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.
Reply to Topic
