The number three CT nightmare question ...

[John Iacoletti]

What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination.  Those should be examined on their own merits.

[John Iacoletti]

Just because somebody is rational in one pursuit, it doesn't follow that they are rational in all pursuits.  Humans have a great capacity for compartmentalization and confirmation bias.

[Thomas Graves]

What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination.  Those should be examined on their own merits.

Yeah, but not by you unless they have DNA samples and 21-point fingerprint matches of the people at issue, notarized statements in triplicate, a minimum of 32 (32) color photos and films taken from every conceivable angle on a continuous and easy-to-time-stamp basis, and at least fifteen Registered Atheist and / or Commie corroborations of every potentially Oswald-incriminating eyewitness statement.

--  MWT 

[Joe Elliott]

What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination.  Those should be examined on their own merits.

I think it does have some bearing. If there is a debate and all the prominent spokesmen on the issue who have flaky views on other subjects all come down on one side. If all the casual people that I know of, like the people who post at this and other forums on the JFK assassination, who express unrelated irrational beliefs, all come down on one side, that has some bearing. And the irrational who express an opinion, come down on the CT side.

How should a CTer handle this? Well, they could say to themselves, it doesn’t matter. I’m right and that’s that. And put it out of their mind. You seem to handle it this way.

For me it would be different. If all the prominent spokesmen who seem irrational on other issues, agree with me on one issue. If all the casual people who seem irrational, also agree with me on this one issue, I would stop and reassess my position. If I find that James Fetzer, Micheal T. Griffins, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane all agree with me on some contested issue, I would start from the beginning. Am I really thinking about this case logically? I get the impression that CTers never do this. This just doesn’t concern them.

I cannot think on a single theory I have that the irrational people who express an opinion on, all agree with me. The theory of Evolution. The historical reality of the Holocaust. The historical reality of the Apollo Moon landings.

Question for everyone:

Can anyone think a different subject, than the JFK assassination, that you hold to be true, and all the irrational people who express an opinion agree with you? Or is the JFK assassination the only example you can think of.

[Walt Cakebread]

Then if it is an irrational belief, why don’t LNers tend to hold other really irrational beliefs. Why are the really irrational attracted to the “rational” belief, that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

Let’s list the of the more famous people who have become prominent spokesmen on the JFK assassination issue.

          James Fetzer. An early leading spokesman for the Zapruder film being faked:
                    Holocaust denier and believer in many other wacky theories.

          Michael T Griffith. The leading authority CTers go with to argue against the Neurological Spasm Theory:
                    Creationist and denier of the Theory of Evolution
                    Supports the notion that the South was right to secede from the Union

          Jim Marrs. Author of the book “Crossfire” used as the basis for the movie “JFK”
                    Supported the notion that the government is conspiring with the space aliens
                    and I believe he was also an Apollo Moon Landing denier

          Mark Lane. Author of “Rush to Judgment and a prominent CTer over the years.
                    Believed that the Jonestown tragedy was caused by Jim Jones megomania and his ordering mass murder and suicide but by a U. S. government attack. And believes this even though he was a witness.

And when someone joins this forum and expresses a really irrational belief, like the belief in numerology, inevitably they are a solid CTer.

Why is that? Why do people with really extreme irrational beliefs always (from my observations) or at least almost always come down on the “rational” side, believing in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy? These people never believe Oswald was guilty and acted alone.

What does make sense is believing the Oswald did kill JFK and probably did act alone. So, it is natural that the irrational are not attracted to this theory. Because the irrational are naturally attracted to irrational theories, not to rational theories.

Then if it is an irrational belief, why don’t LNers tend to hold other really irrational beliefs.

Many LNer's believe in the Virgin Birth....  And that can't be explained rationally.......

[John Iacoletti]

I think it does have some bearing. If there is a debate and all the prominent spokesmen on the issue who have flaky views on other subjects all come down on one side.

"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.

How should a CTer handle this? Well, they could say to themselves, it doesn’t matter. I’m right and that’s that. And put it out of their mind. You seem to handle it this way.

No, I handle it by examining the evidence they put forth for their position.  Which is why belief in the WC conclusions (IMO) is one of those "flaky views".

This is just an attempt to poison the well, and it is itself irrational.

[Joe Elliott]

"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.

To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:

Yes. [followed by explanations]

Or:

No. [followed by explanations]


Questions:

1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

2.   If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

[Thomas Graves]

To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:

Yes. [followed by explanations]

Or:

No. [followed by explanations]


Questions:

1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

2.   If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

Well, I believe that self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and I believe that former-Communist-but-now-Fascist Vladimir Putin, with help from Julian "Wanker" Assange, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and (probably) the fascistic, pro-Russia Lyndon LaRouche organization, et al., installed "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president.

Does that count?

--  MWT