Your Theories Won?t Do It

[Dillon Rankine]

Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.

Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.

Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.       

I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.

Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.         

[Alan Ford]

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.           

Great! Now go apply that to all the sinister constructions put on Mr Oswald's actions by your favourite theory. 

[John Iacoletti]

Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.

Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.

[Bill Chapman]

Any explanation will do ? as long as you ignore the parts that don?t fit.

No explanation will do - as long as you ignore the parts that fit.

[Tim Nickerson]

Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.

Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.

Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.       

I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.

Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.         

I joined the forum over seven years ago and I've never been able to convert any CT into a LN. It just doesn't happen that way.  Those CTs who do come over to the LN side do so on their own. I encountered you  when you joined up and have watched you slowly and steadily come to the realization that the CT view is unsustainable under the scrutinous logical eye.

[Richard Smith]

Psychologists have long since noted a crucial function of CT epistemology ? they focus on errant data: that which isn?t explained by the official model. CTs are scarcely interested in making a cogent theory from the main facts, but rather they try to pull it down by connecting errant, auxiliary data.

Just look around this forum: CTs left and right arguing about the data of this document, what that witness smelled, and how dodgy the autopsy was, all in some desperate attempt to explain everything.

Listen CTs: your theories won?t do it. You can?t explain every fact. No theory of how anything works is going to account for everything, because, simply put, we don?t know everything about the world yet to be able to connect all the dots. Coincidences and anomalies are ok, because they happen in the real world ? sometimes in a dazzlingly large quantity.

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson once said that when you?ve got a fact so obviously conclusive of your theory ? so obviously sinister ? forget about it, man, because you on your own cannot come up with all the perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanations for that fact.       

I joined this forum 5 years ago certain of a conspiracy ? 5 gunmen, 8 bullets (with no mystic missiles in sight) ? involving the CIA, mob, and LBJ. I?d read all the CT books ? Mantik, Marrs, Fetzer, McLaren, Menninger, Wrone, Lane, DiEugenio, Groden, you name it ? but after looking beyond the bubble, I began to realise something. Each and every one of these authors conveniently misses out on our favourite sociopath. Oswald?s life is trivialised, ignored or glamorised. We?re never told about Robert Oswald?s conversation with his brother at the DPD; anything shady Oswald did is rationalised as the marching orders of the CIA.

Today, I?m almost a pure LNer. I strongly doubt a conspiracy, and can explain the shooting in three bullets from the SN.         

And when all is said and done, a conspiracy is essential to explain away why Oswald defenders can never offer direct proof to validate their theories.  Like UFOs believers, JFK CTers can make all manner of outlandish claims and then avoid ever having to offer any support by attributing the lack of proof to a cover up.  It's a circular process that allows CTers to eat their cake and have it too.  They also rarely accept the implications of their nonsense being true.  If A did not happen as they allege, then logically something else like B must have happened.  But they have no interest in discussing B because the alternative is often absurd, involves multiple individuals lying for no apparent reason, and makes no narrative sense much less is there any evidence to support.  The theory stops at pedantic nitpicking of A.   It becomes a "strawman" or "loaded" question to ask them what they are suggesting if A is not true as they contend.  For example, some lazy contrarians here don't accept the evidence that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor.  They refuse to answer, however, whether they believe the underlying evidence linking Oswald to the rifle is fake or not.   They apparently realize the absurdity of all this evidence as derived from a variety of different sources being the product of fakery.  But they don't miss a beat in continuing to claim there is doubt about Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  It is just so.  It's dishonest defense attorney tactics to protect a guilty client rather than an honest assessment of the evidence and logical inferences that can be derived from the facts and evidence.  An endless tactic to avoid admitting checkmate.

[Jerry Freeman]

I?d you?re goal is to explain everything?s forget about it. Think Thompson....

  Does anyone understand this?
 

[John Iacoletti]

They also rarely accept the implications of their nonsense being true.  If A did not happen as they allege, then logically something else like B must have happened.

Except that "B" never logically follows from "A".  That's why this is known as the "Richard Smith" strawman dance.