with JFK. Lets remember though Watergate was the work of 2 dogged journalists with a little help from "Deep Throat", nudging them in the right direction. With JFK the world was presented with the culprit within hours of the shooting, then before he was really talked to he was dead, initially it seemed like an open/shut case. With the burglary if memory serves guys were caught but they were footsoldiers, the leaders were at large and the hunt was on.
The problem is that, with this standard, the claims of a conspiracy are basically unfalsifiable.
There's an old joke I like: A dog only barks on two occasions:
1. When some one is at the door.
2. When no one is at the door.
This is kinda like that: every fact can either be seized on as evidence of the conspiracy coming to light, or an example of how good the conspirators are at stopping evidence from coming to light. It sounds like two simple claims, but they conveniently cover 100% of possibilities.
That's fine, but the point is that a majority thinking something was going on doesn't really demonstrate that conspiracy theorists are a majority. And as I mentioned, it's been dropping for decades.
Maybe that should be my question, then: can you understand why belief in this kind of thing is going down over time? Or why someone who might have entertained the possibility of a conspiracy is less willing to, given that decades have past without someone definitively spilling the beans? Do you agree that, the more time that passes without that happening, the less likely it is?
Lots of parties have a vested interest in literally any world leader going down at literally any time.
As to the belief I believe that generation for whom JFK was important are dying off, ask a lot of young people and they probably don't know who JFK was, maybe they watched a TV show about it and decided oh well it was Oswald nothing to see here.
Yeah, i'm with you mate. I know this means alot to you guys in a genuine way so i don't like talking to you about it. If i'm honest alot of my leniency with JFK Theories compared to others is really loving the time all of this happened.
I don't have a nationalist bone in my body but i totally get you guys love some of your leaders and JFK's assassination meaning alot to you guys.
I'm definitely not well equipped to discuss this; i mean i think i know more about JFK (The President) than 99% of people but that's mostly irrelevant i think.
You definitely don't have to worry about me in that regard. Far from a nationalist and everything I know about JFK I learned from Kramer and Newman.
gandalf26
10-27-17, 08:16 PM
I hear you. If someone's conspiracy goes as far as Oswald wasn't alone and they never figured out who is partner or two was, I might be able to get down with that. A multiple agency big brother cover up? I'm out. No way that many people stay quiet.
It is a standard opposition to a conspiracy argument that "too many people involved", no way they all stay quiet. Let us remember Edward Snowden coming forward recently to report the massive invasive breaking of the law going on. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of people involved and only Snowden has come forward and he had to flee to Russia. Also most servants of the Intelligence community fall under the powerful umbrella of whichever countries Official secrets act exists, meaning serious jail time and the media probably be banned from exposing whatever you know by means of the same laws. Not to mention if you are one of the few in the JFK case you risk your life speaking out.
Do you really need vast numbers of people? If the man at the top was LBJ, not a massive stretch to believe that being 1 step from POTUS he might have reached out to take for himself, with a bit f help from people with a vested interest in seeing Kennedy gone, some men very angry at Kennedy for not supporting Bay of Pigs for example, firing Allen Dulles. Few hours after the assassination perhaps the man responsible is now the President and ultimately in charge of the investigation, but what investigation, they have the guy.
Pure speculation of course.
Really respect Gandalf's opinion/way of debating here. Don't actually agree with what he's saying but i think he is putting it across very well.
Just wanted to say that coz me and Gandalf have clashed alot and i expected to find his posts ridiculous, they are completely reasonable IMO.
You definitely don't have to worry about me in that regard. Far from a nationalist and everything I know about JFK I learned from Kramer and Newman.
I absolutely wasn't talking about anyone here RE: Nationalist. And i don't actually think there's anything wrong with that. It's just something completely alien to me personally.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.